He's not playing 3 dimensional chess: WSJ article on Trump's decision-making process related to the Iran War

[Anonymous]

But wait - one of DCUM's finest keeps claiming the WSJ is "not a credible source." Gosh, I don't know who to believe. 🙄

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But wait - one of DCUM's finest keeps claiming the WSJ is "not a credible source." Gosh, I don't know who to believe. 🙄

Credible or not, I would hesitate to use American media as a primary ME source for now and maybe forever. How is it that foreign media or Americans on Twitter is breaking all the news? It often takes hours, days, or never for American media to report on very pertinent things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But wait - one of DCUM's finest keeps claiming the WSJ is "not a credible source." Gosh, I don't know who to believe. 🙄

Credible or not, I would hesitate to use American media as a primary ME source for now and maybe forever. How is it that foreign media or Americans on Twitter is breaking all the news? It often takes hours, days, or never for American media to report on very pertinent things.

You know most of the BS being spread on Twitter and other social media is just that - BS - right? They're not "breaking all the news." They're spreading as much disinformation as possible and you're eating it right up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But wait - one of DCUM's finest keeps claiming the WSJ is "not a credible source." Gosh, I don't know who to believe. 🙄

Credible or not, I would hesitate to use American media as a primary ME source for now and maybe forever. How is it that foreign media or Americans on Twitter is breaking all the news? It often takes hours, days, or never for American media to report on very pertinent things.

You know most of the BS being spread on Twitter and other social media is just that - BS - right? They're not "breaking all the news." They're spreading as much disinformation as possible and you're eating it right up.

Bullshit. We're talking about credible sources that use Twitter as a source of getting news out. Not hoes like Shapiro and Loomer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But wait - one of DCUM's finest keeps claiming the WSJ is "not a credible source." Gosh, I don't know who to believe. 🙄

Credible or not, I would hesitate to use American media as a primary ME source for now and maybe forever. How is it that foreign media or Americans on Twitter is breaking all the news? It often takes hours, days, or never for American media to report on very pertinent things.

If they report it at all. I rely on guardian, npr, bbc, Reuters to get accurate news.

[Anonymous]

Karoline Levitt, in a response to the WSJ, said Trump had "remained a steady leader our country needs.”

Notice she didn't deny any of what the WSJ report on was happening. (As an aside, this tends to be a typical response from the White House -- lavish praise on all Trump is doing for the American people. The other typical response is to insult the news media. Both responses deflect the question, and they never actually affirm or deny what they were asked.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why. is he still president if he's kept out of the sit room during a war decision?

Because in the US, unlike in most advanced democracies, we have to wait until the end of a four year presidential term to change out an ineffective or highly unpopular president.

In most advanced parliamentary democracies (eg., UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, etc.), the head of government (prime minister) can be removed relatively quickly if they are unpopular or ineffective through actions such as:

- Vote of no confidence in parliament which forces resignation or triggers snap elections
- Party internal pressure or loss of majority support often leads to resignation without the need for a full vote
- A good example is the UK’s PM Liz Truss who resigned after 45 days due to economic backlash and an internal party revolt (no formal no-confidence vote was needed).

I can’t imagine any scenario at all under which the current GOP would remove a clearly demented, mentally ill, highly ineffective, unpopular and dangerous president from office.

Not true. The 25th amendment exists for a reason. If the GOP had morals, they would use it to force him out, rather than have his team evict him from the decision-making process because he's not capable of keeping up with the people who are actually trying to make decisions.

The 25th amendment is not easy! It requires a majority of his own handpicked cabinet (i.e. people so subservient that they are walking around in shoes that don’t fit so they won’t offend him) and then 2/3s of both houses of congress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why. is he still president if he's kept out of the sit room during a war decision?

Because in the US, unlike in most advanced democracies, we have to wait until the end of a four year presidential term to change out an ineffective or highly unpopular president.

In most advanced parliamentary democracies (eg., UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, etc.), the head of government (prime minister) can be removed relatively quickly if they are unpopular or ineffective through actions such as:

- Vote of no confidence in parliament which forces resignation or triggers snap elections
- Party internal pressure or loss of majority support often leads to resignation without the need for a full vote
- A good example is the UK’s PM Liz Truss who resigned after 45 days due to economic backlash and an internal party revolt (no formal no-confidence vote was needed).

I can’t imagine any scenario at all under which the current GOP would remove a clearly demented, mentally ill, highly ineffective, unpopular and dangerous president from office.

Not true. The 25th amendment exists for a reason. If the GOP had morals, they would use it to force him out, rather than have his team evict him from the decision-making process because he's not capable of keeping up with the people who are actually trying to make decisions.

The 25th amendment is not easy! It requires a majority of his own handpicked cabinet (i.e. people so subservient that they are walking around in shoes that don’t fit so they won’t offend him) and then 2/3s of both houses of congress.

I’m the PP the other PP was responding to. So basically the 25th is never going to happen with this president. The 25th has never been used to remove a president in the entirety of US history. Not sure why the other PP thinks it’s a possibility now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or

The reasons for going to war remain a state secret because it was Israel that had a chokehold over the Presidency.

For the MILLIONTH TIME, Bibi has tried this with FOUR presidents. Only Trump was stupid enough to do it. Trump is a grow a$$ man. Stop treating him like a child. Oh wait, maybe do treat him like a child and tell him to resign so the adults can lead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why. is he still president if he's kept out of the sit room during a war decision?

Because in the US, unlike in most advanced democracies, we have to wait until the end of a four year presidential term to change out an ineffective or highly unpopular president.

In most advanced parliamentary democracies (eg., UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, etc.), the head of government (prime minister) can be removed relatively quickly if they are unpopular or ineffective through actions such as:

- Vote of no confidence in parliament which forces resignation or triggers snap elections
- Party internal pressure or loss of majority support often leads to resignation without the need for a full vote
- A good example is the UK’s PM Liz Truss who resigned after 45 days due to economic backlash and an internal party revolt (no formal no-confidence vote was needed).

I can’t imagine any scenario at all under which the current GOP would remove a clearly demented, mentally ill, highly ineffective, unpopular and dangerous president from office.

Not true. The 25th amendment exists for a reason. If the GOP had morals, they would use it to force him out, rather than have his team evict him from the decision-making process because he's not capable of keeping up with the people who are actually trying to make decisions.

The 25th amendment is not easy! It requires a majority of his own handpicked cabinet (i.e. people so subservient that they are walking around in shoes that don’t fit so they won’t offend him) and then 2/3s of both houses of congress.

I’m the PP the other PP was responding to. So basically the 25th is never going to happen with this president. The 25th has never been used to remove a president in the entirety of US history. Not sure why the other PP thinks it’s a possibility now.

I think the 25th amendment would only be used in a situation where the president suffered a massive stroke that left him completely incapable of functioning, but managed to survive nonetheless. In that situation, he would need to be replaced quickly, but his party for obvious reasons wouldn’t want to impeach him and ruin his legacy. If it’s anything short of that, the 25th is not going to happen.