75 days

Discussion of the recent unfolding of history.

Re: 75 days

Postby iambiguous » Sat Nov 21, 2020 10:52 pm

So, some might be thinking: what about the Founding Fathers? Where did they weigh in on a lame duck who refuses to limp out of the Oval Office?

Apparently, in regard to that much revered "original intent", they didn't weigh in much at all:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/ ... p-concede/

President Trump continued Friday to deny the results of the election, pressuring state officials in Michigan and Georgia to overturn the will of voters and increasing fears that he might refuse to cede power to President-elect Joe Biden.

But those looking to the nation’s Founders, or the Constitution they framed, for answers to such a crisis will come up empty-handed. There is nothing in the Constitution about what to do if a president refuses to step down when his term expires, according to three historians and a constitutional law professor.

“No, the framers did not envisage a president refusing to step down or discuss what should be done in such a situation,” Princeton historian Sean Wilentz said. “There’s obviously nothing in the Constitution about it.”

“This is a contingency that no one would have actively contemplated until this fall,” said historian Jack Rakove, a professor emeritus at Stanford University.


Then this part:

During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Alexander Hamilton floated the idea of presidents serving for life, but when put to a vote, the proposal failed 4 to 6.

Imagine American history then had it been 6 to 4 in favor of the proposal.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38545
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: 75 days

Postby Meno_ » Sat Nov 21, 2020 11:06 pm

So doing the math, such brazen behaviorist can only be improvised through bringing this potential hair razor to real action , forcing a no exit situation, to the politically adverse conflict until the added fuel results in necessary action.

Such will reignite the unfinished business of WW 1& 2, Korean & Vietnam stalemates & all within about 100 years.

After all the 100 years of European struggle may be just a reminder of a lesson unlearned, which need a refresher.
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7608
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: 75 days

Postby Meno_ » Sat Nov 21, 2020 11:07 pm

So doing the math, such brazen behaviorist can only be improvised through bringing this potential hair razor (hell-occham raiser) to real action , forcing a no exit situation, to the politically adverse conflict until the added fuel results in necessary action.

Such will reignite the unfinished business of WW 1& 2, Korean & Vietnam stalemates & all within about 100 years.

After all the 100 years of European struggle may be just a reminder of a lesson unlearned, which need a refresher.








Menu Icon

Boyatt Describes 20th Century as 100 Years War


Thomas BoyattThose who think about the 100 Years War all tend to think more of longbows and knights than submarines and machine guns. That’s not unreasonable if we’re talking about the conflicts between England and France in the 14th and 15th centuries, but U.S. Ambassador Thomas D. Boyatt would like to expand our historical thinking. Boyatt, Woodrow Wilson Visiting Fellow at Samford March 4-8, views the almost constant international conflicts of the 20th century not as separate wars, but as enormous battles in a modern 100 years war.

Boyatt’s diplomatic career included postings in Chile, Luxembourg and Cyprus, and ambassadorial service in Columbia and Burkina Faso. He served almost to the end of what he characterized as a century-long struggle for European freedom, characterized in each case by aggression from the east to the west, and shaped, in turn, by Kaiser Wilhelm II, Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.

In a March 7 lecture at Samford, Boyatt said the advent of industrialized militaries in the early 20th century coincided with, and drove, binding alliances between the world’s superpowers. England, France and Russia allied on one side and Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire allied on the other. Each party committed its vast imperial possessions, so a single act of terrorism in Sarajevo set the world aflame in August, 1914.

Although the U.S. was a minor power at the time of the first world war, its delayed entry onto the field proved to be decisive in breaking the aggressive “central powers.” But when a forward-looking U.S. president, Woodrow Wilson, proposed a 14-point plan to rebuild Europe and prevent future wars, Europe’s victors preferred to cripple the vanquished economically and carve up their empires, virtually ensuring further conflict.

Hitler arose from the economic crisis that followed, and this time Germany took almost all the available spoils of the continent. Stopped at the English Channel by the British under Winston Churchill–a defiance Boyatt described as “the apogee of the English speaking peoples”–Hitler made the fatal error of turning against the Soviet Union. Once again, America entered the war and tipped the balance against a weakened enemy.

This time, the U.S. led the reconstruction efforts and ensured that those efforts included the defeated enemies whose economic success and political stability would set the tone for their respective regions. Then the Soviet Union dropped what Churchill described as “an iron curtain” and emerged as the new threat to Europe’s freedom.

Boyatt said centrist U.S. domestic politics in the postwar period solidified both an official U.S. posture—anti-communism—and a strategy—containment. The U.S. finally triumphed in the ensuing geopolitical chess games due to superior economic and political structure, military, intelligence and diplomacy as well as a more aggressive opposition to Soviet expansion after 1980, Boyatt said. He acknowledged that a new generation of Soviet leaders sought to modernize in order to better compete with the U.S., but by that time it was too late to save what Ronald Reagan famously called “the evil empire.”

Looking ahead to the next century, Boyatt foresees another long struggle, this time involving Asia and Islam. “We need to remember the lessons of the 20th century,” he said. “We need to remember the agonies and the length of that struggle and we need to remember why we were victorious.”

“I like the cards we’ve been dealt,” Boyatt concluded, “but we still have to be courageous, we still have to have stamina and we still have to see far.”


Sean Flynt
[email protected]
205-726-4197


Samford University
800 Lakeshore Drive
Birmingham, AL 35229
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7608
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: 75 days

Postby iambiguous » Sun Nov 22, 2020 11:26 pm

Okay, Trump concedes or is escorted out of the White House by "government officials" in January. The country is still relatively intact.

What's next for him?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

NEW YORK — President Trump's ongoing court battles are unlikely to pose significant legal jeopardy for him before he leaves office, but the swirl of criminal investigations and civil complaints stemming from his business activities and personal conduct could prove potentially more serious once he departs, experts say.

Among Democrats, there is a palpable desire to pursue the harsh accountability for Trump that many feel he has avoided by virtue of his office. But his successor, President-elect Joe Biden, reportedly has little appetite for doing so, having signaled to advisers that unleashing the federal government to settle scores would undermine his goal of unifying the country.

A spokesman for Biden's transition team declined to comment but pointed to statements Biden made previously affirming that he would not interfere with a Justice Department investigation into Trump nor pardon his predecessor. "It is not something the president is entitled to do, to direct a prosecution or decide to drop a case," Biden told MSNBC in an interview in May. "It's a dereliction of duty."


Okay, here its 1] the Democrats and 2] the law.

How will the two be intertwined or separated?

"Sleepy Joe" Biden clearly seems intent on channeling Gerald Ford here.

But: is he really foolish enough to imagine that Trumpworld will rally around his attempts to "unify the country". Can he really be that naive?

Or, perhaps, there really is something embedded in his own past that he would prefer to keep secret. From my frame of mind, he is buried in the Deep State on the Democratic side of the aisle as are any number of Republicans. As the Bernie Sanders enthusiasts will soon find out once he is in office.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38545
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: 75 days

Postby Meno_ » Mon Nov 23, 2020 12:08 am

iambiguous wrote:Okay, Trump concedes or is escorted out of the White House by "government officials" in January. The country is still relatively intact.

What's next for him?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

NEW YORK — President Trump's ongoing court battles are unlikely to pose significant legal jeopardy for him before he leaves office, but the swirl of criminal investigations and civil complaints stemming from his business activities and personal conduct could prove potentially more serious once he departs, experts say.

Among Democrats, there is a palpable desire to pursue the harsh accountability for Trump that many feel he has avoided by virtue of his office. But his successor, President-elect Joe Biden, reportedly has little appetite for doing so, having signaled to advisers that unleashing the federal government to settle scores would undermine his goal of unifying the country.

A spokesman for Biden's transition team declined to comment but pointed to statements Biden made previously affirming that he would not interfere with a Justice Department investigation into Trump nor pardon his predecessor. "It is not something the president is entitled to do, to direct a prosecution or decide to drop a case," Biden told MSNBC in an interview in May. "It's a dereliction of duty."


Okay, here its 1] the Democrats and 2] the law.

How will the two be intertwined or separated?

"Sleepy Joe" Biden clearly seems intent on channeling Gerald Ford here.

But: is he really foolish enough to imagine that Trumpworld will rally around his attempts to "unify the country". Can he really be that naive?

Or, perhaps, there really is something embedded in his own past that he would prefer to keep secret. From my frame of mind, he is buried in the Deep State on the Democratic side of the aisle as are any number of Republicans. As the Bernie Sanders enthusiasts will soon find out once he is in office.




Embedded is a key word, of which some would be susceptiable to resonate with: such as this offered to some extent:






MEET THE PRESS

GOP Sen. Cramer says it's 'past time' to start transition as challenges continue
“I’d rather have a president that has more than one day to prepare should Joe Biden end up winning this," the North Dakota Republican told "Meet the Press."



Nov. 22, 2020, 10:23 AM EST

WASHINGTON — Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., called on the administration Sunday to begin cooperating with President-elect Joe Biden’s transition team, even as he repeatedly defended President Donald Trump’s attempts to challenge the results of the presidential election with unproven allegations of widespread fraud.

In an interview on “Meet the Press,” Cramer said he doesn’t think that Trump has exhausted all his legal options, but that it’s in the best interest of the country to begin the transition process.


“These are legal systems, these are processes that are in our Constitution, in our laws. And they’re not just appropriate, they’re really an obligation, frankly, to the millions of Americans that President Trump is a reflection of,” Cramer said.

But he added that “it’s past time to start a transition, to at least cooperate with a transition.”

“I’d rather have a president that has more than one day to prepare should Joe Biden end up winning this, but in the meantime, he’s just exercising his legal options.”

The president has so far refused to accept that he lost the election, a projection virtually every major news organization made the Saturday following Election Day based on vote totals across the country. Amid that refusal, the government agency tasked with giving the administration the green-light to begin a transition has not sanctioned that process yet, as the president continues to raise unfounded allegations of widespread fraud.

Trump’s legal team and other Republican allies have filed dozens of lawsuits making unproven claims of impropriety, and one of his lawyers argued on the Fox Business channel that state legislatures should seat pro-Trump presidential electors in states Biden won.

But those legal challenges haven’t yet gained significant traction. On Saturday, a federal judge dismissed the Trump team’s Pennsylvania case, arguing that it included a “strained legal argument without merit.” The president’s lawyers say they’ll appeal.

Meanwhile, Georgia certified its results on Friday after a hand recount that found no major change in the vote totals, with other key states set to certify results in the coming days and weeks. But the president’s team is requesting a separate machine recount in Georgia, and it also requested a partial recount in two Democratic-leaning Wisconsin counties last week, which is ongoing. NBC’s Decision Desk has named Biden the apparent winner in both states.

There's been a slow drip of congressional Republicans calling for the transition process to begin so that Biden can be ready to assume office in January, even as most have stood by his actions.

On Saturday, Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., went further after a federal court dismissed the Trump lawsuit in his state, calling on Trump to “accept the outcome of the election” because “Joe Biden won the 2020 election.”

But Cramer said Sunday that Trump has an “obligation” to his supporters to “fight this to the end” and pushed back on concerns that the president's refusal to accept the election results undermines democracy, attempting to compare it to the Democratic attempt to impeach the president.

“I don’t know why we are so easily offended by a president that is carrying out all his legal options in court,” Cramer said.

“Everyone ought to calm down a little bit, I don’t see this as an attack on our democracy.”

Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-La., who is leaving Congress to join the Biden administration as a senior adviser, disagreed. During a separate interview on “Meet the Press,” Richmond called Trump’s holdout “harmful” because it “undermines the confidence in American government.”

“This is the future of our democracy on the line. It was a fair and square election, Donald Trump lost,” he said.

“At some point, we have to move on. But this Republican Party has been very reluctant to stand up and tell the emperor he wears no clothes.”

© 2020 NBC UNIVERSAL
Meno_
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7608
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: 75 days

Postby iambiguous » Tue Nov 24, 2020 3:21 am

Trump concedes.
If only for all practical purposes.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/23/us/p ... e=Homepage

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s government on Monday authorized President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. to begin a formal transition process after Michigan certified Mr. Biden as its winner, a strong sign that the president’s last-ditch bid to overturn the results of the election was coming to an end.

Mr. Trump did not concede, and vowed to persist with efforts to change the vote, which have so far proved fruitless. But the president said on Twitter on Monday night that he accepted the decision by Emily W. Murphy, the administrator of the General Services Administration, to allow a transition to proceed.

In his tweet, Mr. Trump said that he had told his officials to begin “initial protocols” involving the handoff to Mr. Biden “in the best interest of our country,” though his announcement followed weeks of trying to subvert a free and fair election with false claims of fraud.


Now it comes down to the 58 days left in his administration. What damage can he do at home and abroad.

My guess: he won't go there.

Why? He might get a behind the curtains "deal" from Biden and the powers that be in the Democratic Party -- leave quietly and we won't pursue you after you're gone.

Or enough of those around him will convince him the only way to insure another run in 2024 [for himself or one of the kids], is not to go too far in his remaining days.

The bottom line is that he still owns the Republican Party. And the millions who are members of the Trump cult aren't likely to be going anywhere.

Look at the fanatic cult members here.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38545
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: 75 days

Postby iambiguous » Tue Nov 24, 2020 10:43 pm

The liberal rendition of the worst case scenario -- at home and abroad:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

Let’s not celebrate the transfer of power to President-elect Joe Biden just yet, but instead look at two risks that could still allow President Trump to obstruct a smooth transition: massive social unrest at home that Trump could argue represents a domestic insurrection, and a war abroad where he could invoke his extraordinary powers as commander in chief.

But...

Thankfully, both explosive scenarios seem unlikely, now that Trump has accepted the start of a formal transition process by the General Services Administration. Biden appears headed for the White House on Jan. 20 and is preparing to govern.

But...

But with Trump, it’s always wise to imagine worst-case possibilities and think carefully about how to prevent them. Forewarned is forearmed.

So...

America’s greatest moment of vulnerability will be from now to Dec. 14, when the electoral college meets to ratify the voters’ decisions. Analysts have imagined various scenarios for how Trump might evade the archaic electoral college process, but these strategies are unlikely to succeed without the pretext of an additional crisis. So, let’s look carefully at the twin dangers, domestic and foreign, and how they might be defused.

We know Trump considered invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807 against his domestic enemies once before, back in June, when racial justice protests were spreading after the death of George Floyd. He was talked out of it by Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper. Trump never forgave Esper and finally “terminated” him in a tweet on Nov. 9.

Over the past two weeks, Trump has been installing a team of super-loyalists at the Pentagon, now headed by acting defense secretary Christopher C. Miller. What’s their mission? We don’t know, but it’s safe to say they would be more likely than Esper to support a Trump call to use the military — either at home in response to social unrest or abroad in armed conflict.


And then...

Here’s where it gets scary: On Dec. 12, two days before the electoral college meets, Trump supporters plan to gather for a mass rally at the Lincoln Memorial. The National Park Service has already granted them a permit, according to local reports. The last such rally, touted as a “Million MAGA March” on Nov. 14, drew only several thousand Trump supporters. But they were confronted by a few hundred counter-protesters, and when night fell, the anti-Trump forces “triggered . . . mayhem as they harassed Trump’s advocates,” according to The Post.

The Dec. 12 rally will probably draw a larger pro-Trump crowd, and if counter-protests become violent again, that could give Trump the excuse he may want to claim his opponents have staged a rebellion. The Biden team should be thinking now how to convey a firm message: Keep cool. Don’t take the bait.

Let’s imagine the grimmest scenario. Trump claims that violent protests are “insurrection, or obstruction to the laws,” as the 1807 statute put it, and orders active-duty troops to intervene. Such an order would go first to Miller, the acting defense secretary. Next in the chain of command would be Air Force Gen. Glen D. VanHerck, who heads Northern Command, which oversees U.S. forces in North America.


Or this...

Now consider the other upheaval that could undermine an orderly transfer of power or leave a huge mess for Biden. Trump remains commander in chief until Jan. 20. According to the New York Times, he requested military options for attacking Iran at a White House meeting Nov. 12. Again, Milley talked Trump out of any rash action, backed by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other senior officials.

But what if there’s a provocation? Suppose one of the Iranian-back Shiite militias in Iraq fires missiles that kill U.S. troops in Baghdad? Or Hezbollah in Lebanon launches missiles that kill Israelis? Or North Korea’s Kim Jong Un launches . . . Well, you get the point. The president retaliates; war ensues; the president takes action against dissenters. It’s speculation, but it’s not impossible.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

tiny nietzsche: what's something that isn't nothing, but still feels like nothing?
iambiguous: a post from Pedro?
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 38545
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Previous

Return to Current Events



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users