What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[The Minsky Moment]

Trump has already said that if he gets elected again he wants Congress to grant him emergency powers

If so he must be going senile.  He seems to have forgotten that Congress already has conferred broad emergency powers on the President, powers he used and invoked to steal appropriated funds from the DOD budget to pay off his contractor friends to build some crappy fencing on the border.

[Razgovory]

He wants emergency powers to seize control of the national guard over the objection of governors.  Also he wants to start executing drug dealers after quick trials and put the homeless in camps.

[alfred russel]

The way it will likely play out is they do nothing substantive before the 2024 election.

Why? Do we want to arrange it so criminals can win elected office?

If that is what the people want....

[crazy canuck]

Trump has already said that if he gets elected again he wants Congress to grant him emergency powers

I guess his pitch is to use democracy to abolish democracy.

The old "if you elect me I won't run again" except the reason this time is he won't have to.

[Valmy]

The way it will likely play out is they do nothing substantive before the 2024 election.

Why? Do we want to arrange it so criminals can win elected office?

If that is what the people want....

No. The people are not a court of law. It is absolute bullshit to have people who have committed major crimes with substantial evidence to indict and then expect the electorate to try them in the court of public opinion. That is unjust and complete garbage.

If somebody gets convicted of a crime and spends time in prison and when that person gets out people still want to vote them in, then fine. But forcing the voting public to sort out evidence and separate fact from fiction is absurd. How are we supposed to know what is true or what is political propaganda nonsense?

I hate the notion with passionate rage that politicians should be above the law and never be accountable for shit unless the general public becomes super sleuths and has a trial on twitter where the sentence is that politician doesn't get votes. Fuck that shit. That is not justice, it's nonsense. It's bullshit. It boggles the mind you would want something so corrupt and idiotic. What is wrong with you?

[crazy canuck]

The way it will likely play out is they do nothing substantive before the 2024 election.

Why? Do we want to arrange it so criminals can win elected office?

If that is what the people want....

No. The people are not a court of law. It is absolute bullshit to have people who have committed major crimes with substantial evidence to indict and then expect the electorate to try them in the court of public opinion. That is unjust and complete garbage.

If somebody gets convicted of a crime and spends time in prison and when that person gets out people still want to vote them in, then fine. But forcing the voting public to sort out evidence and separate fact from fiction is absurd. How are we supposed to know what is true or what is political propaganda nonsense?

I hate the notion with passionate rage that politicians should be above the law and never be accountable for shit unless the general public becomes super sleuths and has a trial on twitter where the sentence is that politician doesn't get votes. Fuck that shit. That is not justice, it's nonsense. It's bullshit. It boggles the mind you would want something so corrupt and idiotic. What is wrong with you?

To be fair, the question is not so much what is wrong with AR but rather what is wrong with our liberal democratic systems of government.  His response would have been unthinkable 20-30 years ago.  But back then I think the general public had a much stronger grasp of the basic principles which underpin liberal democracy.  We see that fraying (oh hell who am I kidding - disintegrating) before our very eyes.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah I agree. If people in office commit crimes they should be investigated, tried and punished.

It is, ironically, probably more difficult when, as with Trump, it's a political crime. If it's just embezzling, say, that's almost easier.

[Jacob]

To be fair, the question is not so much what is wrong with AR but rather what is wrong with our liberal democratic systems of government.  His response would have been unthinkable 20-30 years ago.  But back then I think the general public had a much stronger grasp of the basic principles which underpin liberal democracy.  We see that fraying (oh hell who am I kidding - disintegrating) before our very eyes.

How much is this an in liberal democracies other than America? I don't think it's an issue (yet) in Canada (though we often follow about 10 years after the US), and it's not an issue in Denmark I don't think. I don't have enough insight about politics elsewhere to know where it applies.

[Sheilbh]

It was a big part in what brought down Johnson - over a fining offence. The political impact was sufficient that over 50% of his own party members wanted him gone, as well as huge damage in public opinion. Only two years after winning his party's biggest majority in 30 years he's been forced out of office.

For more serious offences there are examples here of ministers and MPs being convicted of more serious crimes (ie ones that go to court) and having to resign as an MP or being recalled by their constituency and voted out.

Having said that there are relatively few investigations into political crimes, electoral crimes, crimes to do with someone's office that sort of thing. I can think of one of a couple - one mayor and one MP both dismissed from office and barred from seeking election for a period.

France has a strong tradition of investigating and prosecuting senior politicians, once they've left office.

I suppose, as ever with Trump, perhaps the best analogy is Berlusconi who I think was under investigation for every moment he was Prime Minister but it was perceived as slightly business as usual and also he regularly attacked politicised investigating judges ("red judges") etc.

I'm not sure how immunity works in the US or France but that might be a complicating factor there? In the UK, Italy - and I assume Canada and Denmark - the PM is, in principle, just a citizen as far as the law is concerned.

[Syt]

Trump at a golf tournament recently. What are the odds he'll not make it to the next pres. elections?

[Grey Fox]

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html


Too high.

[alfred russel]

The way it will likely play out is they do nothing substantive before the 2024 election.

Why? Do we want to arrange it so criminals can win elected office?

If that is what the people want....

No. The people are not a court of law. It is absolute bullshit to have people who have committed major crimes with substantial evidence to indict and then expect the electorate to try them in the court of public opinion. That is unjust and complete garbage.

If somebody gets convicted of a crime and spends time in prison and when that person gets out people still want to vote them in, then fine. But forcing the voting public to sort out evidence and separate fact from fiction is absurd. How are we supposed to know what is true or what is political propaganda nonsense?

I hate the notion with passionate rage that politicians should be above the law and never be accountable for shit unless the general public becomes super sleuths and has a trial on twitter where the sentence is that politician doesn't get votes. Fuck that shit. That is not justice, it's nonsense. It's bullshit. It boggles the mind you would want something so corrupt and idiotic. What is wrong with you?

Your question was whether criminals should be able to win elected office...I was assuming that you thought he should be disqualified if convicted of something. I agree that elections shouldn't substitute for criminal prosecution...I also think that everyone at this point knows the nature of trump and did in 2020 as well--those that claim they don't are being willfully blind. However it goes, if he gets elected in 2024 that is on us.

[alfred russel]

To be fair, the question is not so much what is wrong with AR but rather what is wrong with our liberal democratic systems of government.  His response would have been unthinkable 20-30 years ago.

Criminals being allowed to run for office - while not a universal opinion - would hardly have been unthinkable at any point in our lifetimes.

[DGuller]

I actually don't think criminals should be prohibited from running for office.  Making someone a criminal is a tried-and-true method of disqualifying opposition candidates in faux democracies.  At the end of the day, the voters still have to vote for the person, so if the crime really is disqualifying of public office, you have worse problems if the voters are still willing to vote for the person.

[alfred russel]

I actually don't think criminals should be prohibited from running for office.  Making someone a criminal is a tried-and-true method of disqualifying opposition candidates in faux democracies.  At the end of the day, the voters still have to vote for the person, so if the crime really is disqualifying of public office, you have worse problems if the voters are still willing to vote for the person.

Yep that is my thoughts. Can't help but think of the Brazilian election being held in a couple months.