Orange is the new President

[thoreau]

The WaPo version was edited. In this longer version he spends 30 minutes reading off conspiracy theories reported by sources in Breitbart comments sections.

[thoreau]

Is he this whiny in business when people tell him he can't have what he wants?

"What do you mean the hotel's losing money? Last weekend, I was there last weekend. And every room was booked. Every room. They don't tell you that. Some of those people, some of those people at the desk, they must be under-charging. Because every room was booked. I saw it. Maybe they weren't booked when you were there but they were booked when I was there. And that wedding, the one in the north ballroom, that bride, I don't know what the groom saw in her, but whatever, that was a huge wedding party. Huge. I guess her dad, her dad must have just been so glad she's getting married. So it was huge. And there must have been, every chair in that ballroom it must have been. And they were drinking, they were drinking so much. How are we losing money when we've got five hundred people in there, all of them drinking? Are we not charging for drinks? So the whole place was full, and now you're telling me we're losing money? Why don't you go check the records, because when I looked at it, the place was full. Maybe you, maybe you don't know how to run it, or you don't know how to find the records, but I looked and there's no way that place is losing money."

"What do you mean I owe Maloney Bros Construction? Those guys, they never did anything? I went there, there was nothing done. It's in the contract, they had to finish it by October. I went there in October and nothing was done so I voided the contract. My, my lawyer, you can ask him. I voided it. I don't care if they say it was finished in August, I was there, and those pictures, those pictures are so fake. There's no way any of that was done in August. No way. It's a disgrace, a complete disgrace. None of that was done so I said I'm not paying. I said I'm voiding the contact. It's in the contract, I can void it, and then I don't pay. It's in there. Ask them. None of that was done. I don't owe them anything."

[Eric the .5b]

I'm pretty sure that was his modus operandi with creditors and the like.

[thoreau]

Donald went down to Georgia,
He was looking for some votes to steal,
He was in a bind,
Twelve thousand votes behind,
And he was willing to make a deal,

When he came across this young man
Running elections but cheating not,
Donald jumped on a conference call
And said "Brad, let me tell you what..."

[JD]

Is he this whiny in business when people tell him he can't have what he wants?

I think when he was just in business he at least didn't have an entire opposition team devoted to shooting him down, but still, basically, yeah. He was certainly much the same regarding his own puffery from what I remember. You basically had to have asterisks on everything the guy ever said: "My net worth is eight billion dollars*, my casino** is the most successful in the city, I have my own clothing line***..."

[Highway]

Someone brought up the point on Twitter: On the call, Trump says "We other states that are going to be flipping soon." Is that more bluster? Or are there similar calls to other officials in Arizona or Wisconsin that weren't leaked?

[Aresen]

Is he this whiny in business when people tell him he can't have what he wants?

I think when he was just in business he at least didn't have an entire opposition team devoted to shooting him down, but still, basically, yeah.

Having 'an entire opposition team devoted to shooting one down' is fundamental to a democracy. When he was a 'businessman', he could surround himself with yes-men and could use the courts to bully anyone who opposed him.

I never watched 'the Apprentice', but from the short out-takes I saw, he seemed to enjoy crushing people. (From the puffery surrounding the show, I gather that watching him crush someone with "You're fired" was the whole point.)

[Eric the .5b]

Is he this whiny in business when people tell him he can't have what he wants?

I think when he was just in business he at least didn't have an entire opposition team devoted to shooting him down, but still, basically, yeah.

Having 'an entire opposition team devoted to shooting one down' is fundamental to a democracy. When he was a 'businessman', he could surround himself with yes-men and could use the courts to bully anyone who opposed him.

I never watched 'the Apprentice', but from the short out-takes I saw, he seemed to enjoy crushing people. (From the puffery surrounding the show, I gather that watching him crush someone with "You're fired" was the whole point.)

Basically. And he more-or-less ignored the videos of what the contestants actually did that the showrunners gave him, preferring to just arbitrarily fire people, mostly the dark-skinned ones. The showrunners had to edit everything to try to make his decisions look reasonable.

[Eric the .5b]

Really, Trump reminds me of a marketer I had to deal with who, when reality was inconvenient, declared that "we" (that is, she) "make our own reality". Which amounted to her just insisting other people rework reality to what she wanted.

But then, I've never had good experiences with marketers, whether coworkers or clients.

[JD]

I'm a little puzzled by all of the calls to invoke the 25th Amendment. I'm all for the idea of getting Trump out of office, but the 25th doesn't seem really applicable. The 25th covers the case where the President "is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office". It has only ever historically been used in cases where the President was sick or injured and undergoing surgery. But that is pretty clearly not the case here. Impeachment seems like the more appropriate route, and invoking the 25th like an end run around the difficulties of impeachment.

[thoreau]

They would argue that he's clearly fucking nuts, and Biden will take office before the process can play out. It sidelines him long enough to prevent him from doing anything damaging in the next 12 days, 21 hours, and 30 minutes.

[Highway]

I'm torn on it. I think that Trump should be out. I think that impeachment is probably correct. But I also worry that the Trumpistas will just focus on the idea that the "liberals" are again "persecuting" Trump. Now, hopefully enough R senators are on board with recognizing how horrible Trump staying in power to pardon everyone, to foment more insurrection, that they would vote to convict him this time (Susan Collins will probably still say that she thinks he's probably learned his lesson this time).

The 25th amendment is a straight rebuke of Trump from his own party, from his own Cabinet, and from his Vice President. I think that that would tamp down a lot of the reactionary "They're trying to steal our country!" bullshit that we heard from the rioters yesterday, if not from the rioters themselves but at least the people who were watching them and thinking "uhhh yeah, I think that's a little too far, guys".

Back on the first hand, I do like the idea that an impeachment could be modified with a lifetime ban on Trump holding Federal office. That's something that needs to happen.

[Hugh Akston]

The 25th amendment is a straight rebuke of Trump from his own party, from his own Cabinet, and from his Vice President. I think that that would tamp down a lot of the reactionary "They're trying to steal our country!" bullshit that we heard from the rioters yesterday, if not from the rioters themselves but at least the people who were watching them and thinking "uhhh yeah, I think that's a little too far, guys".

I'm here. Partially because I think that it would be fairly easy to convince a majority of the cabinet that he's unable to do his job. Partially because, even after they were evacuated to hide from their own supporters, Congress would struggle to secure a trial and conviction, especially in the time remaining.

[lunchstealer]

I'm a little puzzled by all of the calls to invoke the 25th Amendment. I'm all for the idea of getting Trump out of office, but the 25th doesn't seem really applicable. The 25th covers the case where the President "is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office". It has only ever historically been used in cases where the President was sick or injured and undergoing surgery. But that is pretty clearly not the case here. Impeachment seems like the more appropriate route, and invoking the 25th like an end run around the difficulties of impeachment.

To my knowledge he didn't even talk to DoD about the national guard or literally anyone about stopping this craziness, which is I think a power and duty of his office, so one can certainly make an argument for the 25th on those grounds, plus all the people saying he's going bugnuts.

It should be a race between the 25th and the impeachment clauses of Articles 1 and 2.

[nicole]

I'm a little puzzled by all of the calls to invoke the 25th Amendment. I'm all for the idea of getting Trump out of office, but the 25th doesn't seem really applicable. The 25th covers the case where the President "is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office". It has only ever historically been used in cases where the President was sick or injured and undergoing surgery. But that is pretty clearly not the case here. Impeachment seems like the more appropriate route, and invoking the 25th like an end run around the difficulties of impeachment.

To my knowledge he didn't even talk to DoD about the national guard or literally anyone about stopping this craziness, which is I think a power and duty of his office, so one can certainly make an argument for the 25th on those grounds, plus all the people saying he's going bugnuts.

It should be a race between the 25th and the impeachment clauses of Articles 1 and 2.

The actual race is whether Congress can escape DC first, or whether the cabinet can resign first.

[thoreau]

Back on the first hand, I do like the idea that an impeachment could be modified with a lifetime ban on Trump holding Federal office. That's something that needs to happen.

It's not really a modification, more a basic part of the punishment, per Article I, section 3:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

[JD]

To my knowledge he didn't even talk to DoD about the national guard or literally anyone about stopping this craziness, which is I think a power and duty of his office, so one can certainly make an argument for the 25th on those grounds, plus all the people saying he's going bugnuts.

That's saying he didn't do it, not that he couldn't. He wasn't unconscious, or a drooling vegetable, or spending twenty hours a day re-counting and re-hiding his ballpoint pens because he thought the Pope had ordered the CIA to steal them; he was "merely" evil, power-hungry, cruel, and mendacious.

[Hugh Akston]

To my knowledge he didn't even talk to DoD about the national guard or literally anyone about stopping this craziness, which is I think a power and duty of his office, so one can certainly make an argument for the 25th on those grounds, plus all the people saying he's going bugnuts.

That's saying he didn't do it, not that he couldn't. He wasn't unconscious, or a drooling vegetable, or spending twenty hours a day re-counting and re-hiding his ballpoint pens because he thought the Pope had ordered the CIA to steal them; he was "merely" evil, power-hungry, cruel, and mendacious.

There are no criteria for what constitutes an inability under the 25th amendment. It just requires a majority of the cabinet to declare him incapable.

[Aresen]

... or spending twenty hours a day re-counting and re-hiding his ballpoint pens because he thought the Pope had ordered the CIA to steal them;

Hey! The Pope has been steeling my ballpoint pens, too!

[Jennifer]

To my knowledge he didn't even talk to DoD about the national guard or literally anyone about stopping this craziness, which is I think a power and duty of his office, so one can certainly make an argument for the 25th on those grounds, plus all the people saying he's going bugnuts.

That's saying he didn't do it, not that he couldn't. He wasn't unconscious, or a drooling vegetable, or spending twenty hours a day re-counting and re-hiding his ballpoint pens because he thought the Pope had ordered the CIA to steal them; he was "merely" evil, power-hungry, cruel, and mendacious.

He wasn't hiding his ballpoint pens, but he was spending the whole time in a "situation room" partying and watching the protests on multiple TVs.

[Jennifer]

Even taking for granted that Trump's a malignant narcissist who genuinely can't be expected to meet certain minimal behavioral standards, anymore than could a four-year-old who's past due for a nap. But all the cretins he surrounds himself with?

[lunchstealer]

To my knowledge he didn't even talk to DoD about the national guard or literally anyone about stopping this craziness, which is I think a power and duty of his office, so one can certainly make an argument for the 25th on those grounds, plus all the people saying he's going bugnuts.

That's saying he didn't do it, not that he couldn't. He wasn't unconscious, or a drooling vegetable, or spending twenty hours a day re-counting and re-hiding his ballpoint pens because he thought the Pope had ordered the CIA to steal them; he was "merely" evil, power-hungry, cruel, and mendacious.

He wasn't hiding his ballpoint pens, but he was spending the whole time in a "situation room" partying and watching the protests on multiple TVs.

This appears to be from the rally in the morning, probably prior to the actual violence.

[Aresen]

You don't have to like Bolton to agree he has a point here:

Ex-National Security Adviser John Bolton says using 25th Amendment to get rid of Trump won’t work

Critics have been urging Trump’s cabinet members and Vice President Mike Pence to seize Trump’s power under the Constitution to keep him from causing more trouble until President-elect Joe Biden takes over.

But Bolton said it would never work.

“To make this work, [Pence] would have to get a majority of the cabinet to sign up in secret,” Bolton said. ”Why? Because if Donald Trump finds out that his secretary of fill-in-the-blank has signed this letter, he’s going to fire the person. Then the signature on the letter won’t have any force or effect. This is simply not workable. Not only is it dubious constitutionally, to create the risk of two competing presidencies, it’s not going to work.”

There have been Anti-Popes, why not Anti-Presidents?

[thoreau]

Never mind. Shouldn't say that.

[Jennifer]

I think the 25th amendment threats (or rather, the humiliation of them) got through to Trump, as evidenced by the (relative) sanity of his speech today condemning the protesters.