What Is It? An Imposter Or Madness?

I Am Not A Liar!

In June of 2017, at the start of Donald Trump's first term, Sean Spicer, then the White House Press Secretary, said that Donald Trump's tweets "are considered official statements by the President of the United States."  I did a search and could find no policy change from the White House that retracted or disavowed that statement.  

I just read that the actor Kelsey Grammer said he liked President Trump, adding "I've never seen a more transparent presidency in my life".  I'm not sure that publicly and continuously lying qualifies as transparent, but what are we to make of the recent racist post picturing President Obama and his wife?

Was that post and picture an "official statement" from the President of the United States?

Trump now claims that he didn't make the racist post.  It was posted on his account by some unnamed staff member and the post has now been taken down.  Is this follow-up statement a transparent clarification or just another lie?

So which is it?  Are his posts still supposed to be taken as policy?  Trump clearly intends them to be taken seriously.  Or, are there staff members who are free to make official presidential announcements without Trump's knowledge?  Or, are these posts just the ramblings of a seriously damaged mind?

Finally, should Trump still be in control of the nuclear codes?  I wonder if some un-named staff member also has the codes.

25th Amendment Conspiracy Options

JD Vance

Donald Trump has acknowledged he will (or may) not be on the ticket in 2028 and that there are a lot of candidates to take his place.   JD Vance and Marco Rubio are at the top of the list.

I suggest that Trump watch out for JD.

JD will be watching to see what the chances are that Trump will be out of office before his term ends. If Trump leaves the presidency early, JD will take over for the rest of Trump's term and may be able to be elected to two more terms of his own. All challenges by other candidates like Rubio will be over before they can start.

If necessary, JD can work behind the scenes very, very quietly to fuel and support the 25^th Amendment to get Trump out of office early so he can be elevated to the presidency. Maybe a leak of a bad Trump physical or mental health diagnosis would be enough to get the ball rolling. JD would initially claim that talk of forcing Trump out of office is treasonous, but after awhile he will reluctantly concede it may be best for the good of the country.

Magettes will destroy JD if there is any hint he is working to get Trump out of office early. Even more likely, if Trump decides JD is working against him, Trump will make sure JD leaves office before he does. How does Don Jr as a replacement VP sound?

Rubio has to know all this, so it will be interesting see what he does to foil JD's plans. Maybe a cabal of Republican presidential candidates would work together to block JD.

BTW, in a previous post I said I didn't want to see Trump harmed or killed because the MAGA conspiracies on what “really” happened will be insane.  Simple logic says JD will have to get his fair share of scrutiny if any thing happens to Trump while he is in office.

I Saw Nothing

I Saw Nothing

Several weeks ago magettes were in an uproar about people in the Biden administration who they thought hid the cognitive decline of President Biden.  They wanted investigations and legal charges.

It is clear that Trump's physical and mental health is declining quickly yet the White House insists that Trump is fine.  He has minor health issues and shakes too many hands.

What the hell are magettes going to say when Trump finally completely falls apart?  We all know they'll do a Schulz.  "I saw nothing"  Schulz is from Hogan's Heroes for those under 60.

I suggest magettes start reading up on the 25th Amendment.  At Trump's rate of decline I think it will be needed before the end of the 2025.

Voting For A Presidential Third Party Is Bad

The U.S. political system is currently structured for two parties.  Voting for a third party presidential candidate is not a good idea.

At best, a vote for a presidential third party candidate is potentially bad for one of the two major party candidates.  It is a common belief that Ralph Nader prevented Al Gore from winning Florida in 2000.  The thought is that without Nader, who received thousands of votes in Florida, more Nader voters would have voted for Gore than would have voted for Bush.  We can't know that for sure, but it does make sense given the platforms of each candidate.  Bush beat Gore in Florida by only about 800 votes while Gore won the national popular vote by more than 500,000.  If Gore had won Florida he would have been the next president.  Imagine how that might have changed world history. Like no war with Iraq.

There are some people who think that third party voters kept Clinton from beating Trump in the 2016 race.

But worse than that is what happens if a strong third party candidate divides the vote totals so that no presidential ticket gets a majority of the electoral college vote (>=270).  This situation is called a contingent election and it will get ugly very quickly.  

According to ChatGPT here is roughly what would happen:

If nobody secures a majority of the electoral votes for president, the U.S. House of Representatives chooses the president from the top three vote-getters, with each state delegation casting one vote, and a candidate needs 26 state votes to win. Meanwhile, if there’s no VP majority, the Senate chooses the vice president. If the House hasn’t selected a president by Inauguration Day, the vice president-elect acts as president, or if there’s no VP-elect either, the Speaker of the House becomes acting president.

Read that paragraph carefully.  It is just a summary, but even this exposes several issues with this process.  

Representatives from each state vote as a group to determine their single vote from their state to elect the next president.  Do you see any possible problems with that?  The Representatives that vote are those from the new Congress just elected.

That means in a contingent election the state of California with 54 electoral votes (and approximately 16 million voters) has the same power to elect the next president as Wyoming with 3 electoral votes (and approximately 300,000 voters).   

The vice president is selected by a similar process, but with a separate vote in the Senate.  Senators must vote for one of the top two vice presidential candidates (the House chooses from the top three presidential candidates).  Each Senator gets one vote. Fifty-one votes are needed (not just a majority of the Senators present at the time of the vote).  So the vice president selected by the Senate could come from a different party than the president selected by the House.   

I believe if the Senate selects a vice president elect, but the House has not selected a president elect by Inauguration Day, the vice president-elect is the acting president until the House selects a president-elect.  If neither chamber has made their selections before Inauguration Day, the Speaker of the House is the acting president.  

The Constitution originally had the presidential election and vice presidential election as separate.  The 12th Amendment changed that.  Now a party chooses a team of a presidential candidate and a vice presidential candidate, but the contingent election process still sees the presidential race and the vice presidential race as separate.  

Without going into great detail, we might see candidates try to form coalitions to get the necessary votes in the House.  Building a coalition might force a presidential candidate to elevate the power of some minor party or selected Representatives just to get enough votes to win the presidency.  For an example, look at how Israel has had to suffer with the extreme religious right's hold on Netanyahu.  He absolutely needs these extremist in his coalition so he must accept some of their absurd demands.  

My point is, we don't want to ever get into a situation where the election goes to the House.  Voting for a third party presidential candidate that can't possibly win is not just your way of making a statement, it could allow a candidate you would never vote for win.

If you think gerrymandering is a hot topic now, hold your breath if no candidate gets a electoral majority.  Given that Trump thinks he is above the law, who knows how he (or a subsequent Republican presidential candidate) would deal with an election that went to the Congress. Again, it will get ugly very quickly.  And if a third party is strong enough, contingent elections could become the norm and generate seismic changes to the political landscape.  Small state Representatives will receive huge increases in campaign contributions since they will probably elect the next president.

I don't have a problem with third parties.  I think the country would benefit from a more robust discussion of issues. But we need to abandon the Electoral College and change the presidential selection process.  Allowing the House and Senate to determine presidential elections results seems like a very bad idea.  

You can double check my information by asking ChatGPT or your AI for information about Presidential contingent election rules, Election & contingent election timeline, Electoral College rules.

Liberal Democracy Constitutional Changes

The United States is governed by our Constitution which I believe contains many of the ideas behind the concept of a liberal democracy (click on this for a description of a liberal democracy).  The "liberal" in "liberal democracy" is not directly tied to the Democratic Party, but I suspect that Democrats agree with many of the core principles that would define a liberal democracy. 

I asked ChapGPT "How should the US Constitution be changed to make it more in tune with the ideals of a liberal democracy?"  Its responses are below.  I provide ChatGPT's response here because it provides a starting framework for a discussion of changes that Democrats should think about enacting when they once again get control of the presidency and Congress. 

I've added some additional suggestions after ChatGPT's list.

 

The U.S. Constitution is already a foundational document that reflects many liberal democratic ideals, such as the protection of individual rights, the separation of powers, and the rule of law. However, there are several potential changes or reforms that could make it more in tune with modern liberal democracy, ensuring it aligns better with evolving standards of fairness, inclusivity, and accountability. Here are some suggestions:

1. Electoral Reforms

• Abolishing the Electoral College: The Electoral College can distort the will of the people, as a candidate can win the presidency without securing the popular vote. A direct popular vote for president would align better with democratic principles of majority rule.

• Reforming or Expanding Voting Rights: Making voting more accessible by eliminating voter ID laws that disproportionately affect marginalized groups, restoring voting rights to people with felony convictions, and ensuring automatic voter registration for all eligible citizens.

• Proportional Representation: The U.S. operates under a "winner-takes-all" system in most elections. Implementing proportional representation (for Congress or local elections) could better reflect the diversity of political opinions and allow for more minority party representation.

2. Strengthening Civil Liberties

• Guaranteeing Economic and Social Rights: While the Constitution emphasizes political and civil rights, it does not explicitly guarantee rights related to healthcare, education, or economic security. Adding these protections could enhance the liberal democratic promise of equality and human dignity.

• Privacy Protections: In the age of digital information, stronger constitutional protections for privacy and data security would align the document with modern values around personal freedom and security.

3. Campaign Finance Reform

• Reducing the Influence of Money in Politics: Supreme Court rulings like Citizens United have led to the proliferation of "dark money" in politics, undermining democratic accountability. Constitutional amendments or reforms that limit campaign spending and increase transparency in political donations could help reduce the influence of wealth on the political process.

4. Judicial Reform

• Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices: Currently, Supreme Court justices are appointed for life. Introducing term limits or a set retirement age for justices could prevent the court from becoming too politicized or entrenched in ideologies for too long. This could help ensure that the court remains in touch with contemporary values and challenges.

• Increasing Judicial Accountability: Implementing reforms for greater oversight of judicial actions and ensuring that courts reflect broader societal diversity could help make the judicial branch more responsive to the evolving principles of liberal democracy.

5. Clarifying or Expanding Rights for Marginalized Groups

• Strengthening LGBTQ+ Rights: Although the U.S. has made strides in recognizing the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals, clearer constitutional protections could further protect against discrimination and ensure equal treatment under the law.

• Addressing Racial Justice: Amendments could be made to specifically address systemic racism, ensuring that equal protection under the law applies robustly and with focus on rectifying historical inequalities.

• Women’s Reproductive Rights: After Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, an amendment to explicitly protect a woman’s right to choose could strengthen reproductive freedoms and align with liberal democratic ideals of bodily autonomy.

6. Decentralizing Power

• Strengthening Local Governance: A stronger emphasis on federalism could allow local governments to make more decisions that directly affect their communities, increasing political participation and ensuring that diverse viewpoints are represented.

• Reforming the Senate: The current system gives disproportionate power to smaller states due to equal representation for all states, regardless of population. This could be reformed to ensure that the Senate better represents the people, reducing the influence of smaller, less populous states.

7. Improvements to the Impeachment Process

• Clearer and More Accessible Accountability: The impeachment process could be clarified to ensure that it is not used for partisan purposes and that presidents and other high-ranking officials are held accountable for serious misconduct. This would reinforce checks and balances, a key feature of liberal democracy.

8. More Inclusive Amendments Process

• Making Constitutional Amendments More Accessible: The current amendment process is intentionally difficult, requiring either a two-thirds majority in Congress or a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures. Making this process more accessible could allow for the Constitution to be more responsive to the evolving needs of a liberal democracy, especially as social and political dynamics change over time.

Conclusion:

Changing the U.S. Constitution to make it more in tune with the ideals of a liberal democracy would require balancing the foundational principles of democracy with modern concerns around equality, accountability, and inclusion. Many of these changes would make the political system more responsive, transparent, and representative of the diverse population, ensuring that the Constitution continues to serve its purpose as a living document in a modern democratic society. 

Above are the suggestions from ChatGPT to the question "How should the US Constitution be changed to make it more in tune with the ideals of a liberal democracy?".

Other constitutional or legal changes I would suggest:

• Restrictions on gerrymandering.
• Restrictions on presidential power.  The Supreme Court was obviously wrong when it said that a president could not be held accountable for illegal actions taken as part of his official duties.  The failure of Republican congressional men and women to perform their constitutional requirement to provide checks and balances on the executive branch shows the need for some way for citizens to demand change more frequently than every two years.
• Better restrictions to prevent presidential influence over or dismantling of independent agencies.  For example, The Department of Justice and FBI should not report to the executive branch.

Feel free to comment if you have any additions or issues with the improvements suggested in this entry.  Anonymous comments are allowed, but please keep them civil.

Leave The Compaign Hats In The Golf Cart

I'm sick of seeing Trump wearing one of his campaign hats at events that are clearly not campaign events.  If he wants to wear his silly campaign hats at a campaign rally to juice up the crowd or up his income from Trump merch, that's his prerogative.  But when he is representing this country in his official duties, he should leave the cap in the golf cart. 

There are pictures of Trump in the Situation Room during the bombing of the Iran nuclear facilities wearing a campaign hat.  That is unacceptable.  Members of the military are risking their lives and he is using them to score political points. It is another example of how Trump demeans his office and reminds the country he really doesn't understand his presidential responsibilities and considers himself above the presidency. 

I'll bet he sometimes wears these hats because his hair dresser was not available.  Trump needs to face the fact he is old.  I've got grand kids who sometimes need their stuffies (stuffed animals) to help soothe their anxieties so I understand why Trump needs his hair, but really.  

Trump, get some therapy (psychological not scalp) and try to look like a real president.  

Trump Is Not Presidential And Is Getting Worse

I'm having trouble putting the word "President" in front of Trump.  I know he won the election, but practically every day he does something that is clearly not presidential.

He seems to be working very hard to destroy this country.  I'm not sure why.  My guess is there are four impulses that are driving him.  

First, he is a narcissist  He only cares about himself. He does not care about anyone else except to the extent he can use them to bolster his ego or increase his wealth.  His obvious corruption and lawlessness doesn't bother him as long as it helps him. He is deeply flawed psychologically.

Second. as has been pointed out by many people, he is transactional.  He makes decisions on what to do or say by calculating what the most beneficial action would be for him personally in that particular moment.  It is reported that he doesn't read his daily intelligence briefings.  We have to depend on him to keep us, the country and the world safe, but he shows no interest protecting anyone or anything except himself.

His transactional method of governing explains his most significant and obvious personality trait, constant lying.  If Trump says something, there is a better than even chance he is lying.  That is why he can say something and then soon after say the exact opposite.  Both of the contradicting statements were true to him when he said them; even if the first true statement was reversed later.   

Trump never admits a mistake.  So you won't hear an apology or a reason.  He feels it would be weak to admit a mistake.  He only admits to a mistake when doing so would benefit him.  And even then he will claim that the mistake was caused by someone else.

Trump continually violates his oath of office to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States".  He has dismantled important independent agencies such as the  Department of Justice and the FBI.  He neutered the legislative branch and he is trying to destroy the judiciary.  He insults and alienates our  allies.  He is trying to destroy important institutions such as Harvard for seemingly no reason.

Third, Trump can hold a grudge for a long time. Trump promised to be the president for everyone in the country, not just the people who voted for him.  That is clearly not the case.  The pardoning of January 6th rioters is a good example.  Another is his actions that benefit states or groups he considers part of the MAGA movement while trying to hurt states or groups that are not MAGA.

Fourth, Trump's mental condition is declining rapidly.  Republicans have been making a lot of noise about Joe Biden's mental health while he was in office.  I wonder if any Republicans are thinking about how and when they are going to be faced with removing Trump from office?  My guess is they are hoping for some health issue bad enough that it is obvious he can no longer perform his duties as president (as if he ever has actually performed like a president).

Trump was never fit to be president in his first term and he is much worse this time around.  

I worry that without some help from Republicans Trump will irreparably damage our  country before we can vote in a Democratic legislative majority next November.  And that assumes enough voters wake up and see how dangerous Trump is.

The Devil Is In The Details!

Do you think the Supreme Court is correct that a president should not face criminal charges for anything they do as part of their official duties?

If so, you know nothing about how Donald Trump dishonors his oath of office every day!

     The Devil Is In The Details

God's Message to Donald Trump

J.D. Vance said he thought the failed assassination attempt on Donald Trump demonstrated that God intervened to save Mr. Trump.  Mr. Vance may know more about how God communicates than I do, but I wonder if the near miss was actually a warning from God to Mr. Trump. And maybe it wasn't just about politics and maybe not just about his future here on earth.