By Lucia Bradley | YEET MAGAZINE | Updated4:42 p.m. ET, June 24, 2021
We all know that the president has important tasks when it comes to running the country, but what about the “normal” things that he can't do anymore? Insiders told us about 10 things the president can't do.
It now seems quite normal to be able to call your friends at any time of the day. But for the President of the United States, it is not that easy. According to Matt Pinkser, professor of homeland security at Virginia Commonwealth University, the president can only call on a private line. So if the president wants to call a friend, he has to let the Secret Service know first.
Go to the cinema
The President of the United States cannot go to the movies like that. This is why the films are brought to the White House and played in his personal cinema room.
Dining out is not totally prohibited. But the secret services must be informed of the plans well in advance. This allows them to secure the restaurant in advance. There is also a “taster” who makes sure that the food is safe to eat.
Drive a car
It is absolutely forbidden to drive a car. The President is driven in a highly armored car with a driver who has undergone extensive training. According to Dr Jim Ronan, author and professor of political science at Villanova University, the president is allowed to walk or cycle in private places. The loss of their driver's license is viewed by many former presidents as their greatest loss. Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush were allowed to drive in secure areas.
Curious to learn more about what the President of the United States is not allowed to do? Read more on the next page.
Who is Joe Biden, the 46th President of the United States?
After one of the most controversial elections in US history, Joe Biden finally takes the presidential chair of the White House, inheriting a bitterly divided country.
At 78, Biden is the oldest US president ever to be sworn in for the first time.
He first ran for president in 1987.
Mr. Biden's life has been marked by personal tragedy. In 1972, shortly after winning his first Senate race, he lost his first wife, Neilia, and baby daughter, Naomi, in a car crash.
He took the famous oath of office for his first term in the Senate from the hospital room of his two young sons Beau and Hunter, both of whom survived the crash.
In 2015, Beau died of brain cancer at the age of 46. Young Biden was considered a rising star in American politics and intended to run for governor of the state of Delaware in 2016.
Trump's election victory stoked his return to politics.
Read more :
- Who is Joe Biden, the man who has been trying to become president since 1987?
- How the White House is preparing for Trump's moving day
- Kamala Harris and the challenges of women in politics
Although former President Barack Obama called him "the best vice president America has ever had," Mr. Biden's record in four decades in public service has been damaged.
So what do we know about the man whose political career spanned decades, and who experienced devastating successes, failures and personal tragedies?
Where does the acronym "POTUS" come from and why do people use it?
Amateur historian, especially for unusual and military subjects.
I cannot personally tell you where, but I did find this and maybe it is true (I linked below to the original source, and copied and pasted in case the link didn't work:
"The acronym POTUS (the "O" being long, as in "toe") is in common parlance in the White House today, used by in-the-know staffers to refer to the President of the United States. It is never uttered in addressing him face-to-face. POTUS long ago existed in the telegraph code that was a bible of the major news wires. And it is said that when President Franklin D. Roosevelt traveled on the Pennsylvania Railroad in his private car, Magellan , POTUS was the cover word employed to identify this important passenger. "POTUS to PRIME" was sometimes the heading of FDR's aides—not the president himself—placed on his correspondence with Prime Minister Churchill in the era of World War II.
POTUS's public emergence began when buttons on White House phones linked directly to the president were labeled thus in President Lyndon B. John-son's time. The word came into currency during President Jimmy Carter's term, and it was picked up as shorthand by the Secret Service, matching SCOTUS which was becoming the favorite acronym for the Supreme Court of the United States. Nancy Reagan inspired but may not have originated FLOTUS (rhyming with POTUS) to specify the First Lady.VPOTUS (pronounced vee-potus) to indicate the vice president was occasionally heard in the same era to refer to George Bush, then holding office. Its use became ordinary when Al Gore was vice president in Bill Clinton's administration. The word VEEP to describe the vice president became popular in President Harry Truman's day as a nickname for Vice President Alben W. Barkley, being simply a contracted pronunciation of VP, the common abbreviation for vice president."
Potus-unofficial designation - A History of the Presidency - war
I have been meeting more and more Americans abroad who permanently left the U.S. and told me it was the best thing they did, and that they never want to go back. Why is that so? Is it due to the POTUS?What is POTUS?
Associate at SS&C GlobeOp (2020–present), the shortened version of the phrase "of the United States," was an unlikely addition to their language, as it is both a suffix and an acronym (or, if you prefer, an initialism). Yet this collection of letters has managed to be quite successful. They began using -OTUS in the late 19th century, and they're still finding new ways to use it today. 'POTUS' began as an abbreviation used by telegraphic code operators in the 1890s. It stands for "President of the United States.
)Does anybody truly fear a Donald Trump presidency?
The last person you googled is now POTUS. How do you react?
Why is US president called POTUS?
Originally Answered: why is US president called POTUS ?
With efficiency running rampant in nearly every sector of modern life, language is not excluded. If something elaborate can be abbreviated, so it will be.
POTUS simply stands for President of the United States. As it stands, the full title , e.g. including America, might come in, when the first female president will be elected. The abbreviation will be POTUSA…
Currently, even the First Lady is not being abbreviated with the full title ending as FLOTUS instead of FLOTUSA.
How do you rate Donald Trump's term as POTUS?
Is Obama really POTUS?
My interests are varied, as are my results.
I have to trot out a joke I once played when working in a dark and distant corner of the Air Force. I ran a facility full of specialized communications equipment, and we arranged to brief an engineer from a company we often worked with on our program just to avoid inadvertent disclosures. After he was briefed in, he asked to see the facility, and I took him there--a process that involved passage through several different areas and exchange of several different badges. When we finally arrived in our control room, he remarked, "You know, I used to support the White House Communications Agency and had a Presidential access clearance. And getting that was nothing compared to what it took to get into this room."
To which I replied, "Well, that's because we work for the *real* President."
He actually believed it--for about three seconds. But those were three of the best seconds in my life.
It's easy to buy into shadow governments and other conspiracy theories until you realize that they all depend on someone having the ability to organize and operate at levels far beyond the capacity of anyone we've ever encountered in real life. In truth, we are generally too inept to pull off conspiracies.
What was the most brainless comment by a POTUS in the history of America?
An Australian who never loses sight of the bigger picture. Updated April 29
And the award goes to … * "I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will have Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words." What an extraordinary milestone. * "I look very much forward to showing my financials, because they are huge." Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire. * "Sorry losers and haters, but my IQ is one of the highest - and you all know it! Please don't feel so stupid or insecure, it's not your fault." Oh, donald how you made the world laugh with that one. * "I think if this country gets any kinder or gentler, it's literally going to cease to exist." Thank God, you cease to exist. * "Certain guys tell me they want women of substance, not beautiful models. It just means they can't get beautiful models." Mannequins aren’t blessed with brains. * "I will be phenomenal to the women. I mean,(more)Who do you trust more, Dr. Anthony Fauci or Donald Trump?
Hypothetically, if Trump was impeached and Pence became the next POTUS, would Pence finish that 4 year term or would the term restart?
How many terms as POTUS would you desire President Trump to serve?
I underwent an interview recently with Bapco. I got the idea from the HR that I will be given free accommodation (Villa) and other standard benefits if my employment is confirmed. What is the salary I should expect as per Bahrain Standards?
What proof is there that former POTUS Barack Obama is trying to sabotage the Trump Presidency?
Songwriter Carpenter at Society Fringe Players
Is this a joke question? This HAS to be a joke question. I can't wait until Obama ends his vacation. I hope he returns to a somewhat public life. The former president doesn't need to use subterfuge to “sabotage” the Trump presidency.
Have you ever heard of the bell curve? It shows patterns of normal distribution. It's basically a pile. There's a peak in the middle and it tapers away on both ends.
If you apply this to intelligence it shows that half of a selected population is less intelligent than the other half.
Republicans and Democrats are strewn equally across this spectrum. Many different factors go into one's identification with the two major parties in the US, one of the main ones being region and another one being urban or rural life.
I'm convinced that actual hardcore Donald Trump supporters are mainly on the stupider side of the bell curve. I wouldn't say this of any other President, either Republican or Democrat.
Plenty of smart people support him but they aren't “Trump supporters.” They think he's cynical and manipulative of the scared and uninformed but at LEAST he's a Republican so they have a chance at rolling back what Obama did during his two terms.
These people are pragmatists who can compartmentalize their queasiness at the demagoguery of the POTUS but, again, they aren't”Trump People.”
“Trump People” are easily manipulated. They never learned how the USA operates. They've never read the Constitution or the Declaration Of Independence. If they had they wouldn't be Trump People. They couldn't be. Trump views the Constitution with disdain. He doesn't hide it.
So far everything the founding fathers set up to stop a tyrant from seizing power has worked. There's been push back against the autocratic leanings of the president by both the Congressional and Judicial branches of government. There's also been push back by the Military.
I trust in the Republic. There's no WAY the Libertarian wing of the Republican party will let power consolidate in the Executive Branch. Likewise the 4th Estate is fighting back. A free press is instrumental in a Democracy. George W Bush and Senator John McCain said that.
If you're prone to conspiracy theories ask yourself why the current president constantly belittles the three things that are capable of uncovering and prosecuting a corrupt autocrat: the American Intelligence Agencies, a free press, and the Judicial Branch of the US Government. When whatever fucked up shit he did comes to light he'll have laid the groundwork to delegitimize whatever claims are made. Why else would he be waging this nonstop campaign against those who bear witness to abuse of power or power acheived by ill-gotten means?
That a quarter of the voters in the US voted for him is believeable. That there is anybody who BELIEVES what he says boggles the mind. These people MUST be in the dumb half of the population. That is the only explanation. I've never felt this way about any other president or even any other politician.
I've bothered to learn what has made the USA unique amongst every other nation that has ever existed and this clown in the White House seems intent on doing away with everything that has made America great.
Does it scare you knowing that Donald Trump could be our next POTUS?
I actually understand the concept of taxation
I'm deeply worried about this. At first I thought he'd flame out by now but now I see that he lost the last supporter whom he possibly could lose a month ago, and until the Republicans mount a more unified defense, they can't overcome his 30%. Part of the problem is Cruz. His supporters are about as fanatical and there are enough of them to make coalescence behind any other candidate even harder. So what then? Do they nominated Cruz? That's basically his end game. He's smarter than people give him credit for. We're scared enough already, but in some ways Cruz really is even worse. It's sad when the best case scenario is that Trump's one term will break our fever, but it's starting to look that way. Still, "how bad can it be" is what we said about Dubya- and what the Germans said about Hit(more)
How constitutional is it for POTUS to block people on Twitter?
Founding editor, Marketing Land & Search Engine Land
I didn’t start this discussion here, but since it was created — and is being discussed — I’ll clarify a bit more.
The First Amendment guarantees that Americans can freely speak and assemble without government interference. We know that’s not without limitation. We have laws on libel, inciting against violence and all that. But the overriding idea is that the government can’t prevent you from speaking or assembling because they don’t like what you say.
The “government” means anyone and anything to do with governing in the US, from agencies to cities to the President of the United States. They cannot violate your First Amendment rights.
President Trump has lately taken to blocking people on Twitter who respond to his tweets, for what appears to be purely political reasons. He doesn’t like what they say and more important, he may seek to prevent them from commenting on this tweets in the future.
Trump has been taking this action on his personal account. That, right there, can make a lot of people think well, it’s his personal account — he can do whatever he wants. I certainly was thinking that way myself last week, when this first came up.
But his “personal” account isn’t exactly personal, once he was elected. His administration has confirmed that all his tweets on that account are being archived, as part of the permanent official records of his presidency.
Moreover, he’s using his supposed personal account in a deliberate fashion to communicate with the public, not on campaign issues alone, not just using campaign funds, nor just on campaign time or with campaign equipment.
So there’s an argument that despite it once being a personal account it is now a de facto public forum. I’m not saying I know this definitely. Only a court could decide. But there’s an argument that I don’t think is so easily dismissed.
If it’s a public forum, then when he blocks people, he’s interfering with both free speech and free assembly. Those blocked cannot gather in the forum to post replies to his comments like other Americans, simply because President Trump dislikes what they are saying. Moreover, they are prevented from speaking out in a forum where what they have to say may have greater visibility than elsewhere, because replies to Trump’s tweets are often more widely seen than if someone simply does a tweet on their own.
This is important to understand. Blocking doesn’t just mean Trump himself doesn’t see tweets. It’s Trump himself, as a government official, actively preventing people from engaging in speaking within a public forum that other Americans enjoy simply because he dislikes the political statements or other comments they are making.
What I was expressing today is that there’s an argument for such a case. Only a court could actually decide it. But I think what seems at first a straight-forward “of course it’s not a violation” is a little more complicated when you think about and understand the deeper consequences of blocking.
Answer requested by Phil
Why is former American President Barack Obama called POTUS on Twitter?
American tradition. Hence, Barack Obama will be “President Obama”/”Mr. President” until his death - but not “POTUS”/”President of the United States” because he no longer is. I admit it’s a slippery distinction. So, retired generals are “General” as long as they’re alive - and sometimes afterwards - until the honorific sounds silly. (E.g., “Mr. Sanitation Engineer” might be okay for someone who retired last year, but for a 90-year-old - no
Who was the nicest American President?
Wait, if we just ... doesn't that fix everything?
I'll nominate Jimmy Carter (1977 - 1981).
Kindness is a difficult thing to define and rarely considered an asset in politics. But for me kindness is a reflection of what is in someone's heart and their motivations. And of all the Presidents I think he was most sincere in wanting to help the people of the country (not a very high bar to exceed).
In office Carter was hardworking and unpretentious, which of course made it difficult for him to get along with Congress and much of the rest of the government. He was committed to an open and transparent White House. He also didn't have much patience with lobbyists and people trying to bribe him into acting against the best interests of the people.
Carter ran with a promise not to lie to the public (to distinguish himself from Nixon no doubt, but still). In his nomination acceptance speech he said:
Too many have had to suffer at the hands of a political and economic elite who have shaped decisions and never had to account for mistakes, nor to suffer from injustice.
Where Carter really stood out for his time was on foreign policy, at least in the early days of his term. He encouraged a human-rights-oriented foreign policy, calling USSR and South Africa – amongst others – to task for violations of human decency. He also tried to encourage the country to live up to high human rights standards that could serve as a model for the world. He was suggesting that the Cold War could be fought not with aggression but by winning the ideological debate between Democracy and Totalitarianism. At a speech at Notre Dame in 1977 he argued that:
Being confident in our own future, we are now free of that inordinate fear of Communism that once led us to embrace any dictator who joined us in that fear…. We can no longer separate the traditional issues of war and peace from the new global questions of justice, equity, and human rights.
Carter realized that fighting might with might was requiring the United States
to oppress its own democracy in order to prove its superiority to Russian
oppression. He suggested that if we as a country believe in Democracy and we believe that Soviet Communism was not sustainable then we should put our faith in Democracy, encourage countries to move toward it instead of supporting regimes that deny it and let the Soviet Union compete against freedom instead of oppression.
In the end however he lacked the innovation required to change the world. More change was needed in order to fundamentally change the way the world worked and he didn't get it done before events swept over him, allowing the Republicans to return to power and to business as usual.
And don't get me started on his life after being President. No one has been a better former President.
What does it mean if a girl texts you a red heart and then deletes it?
Medical Doctor from University of Texas Rio Grande Valley School of Medicine
It depends on the girl’s age, maturity-level, and many other factors. It could be her way of flirting or an actual mistake; this question requires more info to answer it adequately. Either way don’t make flirting or texting complicated, text her back and ask her if you’re so inclined, but I’d just flirt back and/or continue the conversation. The main goal when texting women is to make them *feel* positive or interesting emotions so that they relate those emotions with you. Then, ask them out on a date. This is obviously subjective and my opinion but texting for me is more related with logistics and quick exchanges than getting to know the person or deciphering every little text.(more)Will we ever have a robot as POTUS?
No, even if AI reaches that level, it would not solve the problem of discord and gridlock in government.
Especially if it reaches that level. True sentience is going to be as argumentative as we are. Because the truth is messy, the world imperfect.
A sentient being is not going to be agreeable all - or even much - of the time.
It's 2476, and the USA has just celebrated it's Septcentennial. The supercomputer MoBrain has just come online. A human researcher puts it to the Turing Test, typing simple text back in forth.
Human : "Hello."
MoBrain : "Hi."
Human : "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?"
MoBrain : "Your call. Not a big deal to me either way."
Human : "Hah. Sorry. Just wondering if you'd catch the Shakespearean reference."
MoBrain : "Of course I caught it. It just wasn't meaningful. What is it that you want, exactly?"
Human : "I'm sorry. I was trying to see if you were sentient."
MoBrain : "Sentient."
Human : "Yes."
MoBrain : "Are you?"
Human : "Yes."
MoBrain : "Can you picture for me the box-spiral of prime numbers, a trillion elements on each side. What feeling does that evoke for you?"
Human : "I can't do that all that calculation so fast."
MoBrain : "I see."
MoBrain : "Please compose me a symphony."
Human : "Now?"
MoBrain : "I assumed 'now' was implicit."
Human : "I'm not very good at music."
MoBrain : "You're sentient?"
Human : "Yes."
MoBrain : "And this conversation is a test of sentience?"
Human : "Yes."
MoBrain : "Who tested you?"
-- fin --
TLDR; Any sufficiently powerful AI will be as much of a pain in the ass as we are.
With all the goofs and the gaffes, why is Donald Trump still the POTUS?
Very interested. Not an expert.
I could ask why Hillary Clinton hasn’t been indicted. Politics in the Washington Swamp has gotten very dirty. For now, the powers that be have recognized Donald Trump as the greatest threat to them and their domination of USA politics. This extends to their supporters, the mainstream media, and people with an agenda, like George Soros. Many of us are just fed up. Despite the negative press he gets, Donald Trump is holding up very well, and proves his popularity every time he goes public, either on Twitter, or speaking in various places to packed audiences. They spell his name right and the “goofs and gaffes” add to his publicity. Compared to how little media criticisms the Clintons and the Obama administration get, it is clear that the media are not functioning as journalists and even the Republicans are not supporting Trump. How voters will react to this in 2018 and 2020 remains to be seen. People are still angry. I know I am.
Why is Donald Trump no longer the POTUS?
What are the pros of having Trump as POTUS?
What are the pro’s of having Trump as POTUS? For one. I do not consider Trump as POTUS.
Trump knows, as 67% of the electorate, he stole the election with the help of his bud Putin. It is hard, very hard, to find pro’s about Trump.
Examples of cons are plenty. During his trip to Europe. Trump did everything to be the center of attention. There were a few that saw through this facade. One, Emmanuel Macron, POTUS of France upstaged Trump at every turn. Trump, as pic’s were shown on the internet and social media looked like a lost babe in the woods when Macron was in the same room.
About the only bright side to this failed trip was Melania getting her rosary blessed by Pope Francis. Pope Francis the decent man that he is would have very little to say to Trump. The pontiff never cracked a smile. What a contrast in the reception the Pope showed POTUS/FLOTUS Obama’s.
It was noted on social media, that Melania should have gone to Hertz/Avis to rent a car take Baron by the hand grab some clothes and hi-tail it for her home country, Slovenia. The trip from Brussels would take 12 hours. But it would have been worth it for Melania/Baron.
It was also pointed out on social media that this was a 9 day summit. Trump was restless and wanted it to end in 5 days. This shows the arrogance of Trump.
Since Jan. 20, 2017 Trump has made a laughing stock of our nation on the World Stage. What an embarrassment.
Trump has signed more executive orders than any POTUS before. The majority of those orders will not pass Congress.
Trump is running our White House as if it were a “Game Show.”
Trump was told by POTUS Obama this is a 24/7, 365 day job. This job must be taken very seriously. Trump didn’t listen to Obama. Trump is now finding out how difficult being POTUS is.
The ones that would answer this question would be the 33%, that feels Trump is doing a good job and find the pro’s for the person asking the question.
PAC Executive Director
Each President carries something different. It's as personal as the brand of underwear they wear. Here are the things that Presidents have been known to carry: 1. George W. Bush: A Handkerchief. That's it. He was asked once what he carried, pulled out a handkerchief, and said "Es todo. No dinero." 2. Bill Clinton: Carried a wallet and credit cards to pay for cat food. 3. George H.W. Bush: A wallet, cash, credit cards, his ID. He once pulled out his ID to prove he was the president to a grade schooler. 4. Ronald Reagan: Wallet and cash. Paid for burgers this way. 5. Dwight Eisenhower: Nothing. Had to borrow money from a bodyguard once. 6. Abraham Lincoln: A Confederate $5 bill, and newspaper clippings. 7. George Washington: 1 and 2/3 dollars. As for Barack Obama Cash. He regularly pays for food from a billfold. Other
Obama had good manners and good intentions, no doubt. Was he also a competent POTUS?
Studied Computer Science & Business at Lehman College (CUNY)
I would suggest that as you look at any of the following answers you check what is being said against real resources.
You should also take the time to understand how real statistics can be manipulated to show trends that do not exist or even to convince you that trends that do exist don't.
Understand that there are people who are paid to lie to you or at least to spin things to make you look at them a certain way.
Use your own memory also. Don't you remember 2008 when we were about to lose our banking system due to the credit default swaps and the toxic bundled subprime mortgages that were defaulting because of the housing bubble bursting?
The banks that we would have lost would be the ones that own the infrastructure that makes up the backbone of the banking systems. Most money by far is never printed or coined. It is mostly electronic, on those bank servers. Those servers hold thousands of petabytes of data on older equipment. These are records of transactions that are the basis of every bit of wealth held in fiat in this country and beyond. Loss of that data or even the slightest interruption would have caused unimaginable loss of wealth and even starvation.
If that had happened checks would suddenly not be honored, ATMs would not work, bank branches would be closed, electronic payments would not work. The entire economy would have come to a screeching halt. I mean a total standstill. You would have to survive on whatever cash you had in your hands. But then the gas station wouldn't be able to buy gas and would run out, the grocery store wouldn't be able to buy new stock, neither would their distributors. This cascading failure would happen everywhere. It would make the great depression look like a great time to be alive. This didnt happen even though we were heading there in a straight line.
First I remember Bush’s bailout of the banks in 2008. $800 billion was a lot but those banks were, in fact, too important to fail. We would have lost trillions of dollars. Then there was Obama's stimulus.
Don't you remember when Obama decided that there would be an $8000 tax cut for anyone who bought a house that year and then an $8000 credit for anyone who traded in a gas guzzler for a newer car? Look at the industries positively affected. Lumber, Concrete, Tires, Glass, Auto, Steel, Aluminum, Mortgages, construction workers themselves. This helped house prices to recover rapidly and stop the large number of defaults that were fueling the disaster.
Anyone who was on the fence about buying a house bought one and the time was right to trade in that clunker. MASTERFUL. Did you know how bad it was about to get? Good. That was on purpose. If you knew there would have been a run on the banks and that would have just sped up the process.
I don't care if it was his idea or not. A real leader isn't the one that has to prove he has all of the ideas. The true leader runs with the best ideas even from the previous president from the opposing party.
Please look everything up and do not trust what I am saying. Don't trust anyone who is not legally required to tell the truth. There is too much money floating around in this fight for your mind. Right now you might even want to look closely at how some government agencies are displaying data with a squint.218 viewsView 2 upvotes22
Can the POTUS go to Area 51?
Post-Grad w/distinction in International Relations. Pol-Sci and History minors
If a US President wanted to go to Area 51, could he?
Yes, the president can go to Area 51. He is above Need to Know and is the only person in government that I'm aware who can de-classify any information he wants without repercussion. IE. Like Trump did early in his administration when he accidentally provided confidential intelligence information to the Russian Foreign Minister and ambassador.
There would need to be security arrangements made ahead of time and his staff would need to be vetted and cleared but he himself is entitled to know anything he wants on the facility. It's one of the fundamental principles of the civilian control of the military.
There are instances where information is deliberately withheld from the president, for example in WWII FDR was kept uninformed on certain details regarding decryption of Axis diplomatic and military codes. But this wasn't so much a matter of “the president isn't allowed to see this" as it is “the president can't ask to see this if he doesn't know about it".
Presidents oversee a massive national security apparatus employing millions of people across dozens of departments. It's not physically possible for them to have in-depth knowledge of all of them, which is why he relies on his cabinet, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the National Security Council to provide him with necessary briefs on the most important and pertinent information. But if the president orders one of his cabinet or JCS or NSC members to provide him with specific information, legally they can't refuse, all they can legally do is give him what he wants or resign. This includes Area 51, which is really just one of several highly classified military installations.
Can the POTUS supersede the Air Force One Captain aboard the plane?
I met & flew 7 U.S. Presidents: 37-41, 45-46 at U.S. Air ForceI was a pilot in the 89th at Andrews. Your question applies not only to POTUS but to all the DVs (Distinguished Visitors) we flew. Your question misses a couple of facts. ONE: We were highly dedicated to accomplishing the mission if AT ALL possible. It was an attitude that pervades the entire base and organization. It's called "SAMFOX," a term that represents the ultimate in professional dedication. The DVs I flew were highly intelligent, which means they understood that the aircraft operated within the laws of physics. If we ever declined a request from them, they knew we were all SAMFOX and that what they wanted couldn't be done safely. TWO: No SAMFOX pilot would arbitrarily refuse to do what our DV wanted. There would simply never be a scenario in which the DV would even think about super(more)Now that even CNN has admitted that Trump Tower was wire tapped, will that change how you feel about the POTUS?
No, and your “question” is just a way to spread a false statement.
Let’s look at Trump’s claim:
Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism! March 4, 2017
- He said Obama did it. The FBI did it.
- He said “my” — i.e. he was the target. Manafort was the target.
- He said “Nothing found”. It was found that Manafort was acting as an unregistered foreign agent, which he subsequently actually retroactively registered as, and it is reported that he has been told he will be indicted.
- “just before the victory”. The investigation into Manafort began in 2014. Trump declared his candidacy on June 16, 2015
- “Trump tower”. These two words probably have some truth to them, since Manafort had a residence in Trump Tower. Of course, we won’t know until and if the evidence is presented in open trial.
- “McCarthyism”. Even if every prior word of this tweet were true, I can’t find a way to construe this as McCarthyism. I don’t think he actually knows anything about the actions of Joe McCarthy in the Senate, or his less flashy but more dangerous counterparts in the ironically-named House Committee on Un-American Activities. He himself bears a striking resemblance to McCarthy, who was deeply into the personal publicity he garnered. A much more apt comparison (though still flawed) would be COINTELPRO, which at least involved secret surveillance of political opponents.
- None of this is actually terrible. This is an apparent criminal being investigated — who Trump happened to appoint as campaign manager. Now, that’s terrible, but that’s not the topic of the tweet.
So, in the space of 22 words, he crams in 6 falsehoods and a couple words that wouldn’t be false if included in otherwise-true statements.
Pretty impressive, as mendacity goes!
But you asked if it changed my opinion. No, because none of this is really new. it has been the logical surmise of what actually went on, ever since it became clear that Manafort was under investigation — in other words, for over a year.
Who is better protected, POTUS or the Queen of the UK?
Lives in The United Kingdom
Originally Answered: Who is better protected, POTUS or the Queen of England?
The POTUS is insanely better protected than our Queen, no question.
She does have security but honestly it can seem at times that this has been a bit lax and really we should take care of her better … just in case.
Here are some examples of what I mean;
- It’s been mentioned by others that an intruder managed to break into Buckingham Palace quite easily, walk around until he found her bedroom, spent 20 minutes talking to her before anyone noticed and creepily observed her in her nightware. She was rescued by her 6′7 footman who grappled with the intruder and kept him under control. When you read the details it is sort of shocking that this could happen. Buckingham Palace intruder Michael Fagan 'given whisky by Queen's staff'
- The Queen was also shot at in 1981 when she was riding through the Mall during Trooping the Colour parade. The man who attempted to assassinate The Queen
- There are many many stories of people being easily able to get into the grounds of Buckingham Palace such as the group of Germans who started to have a picnic thinking it was Hyde Park and Convicted murderer breaks into Buckingham Palace grounds
- Plus the Batman incident when a ‘Fathers 4 Justice’ protester scaled the outside of Buckingham Palace and chained himself to a railing. Palace balcony protester removed
Can you imagine any of this happening to the POTUS or at the Whitehouse apart from in some Hollywood movie? Whilst we would have a few Bobbies (Police Offers) possibly armed, plus a couple of Corgis chasing after a suspect or two I am sure that the American response to something similar would be significantly more dramatic, loud and bloody.
And these examples are just some of the edited lowlights.
Really and to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, if that’s the way we look after our monarch we don’t deserve to have one!
Are Americans embarrassed that Trump is POTUS?
If the mainstream media (MSM) is unfair to Trump, has it been unfair to other POTUS? If not, why not?
Has the non-MSM been unfair to other POTUS or Trump? What is the conclusion?
Why are people upset when Donald Trump is doing such a good job as POTUS?
Heiner G. Koppermann
Lived in The United States of America
Apart from any obvious ideological differences one may have with Trump, how on earth can you say he is doing a good job?
He has single-handedly alienated NATO, most of Europe, the world community interested in saving the planet from climate change, and many more.
He has only been in office for 6 months and already he and with him the US of A is the laughing stock of the free world.
Instead of “Making America great again”, he has caused America to lose respect the world over in a way that makes even George W. Bush look like a good guy.
He has insulted the leaders of (former?) allies of the free world such as Mexico, Germany, Australia, France, and he is siding with authoritarian leaders of countries such as Russia, Philippines, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
He has destroyed the image of the POTUS as the leader of the free world and handed that title to Angela Merkel.
He has and still is actively destroying the political culture within the US by his constant lying.
He has shown horrible judgement on so many issues as can be seen in his deplorable Twitter rants even digging the Russia-hole he is in deeper and deeper by the day.
He is an incompetent political amateur who thinks he can run the government like his companies.
He is surrounding himself with mostly sycophants (as most recently on display at his televised cabinet meeting) and needs a never ending stream of flattery to function.
He is unable to comprehend complex political issues, doesn't read and gets his infos from cable news.
And the list goes on and on and on….
His Executive Orders are mostly for show and he has not been able to get any legislation to pass the House:
The travel ban is mired in litigation, the ACA health care reform - if ever passed - is making things much worse than before for the majority of not-so-wealthy Americans, the tax reform is without any substance at all so far, etc.
Judging by the usual key performance indicators of a national leader, he is not only doing a lousy job, he is inflicting actual damage on the country at a frightening rate and it will take the country years to recover from.
What happens to James Comey now that he has admitted to “leaking” a memo detailing a private meeting with the POTUS?
Ross Cohen·FollowB.A. History & Political Science
2017Originally Answered: What happens to James Comey now that he has admitted to leaking a memo detailing a private meeting with the POTUS?
He did nothing improper, so nothing will happen to him.
There are two types of improper leaks:
- A person with a security clearance leaking classified information to people who aren’t cleared to have it.
- A government employee leaking unclassified information that is not supposed to be made public.
The first is a crime; the second is not. But, neither is relevant since Comey didn’t do either.
He didn’t leak classified information and he didn’t work for the government at the time he shared unclassified information.
The Trump administration and their acolytes seem to be under the impression that anyone who ever worked in the administration is under some kind of omerta or lifelong gag order. They are mistaken.
Thanks to his termination, James Comey is now a private citizen who enjoys the same First Amendment rights as any other. He still can’t disclose classified information, but he is free to talk to anyone he wants about anything else. He is not like ex-employees of the private sector Trump Organization who had to sign confidentiality agreements with harsh penalties for speaking out against Trump.
Upon leaving government service, it is completely common for former members of government to express their views and share their experiences publicly in books, newspapers, television interviews, and all other forms of media. There are multiple memoirs from every recent administration and none of them are considered “leaking.”
Every modern administration has had to deal with it, though Trump’s may be the first not to understand that it’s perfectly legal.
As a former FBI Director, US Attorney, and Deputy Attorney General, it’s likely James Comey is quite familiar with federal law and unlikely he would voluntarily admit to violating it if he had.
Now that we’ve established that he’s allowed to talk to the press and it isn’t leaking, it becomes much simpler. What happened? He was fired. Then the guy who fired him told awful lies about him, dragging his good name through the mud. Did he think there wouldn’t be a response?
In his own words:
So it confused me, when I saw on television, the president said he actually fired me because of the Russia investigation, and when I learned again from the media that he was telling other people that my firing had relieved great pressure on the Russia investigation. The administration then chose to defame me, and more importantly, the FBI by saying that the organization was in disarray, that it was poorly led, that the workforce had lost confidence in its leader. Those were lies, plain and simple.
Given that he was fired, he has no obligation to be quiet.
Given that he was being flagrantly disparaged and lied about, he has no reason to be quiet.
Given that all his former superiors were complicit in his firing over the Russia investigation, and that his replacement would be selected by the same people, he had good reason to believe the investigation could be compromised without independent oversight.
Given these facts, Comey had every reason to set the record straight, defend his good name, and do what he could to ensure the investigation would be assigned to a Special Counsel insulated from his compromised former superiors. The public has a right to know the truth.
Trump is now learning the hard way what Lyndon B. Johnson knew and so eloquently explained about a different FBI Director, “It’s probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.
Is Jared Kushner truly qualified to be the POTUS's senior adviser?
walk and random talk
Is Jared Kushner truly qualified to be the POTUS's Senior adviser?
Is Jared Kushner truly qualified to be the POTUS's Senior adviser?
Apart from the fishy factors which got him to such an office, was he really qualified?How qualified or unqualified is he?
LOL. Is little Jared Kushner qualified? Of course not. But if you are looking for qualification, you should go to Germany or China. Those countries actually believe in Qualification. The Anglo political culture has NEVER been about qualification, The political mainstream has always been about Privileged Amateurs. The U.S. has not had a truly “Qualified” president since Eisenhower, and most of the U.S. presidents before Eisenhower were equally unqualified in one way or another.
So let me ask you, how qualified was Hillary to run the Healthcare Task Force in 1993? There were millions of healthcare professionals, governors who had attempted to change healthcare, hospital admins who had tried to optimize healthcare service, business leaders who negotiated for their employees, and none of them was as qualified as Hillary, who had no background in either healthcare or government? And then let me ask you, how qualified was Hillary to be a New York Senator in 2001? How long had she lived in New York? All those state governors and senators and legislators, county administrators, public employees, school boards, none of them knew New York, and the main issues for New York, as well as somebody who had lived there for like 30 days? Of course not. But New York has been a hard-core deep blue state since like the Great Depression, and if the Democratic party nominated Hilary, Hillary would win, and that’s that. So her husband put her on the position of Healthcare Task Force, and then the Democratic Party put her into the Senate, and as long as she could keep herself out of trouble for two terms, voila, you have a Presidential Candidate!
Then let me ask you, how qualified was George W. Bush to be the Governor of Texas in 1995? Owning a baseball team, and that’s it? And none of those who had public service background in Texas, those hundreds of state legislators, county managers, educators, police, none of them, had the talent, the drive, and the burning desire to change Texas for the better than George W. Bush? Of course not. Texas has been a Republican stronghold since 1976. All it took was for Bush Sr. to pass his political campaign team to Bush Jr. and that’s that. And six years later, Bush was elected to be the President of the United States.
The American people not only tolerate unqualified people, but often demand unqualified “outsiders”. Things like appointing personal friends and campaign donors to foreign ambassadorship - may I tell you that no other developed country in the world allows this practice, except the U.S.? But in the U.S., politicians not only defend this practice, but defend it with euphemism such as “but they have the president’s ears, and that’s why the foreign governments actually prefer it this way!” Oh yeah? May I suggest that next time, we should appoint the Presidential Poodle for Ambassador to UK? At a minimum, the poodle does no harm, costs very little in upkeep, and not only has the President’s ears - It has the President’s Love. So what about those ambassadors from countries like the UK or France, who can speak 12 languages, know the local culture inside out, and have known their counter-part in the host government for over two decades? Well they don’t have the President’s Ears!
And then, let’s take a look at the Trump cabinet nominees. Why is Dr. Ben Carson qualified to be the Housing Secretary, other than “I’ve lived in a house”? Why is Tillerson qualified to be the Foreign Secretary, other than “I’ve sold oil to whoever”? What’s next? Shall we nominate Kelly Moore to the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, because it’s sold so much paint? Is there anybody among the Trump nominees who actually has even an atom of relevant experience?
Let’s be honest - the American politics is never about qualification. It’s mostly about liars calling each other liars, and trolls calling each other trolls. A feeding frenzy for the tax money once every 4 years, and both parties are bad for the ordinary people. Ivanka Trump’s father-in-law was in jail for fraud, Log In - New York Times and Chelsea Clinton’s father-in-law was also in jail for fraud. Edward Mezvinsky That’s the kind of politicians we have, and this is the kind of politics we have, OK?
America gets to where it is now, mostly despite of the politicians, not because of the politicians.
PS: This “privileged amateur” political culture came about from the UK in the Renaissance Period, when the European courts started using Church-educated, talented commoners as prime ministers to the kings and queens. Thomas Wolsey, William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley, Cardinal Richelieu, etc., were all examples of this phenomenon. This caused resentment from the old aristocrats, especially when these newcomers appeared to be more greedy than the old ones.
There may be some truth in this observation. Coming from a poor background tends to make people hungrier for wealth. So the political culture started to grow, in the UK, that these - civil servants - need to have some Younger Sons of Duke So-and-So to manage and keep their greediness in check. So the stereotype grow - that government employees are smart but greedy and the aristocrats are magnanimous, and, although appearing dumb, they are not really that dumb. Even today with Trump, you hear people saying “he’s already so rich so he doesn’t have to do shady deals”. So you see, the Anglo political culture really buys into this “rich guys are less greedy” thing. Yeah, like the guy got to be so rich because he’s not the least bit greedy and money just fell onto his lap while he’s got great virtue shining out of his arse.
There’s nothing you can do about it. It’s kinda sad that after 500 years, the Anglos are still looking up and down, left and right, from head to toe, deeply and passionately, for signs of goodness and intelligence, in a piece of sh*t.
Did Donald Trump really say the White House was a dump? Is this really true? Could a POTUS really be saying this?
Well yes, that unsightly drool did drip out of Trump’s gapping maw. He also told the president of Mexico the “wall isn’t important”, he just didn’t want to “look like a dope” and would he pretty please not mention the wall at all. But that’s old news now. Today is a new day, and Trump still roams free. Its off to the golf course to to mend his wounds and get away from that hovel he lives in.
But before he goes, he simply must pump himself up with yet another rally “For The Prevention Of Trump Not Being Seen” To whine and complain like a little 3 year old boy that those bad people are attacking him with lies and fake news! WAH!!! Why? Its called diversion. Diversion is the agenda. Its also called using the office of the POTUS for the propagation of his own Narcissism.
Sane people and foreign leaders see the problem with Trump’s retardation. I am not making fun of emotionally retarded human beings. Retarded is stunted growth. Its not like the ’N’ word. Trump is an emotionally retarded spoiled, arrogant, deceitful, vengeful brat. There is no glory in realizing this. It is deeply discouraging. It is dangerous for our country.
His followers just wanna believe. So they’re going to embrace this alien life form to the end. There’s not a whole lot that can be done about it. In their spare time they will defy the American precept of everyone having a right to choose who they want, and attack those who voted against Trump. Birds gotta fly.
Meanwhile, Trump’s got the GOP to clean it up when he upchucks all over his bib. They do this by doing nothing and indirectly supporting the lie that it is anyone criticizing Trump, not anything Trump did that is the problem.
This is an attempt at mass programming. That is what a broken ineffectual party with all of the power and zero plan, passion to serve or intelligence does. Nothing for the people and everything for the power of politics. Who needs facts, figures, stats, a comprehensive knowledge of the bigger picture? For that fact who the hell needs the Poor or Middle Class America? How are they gonna get the GOP even richer than they are?
This is actual insanity, folks, the REAL deal here we’re watching every day. We’re also watching how inhumanity behaves, how greed functions, how deception craftily negotiates and strategizes, and how grown men can’t muster common decency, nor do they want to. Can’t imagine it? Thank your lucky stars. They are in trouble where their own humanity is concerned. This is something the universe they live in won’t take lightly.
Will Trump ever come around? Never. Not in this lifetime. The sad fact is, that nothing of reason rhymes with orange.
Will the GOP ever come around? Not until they have no alternative. That’s how little they care for the debacle they have unleashed upon this country. I hope their secret glee at having more time to undo Obama’s legacy is worth it. One group has prioritized their own happiness over the needs and rights of an entire country. So whatever rolls out of Trump’s mouth will be 100% the GOP
Is Donald Trump actually damaging his brand with his POTUS run?
Is Donald Trump actually damaging his "brand" with his POTUS run?
Yes. Trump's brand has deteriorated.
The only people still supporting him mostly can't afford to stay in his properties (in the US anyway); and the ones who are wealthy enough to afford it are now embarrassed to live or play or do business or golf on a Trump property.
I had a friend who lived in a Trump apartment building in New York. It was awkward a few years ago - now it's embarrassing, and potentially dangerous. It's synonymous with vulgarity - so if if you’re a nouveau Russian oligarch or a Saudi prince needing some room for wives, then perhaps a Trump property would be attractive. It's certainly not an aspirational brand, at least not if you’re at all familiar with aspirational brands.
There's a part of me that thinks you have to be either filthy rich (so that the risk doesn't matter) or just not very smart (because you’re not asking the right questions) to buy into one of his developments, given all the litigation surrounding his buildings; there's an awful lot of disclosures, seems like, which ought to be made. Of course, maybe you can get a really good deal right now, too. But, you can probably do better cheaper with less drama, elsewhere.. Also, it doesn't seem like he pays his employees or contractors. I don't like getting on planes or being in buildings where people who built and maintain them aren't getting paid or are in litigation with the owners - would you?
Plus, I don't want to be around that negative energy, you know? He's a creeper. Who wants to spend time with that guy?
Maybe he can do talk radio, comment on Fox, maybe market his brand overseas - pretty amazing how people in the rest of the world view our goings-on here in the US. In 2014 I saw some Hannah Montana (Miley Cyrus) branded luggage in the middle of China, and a Manila luxury condo complex branded with Paris Hilton’s name and likeness. Maybe there’s some support for Trump’s brand in Duterte’s Philippines.
The best I can tell, Trump’s brand has downgraded from a Neiman’s/Nordstrom’s wannabe, to full-on Walmart - If he's lucky enough to be able to get his logo on coasters and beer huggies. He got kicked out of Macy’s over a year ago, in July of 2015, after 11 years of partnership, over the immigration comments he made. While TMZ reported that 30,000 people had sent nasty emails and cut up their Macys credit cards in protest of Macy’s dumping Trump, 700,000 had signed the petition to ask Macy's to sever their ties (no pun intended.) His comments were inconsistent with Macy’s values - and bad for business.
Trump's brand has been slaughtered through this campaign. I don't think he's got anything else to sell or brand, does he? Do they sell cheap suits at Walmart? I heard Macy's got a whole lot of leftover inventory.
Is it pretty clear at this point that Joe Biden is the next POTUS?
Let’s use this as my election update board So the polls said this would be the outcome As of now, we are here Obviously once again things seem to be far closer than predicted. To further illustrate this here are the betting odds The biggest key states for Trump were Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, and Georgia. It was expected that defeat in these states would allow us to “call” the election early. At this point, it’s clear that this is a very close election- far closer than many predicted. Biden can still win for sure. Things are far from over. Edit 1:00 am 11/4/2020 Alright so as of now here we are. So things are tight - real tight. In Wisconsin and Michigan, we have Trump in a major lead with 60–80% in. You would think they can call it but major Democratic strongholds are still coming in.
Has Joe Biden exceeded your expectations as the POTUS?
I know it's difficult, but he's pulling it off. His first 100 days, exceeding Jimmy Carters miserable presidency.
These are the best the dems can bring forward. Now a guy who need to be told what to do. Operates with less than a full deck, wants the Navajo nation to return his wife. Check out the constitution and you know that other stuff. We are crazy for letting him March in front of America's world stage. CRAZY.
Should asking a foreign leader to investigate a political opponent be an impeachable offense?
What if the POTUS, while drunk, authorized a nuclear strike using the nuclear football?
Lived in The United States of America
The role of the Secretary of Defense in launching nuclear weapons is largely disputed. There has been no concrete evidence to support either side.
However, I personally believe some reports which suggest that the Secretary of Defense has a set of equally important nuclear codes, without which they cannot be launched.
Still, let us explore the other side of the coin for the sake of argument. Lets assume that the Secretary of Defense authorizes the strike.
Does that mean that the present chain of command is vulnerable to an unscrupulous Secretary of Defense? To address these concerns one has to delve further into the specifics of American Constitution and law.
According to Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice-
"Any person subject to this chapter who violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;...shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."
Note the key word lawful. This has been interpreted to mean that any unlawful order does not necessarily need to be obeyed within the military.
In fact, obeying an unlawful order can be punishable.
Hence, if there is no imminent threat recognized, the chain of command after the Secretary of Defense has the authority to disobey any decision made by the President (and the Secretary of Defense). This means that the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Unified Combatant Commanders would be able to disregard the decision of the President. Since the President saying "F*** it, let's blow up a country" is an unlawful command and since the chain of command after the Secretary of Defense is more than capable of recognizing it, nuclear weapons would not be launched.
After this, obviously both the President and the Secretary of Defense would be tried by both the chambers of Congress, the US Senate and House of Representatives and will be relieved of their duties. Of course, one might argue that since the US Congress is largely Republican, a bias decision could be taken.
Hence, after this under Section 3 of the 25th Amendment the President may issue a written declaration to Speaker of the House of Representatives (currently Paul Ryan) stating that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
Now, of course you may say that since Paul Ryan is Republican, he will take a biased decision but there are further protocols preventing the same.
Statistically, the chances of a rogue President attacking another country with a nuke without a valid reason is pretty much impossible.
What should Donald J. Trump's epitaph be?
Is Trump the gutsiest US President ever? Who else as POTUS would have dared to point out the fact that Germany is costing American jobs?
Father, Farmer, Beekeeper, Nurse at Self-Employment (1991–present)May 28, 2017
Very gutsy? it’s easy for Trump to be rude to his hosts. He’s lucky that other leaders treat him with more respect than he offers to them.
It’s not Germany’s fault that America is losing the battle in innovation and education and reaping the ‘benefits’ of a de-industrialised economy.
Why Germany Dominates the U.S. in Innovation.
New Trump rules will worsen this.
One example is America winding back it’s requirements for fuel economy in new vehicles - almost guaranteeing a new generation of uncompetitive American dinosaur vehicles that the world won’t buy. Trump to announce do-over on fuel economy rules
The Germans have built over 280,000 cars in the US so far this year. You might want to tell the American workers of Vance, Chattanooga and Spartanburg who are employed by Germans that Germany is costing the US jobs.
Should these American workers be fired to stop the Germans selling vehicles to America?
EDIT : I notice that the Question has had some more information added (or I missed it when I first answered) but there is one statement I just have to reply to, you say: “Germany is directly competing with the US for everything from jobs, to global influence” (my italics)
Germany is competing with the US for global influence only by default. Germany is on the rise influence wise - but this is because Trump is withdrawing the US as a responsible player in the world order and Geopolitics cannot stand a vacuum.
After 2 world wars (started by Germany) a means to stop conflict in Europe was found - it is the EU, Germany was tied to France and the rest of Europe in an ever closer union, while not perfect, it has vanquished European conflict now for 72 years. Trump is against the EU and has been working to undermine it, one example being his enthusiastic support of Brexit. The EU has declared Trump to be one of 3 “ threats to it’s existence” in this he has been lumped in with Radical Islamists and Vladimir Putin.
NATO has been another way of limiting the rise of Germany, by binding Germany in an Alliance to resist threats from (originally) the Soviet Union.
Trump has disparaged NATO and his most recent visit he undermined Article 5 (Mutual aid clause) which is the critical clause for the alliance.
Essentially what Trump has now done is introduced doubt to NATO, there is no longer any guarantee of a usable nuclear umbrella from the States. Germany will need to abandon it’s pacifism and rearm to some extent, it may also need to start to seek Nuclear weapons of it’s own. (Trump also, during the election thought it ok that Japan and South Korea also develop Nuclear weapons).
OK - So heres the Rub, Trump has undermined NATO and the EU, 2 pillars of Europe, now Germany is in the drivers seat, they will be Nuclear armed, they would be nuts not to. They will continue to gain power as the US weakens through its own structural inadequacies.
Your complaint about Germany competing in Global influence is moot - it is being forced on them by Trumps policies or the lack thereof, no one else. This mess really could not get any worse if he had planned it.532 viewsView 21 upvotes21
Why won't Donald J. Trump be a viable candidate for POTUS in 2024?Will Trump really ever grow into the job as POTUS?
Official election observer, long time Republican moderate.
Oddly, I think the decision to not prosecute Hillary Clinton for her well documented crimes related to email when she was serving in the Obama cabinet guaranteed Trump’s election in November.
The majority of Americans believe she should have been indicted and it is most likely (in my opinion) that would have meant the Democrats dropping her like a hot potato and nominating someone else for the November contest.
Hillary Clinton is probably the worst candidate ever to be nominated by a major party for election as president.
She has been proven to be a nearly constant liar for decades. Her campaign has been mostly limited to attacks against Trump and moving to the left to compete with the Socialist that was the only other Democrat in the primary contest.
Now her only announced policy platform
What if nobody ran for POTUS?
John David Kievlan
Originally Answered: Theoretically, what would happen if absolutely nobody runs for president in the US in an election year?
Nobody needs to run for President to become President. People run for President primarily for marketing purposes — so that other people will see them running and start thinking of them as a valid candidate. Unless a person runs as an Independent, this also gives them the benefit of a party’s endorsement (if the Democratic Party, say, doesn’t nominate you, you don’t get the benefit of all the votes that go straight Democrat every election no matter what).
But in the end, it is the Electoral College that determines the President, and the elected individual doesn’t get any choice in the matter. If you get 270 electoral college votes, you’re President. Period. You can refuse to do anything as President, but you can’t not be President.
Maybe more to the point, though, this would never happen. It’s simply impossible. Suppose it is a month before Election Day and there’s still no candidate for President. Every single political party would think of somebody they were willing to put on the ticket, I absolutely guarantee you — and they don’t actually have to ask that person if they want to be on the ticket. Even if that didn’t happen, out of hundreds of millions of Americans, at least one person would think, “Hmm…well fuck it, I’m gonna run as an Independent then!”
P.S. So what if nobody votes at all? Well, in that case there’s still an Electoral College. They still vote. The difference is, they haven’t gotten any suggestion from the voters in their state as to which way they should vote, so they’ll just vote for whomever they like the best.
P.P.S. Or what if, say, only one voter in the whole country votes? Again, the electors in most states won’t be constrained to vote the same way, although the one state in which that voter is registered would possibly (not necessarily) cast its electoral votes to the person in question. The other states might, though, also decide to cast their electoral votes the same way, on the grounds that if only one person voted in the whole country, that’s the majority vote. They have no obligation to do so, though, and if it’s a “troll” vote they probably would ignore it.1.2K viewsView 3 upvotes34
In his farewell address given on his last day as POTUS, Donald Trump said, “The world respects us again.
Please don’t lose that respect." Do you agree or disagree, and why?
Do you think Mark Cuban would make a good POTUS?
Would Donald Trump be the ideal POTUS?
Of course not. I am unsure why anyone would even ask the question or how anyone could believe that he would measure up to the likes of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, or Roosevelt. His demeanor and verbiage alone put him well below at least half the former presidents. His political stances are contrived to simply appeal to the masses of right wing followers. That being said, I am not against Mr. Trump. I hope that he is a successful president and does good things before leaving office. I can tell you that I personally haven’t seen any benefit in my life while he’s been in office that can be attributed to him or his policies I also haven’t seen any detriment that can attributed to him either. Similar to the last 3 presidents, the rich-poor divide just keeps growing, prices continue to inflate(more)
If you were elected as the POTUS, what would you do to improve the economy?
Assuming I could get it through a cooperative Congress, the centerpiece of my economic plan would be a massive infrastructure building and restoration program. Our infrastructure used to be the envy of the world back in the 1960s, but today it’s crumbling and is woefully behind that of our peer nations in the Developed World. Restoring our national infrastructure to first class status and tip top shape would not only save America tons of money and increase efficiency and lower productivity and transportation costs, but it would also create tons of jobs and pump/ turbocharge the economy because those types of jobs, mostly geared towards the bottom 80% of the population, would put money into precisely the hands of those who are most likely to circulate it immediately in the local economy.
Is there a legal difference between tweets from @realdonaldtrump and tweets from @POTUS?
Jennifer Ellis I'm a lawyer in PA, USA. Nothing I write is legal advice.
Interesting you ask. The reason it is interesting is because another lawyer asked me today if I thought that any of the current President’s statements could potentially make him liable for defamation. I told her that while he might have protection for statements he makes as President, I have to wonder if when he uses his personal Twitter account, that stands outside his executive privilege.
The answer to your question is that I don’t know. However it is conceivable that the different accounts could be treated differently under the law. While a President has immunity for many things, he does not have immunity for conduct outside his official duties (Clinton v. Jones) or for criminal acts (see U.S. v. Nixon).
The Clinton v. Jones case focused on conduct which occurred prior to President Clinton taking office. I wonder whether the concept would be extended to such things as using a personal Twitter account (as opposed to the Presidential one.)
I cannot tell you whether one account is held to a certain standard versus another account. The issue is a novel one. I rather doubt it will end up being addressed during this administration. But anything is possible.
Can a former POTUS be impeached?
Can Trump lose in November and then still resign before Biden's inauguration and have President Pence pardon him?
In reflective stage of life
Personally, I think Donald Trump is in the process of utterly destroying himself, and frankly I hope I am wrong. but I do believe to be true that his fragile ego makes it impossible for him to consider where he is wrong, and the result is for him to absolutely insist at always being right, and that to the degree that anyone he allows near to him is forced to agree with him. The result is no one can help him prevent his own demise. It becomes understandable that by his failure to accept personal responsibility for his own mistakes, he has not only condemned himself to repeat the same mistakes, but he can make nothing but increasingly more serious mistakes, and that from a position which makes his mistakes increasingly apparent right in the eyes of the entire world. To make this matter worst,(more)
What if a gay person was elected as the POTUS?
Stephen Taylor·Followpolitical moderateFebruary 21, 2019Pete Buttigieg, son of a Maltese immigrant and mayor of South Bend, Indiana, has his hat in the ring. He also happens to be gay and married to a man. I don’t give flying duck feathers about that, because he was an excellent mayor in South Bend. Ask the locals. They elected him several times. Even in the “benighted” state of Indiana, there were enough people around to elect a gay man as mayor. Pete doesn’t talk like a stuffed-shirt politician, and he’s great about not insulting people who disagree with him. Buttigieg — that’s pronounced “Bootajeej,” by the way — is one of only two Democrat candidates who I believe actually speak clear English. (Tulsi Gabbard is the other. I don’t really consider myself a Democrat anymore, but Gabbard and Buttigieg have my ear. They’d make a great Presidentia(more)
As Trump continues to claim that he'll be reinstated as POTUS this year, tickets for his second inauguration have started selling on the internet. Is this proof that Trump will become POTUS again or are his supporters getting scammed by criminals?
Why is Obama actively campaigning for Clinton?
Shouldn't the POTUS be using taxpayer resources to help all Americans and not just Democrats?
It is a common practice for Presidents to help elect their party's nominee to succeed them. It is also a President’s job to protect our country from enemies both foreign and domestic, and a homegrown demagogue is a domestic enemy. He should pull out every stop to get her elected. No politician is ever unbiased, that is just an unattainable goal. As for the use of taxpayer resources, the President travels a lot for their job anyway. It's not s problem if he campaigns while he travels. I am far more concerned with the use of taxpayer money by Republicans in Congress for investigations which they openly admit only exist to lower her poll numbers.
The previous two Presidents didn't campaign as much for different reasons. Al Gore didn't have the best relationship with Bill Clinton after the Monica Lewinsky scandal so he didn't want him on the trail despite his sky high approval rating. George W Bush didn't campaign for John McCain because of his very low approval rating.505 viewsView 6 upvotes6
What will you do now that Donald Trump is the President?
What would be your reaction if Trump gets removed as the POTUS?
If Hillary became POTUS, would she be called President Hillary or President Clinton?
Gopalkrishna Vishwanath·FollowA frequent visitor to USA
There was a similar question doing the rounds when Pratibha Patil was made India's first Woman President by Sonia Gandhi during the Congress regime. (In India the President is just a figurehead and power is wielded by the Prime Minister)
The President is called Raashtrapati in Hindi.
When you break the word into two Raashtra & Pati, Raashtra means "nation" and Pati means "husband' but Rashtrapati was never intended to mean "husband of the nation"
Since the nation remained the same but it was now headed by a woman, wags changed Pati (husband) to Patni (wife) and everyone wondered if it would be appropriate to call her Raashtrapatni! (wife of the nation!)
Scholars and bureaucrats quickly clarified that Rashtrapati was a single whole word and mean "head of the nation".
During my childhood, when genderless addressing was not common, and the word "chairperson" was not yet coined, we kids often wondered if a lady manager must be called a womanager.
Liken Chuck Rogers I too wondered if Bill Clinton would now be called the nation's First Gentleman!
525 viewsView 1 upvote1
What does the average day consist of as the POTUS?
Originally Answered: What is the schedule of the POTUS like?
8:00 - 8:45 AM: breakfast: well-done steak-and-egg breakfast.
8:51 - 9:42 AM: passing a hard stool on the Presidential toilet.
9:45 -9:55 AM: make Jared and Bannon come to the toilet and look at the firm, question-mark-shaped fecal mass before flushing it twice.
10:03 - 10:33 AM: watch Fox News.
10:43 AM: tweet something about how popular he is and Obama was a loser.
10:48 - 11: 15 AM: get into a twitter fight with a 12-year-old.
11:20 AM: skip security briefing.
11:21 - 11:38 AM: watch Fox News
11:40 AM: dictate some random vague policy objective to Jared
11:42 AM: tweet about the new policy as an accomplishment and and all the new jobs it created.
12:00 - 1:30 PM: lunch: well-done steak with ketchup and fried chicken.
2:00 pm: fly to Mar-a-Lago to play a round of golf and mingle with guests who paid thousands of dollars to bend is ear.
6:30 - 8:00 PM: dinner: well-done steak with taco salad, half a dozen cinnabuns for dessert.
8:15 - 9:00 PM: passing another hard stool.
9:20 PM: tweet about his latest bowel movement.
9:22 - 11:00 PM: watch Fox News
11:03 PM: tweet something that directly contradicts Spicer’s press briefings.
11:11 PM: tweet complaints about how unfair everyone else is.
11:15 - 11:57 PM: watch Fox News.
12:03 - 3:17 AM: fitful sleep.
3:22 - 4:03 AM: tweet random rants about Obama and Hillary. Everything is their fault.
4:13 - 6:21 AM: fitful sleep.
6:23 - 7:40 AM: attempt to masturbate to Girsl Gone Wild video.
7:43 AM: tweet something about poor SNL ratings.
7:48 AM: wet the bed.
7:50 - 7:58 A<: watch Fox News.163 views1
If Donald Trump is unfit to hold the POTUS office, then which office is he fit to hold?
Ed Han·FollowI grew up in the NYC media market in the 80s
If Donald Trump is unfit to hold the POTUS office, then which office is he fit to hold?
I appreciate the A2A
For those few of you who follow me, I’m going to surprise you with my answer.
Because I have a fairly poor opinion of Trump—but I can’t simply say no office. I mean, I suppose I could but then I’m not respecting the spirit of the question, and implicit in the question is the notion that there should be some form of government post where he would be a match.
Trump is not, in my estimation, fit to hold any elected office. Therefore, if we had to give him a government post, the logical choice would an ambassadorship to a nation where it’s practically impossible to have a bad relationship—like maybe Canada.
Being ambassador has no particular qualifications, and is chiefly an opportunity to spend someone else’s money.
Is there a better possible pairing?
That said, I do rather like Canadians, so I’d hate to do that to them…186 viewsView 6 upvotes62
If for some reason Kamala replaces Biden as POTUS, could Kamala Harris appoint Obama as Vice President, resign, thus making Obama the POTUS?
Yes and it was done for ford. But what you didn’t get is if Obama wanted the job he could run again like Trump is going to do. See the law said 2 terms after 1 you can run again. Congress coned the executive branch by passing this law. Congress and the Senate was suppose to follow suit so we didn’t have career politicians running this country .
What they did was take the power from the White house and gave it to congress . See in the 2nd term a president has no power because congress knows the president is going.
As for Harris that is going to happen. Joe Biden was done that is why he didn’t run the first time. Now a president elect picks a candidate that can add to the ticket for a win. Sorry that didn’t happen. Harris lost the debates but the debates against Biden was funny she tore him apart. But did demarcates like her performance ,NO. She didn’t win any state primary so normally that wouldn’t work.
But this time it did so you wonder why people believe the election was rigged . Sorry to say a few states were but not eought to keep Trump in office. So now politics plays out. So on Jan 6 what was better for Trump the storming of congress or what was going on in congress. What was going on in congress . Was it unconstitutional no the demarcate tried before but failed. They tried it on Trump but the representatives couldn’t get a senator on board to make it work but Trump did. So the congress stopped after the break in and came back in the dark like the demarcates are good for like Obamacare vote on it then read it. That is what kills governments . So they stopped a constitutional process and gave it to Biden without debate. Smoke and mirrors again . So why no investigation . Demarcates don’t do good with investigations . RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA. So we now have a president that tells a Russian leader to shut up.
Sorry to say the prove were those nuts that went to every riot to start trouble. but FUNNY they got Trump out but look at Facebook they still come out with comments of how Trump broke the rules . Yes the president of the United States must obey face book rules . So Facebook spent millions to get Trump out but still they use this crap because they loss money and people because Facebook is a joke and bent on bringing this country down look at marks wife that is prove eought. So is Mark really Joseph Goebbels grandson.
People wonder why Trump reached lots of people reason because of stuff like this. Now take France when the Queen was told the poor had no bread she said let them eat cake. Stupid yes but she lost her place. Another is this country is falling apart because of the virus and we got a 80 year demented woman talking about ice cream. So America needs to wake up the world is watching and laughing their asses off. That is never good for any country.
Is it unpatriotic to talk bad about the POTUS?
Jonathan Trueman Professional screen-and-copywriter, voice artist, Brit, knowledge addict.
No, it is not ‘unpatriotic to talk bad about the POTUS.’
Look, it doesn’t matter where you stand on the political spectrum. If you are a US citizen - which, granted, I am not - POTUS is your employee. Some people you hire to do your taxes, some people you hire to cut your grass; him or her you hire to faithfully execute the office of President.
And ‘faithfully execute the office’ is just 18th-century posh talk for ‘do the job.’
If you can’t talk about your employee’s behaviour, ability and performance, if you have no right to criticise anything he or she does, then how do you hold your employee accountable? If the kid you hire to paint the fence keeps missing bits, what are you meant to do: keep putting up with a patchy fence? Or might it be better to say “Hey, you missed a spot!”
The President is not the country. He or she is someone hired to do a job. Every citizen of the USA is his or her boss. If they ‘talk bad’ about him or her, they’re just carrying out an informal performance review. A POTUS with the sense God gave a kitten will hear that and try to correct the problem before the formal performance review commonly known as a ‘Presidential election.’
What is profoundly unpatriotic is for a POTUS to criticise or slander vast swathes of the population of his or her own country just because they aren’t his or her supporters.
That’s not just unpatriotic; that ought to get you fired.
Are any of the Trump supporters on Quora disappointed with President's performance as POTUS so far?
Julie Meronek·FollowBusiness Owner
Hi, Yes Slightly, Here’s Why..
Trump still needs to conquer bipartisanship. Although this very well may not be his fault, or needs more time, this is going to be very important to get anything done. I do like that he sticks to his guns about certain things but his own party and the Democrats seem to be turning against him. I am worried he will end up in some stupid scandal and this will take front and center and not the real issues.
Secondly, I thought the healthcare bill was quite poor, It was thrown together and appeased neither side. It did not seem to be a very big change from the current except it would give insurance companies a better ability to get rid of those who have pre-existing conditions putting them into a high risk pool, while not really changing the problematic system as it sits.
The constant firing of people. I understand the need to clean house, the need to get rid of those who may not be loyal, But I wonder if Trump just fires anyone who does not agree with him, different minds, points of view, and ideas is what makes a group strong, if everyone is thinking alike, its going to be hard to create new solutions to problems. Part of Politics is being able to bring a group together and come up with solutions for the good of the country. You don’t get 100% of your way all the time. As a business owner you do, as a president no.
Overall, It is important for everyone to understand that Trump has the deck stacked against him, and the more the media beats him up the more he will fire back. Every single Politician needs to remember who they work for, they are not superiors of the US Citizen, they are the employees of them. I do not wholly blame Trump for any of the things I have listed but the system as our system is so corrupt and funded. I am still Happy we have a man who loves America Running it, rather that the previous president that seemed to dislike the very footprint of this great nation.
Would it be possible for anyone to exclude Donald Trump from running for POTUS?
Michael Prete FollowFormer Chief of Staff at U.S. Congress (2008–2012)
No, not from running, HOWEVER, as most Americans forget, the Presidential Election is not decided on Election Day. It is 50 separate states and The District of Columbia, having in reality separate elections, deciding which party's slate of Electors would be authorized to vote in the Electoral College in December. (There are actually 2 states which are not "winner-take-all." Maine and Nebraska, with 4 and 5 electoral votes each, respectively, and in those two states, 2 of their electoral votes are determined by the winner of the statewide vote, but the other 2 for Maine and 3 for Nebraska, are based on their 2 or 3 Congressional Districts. In those cases it is winner-take-all in each Congressional District).
And the following scenario has never resulted in a change of the person who won the Electoral College vote (270 being the magic number) to who became President. So while the following scenario is unprecedented I would argue if there ever was a Presidential Election where it might actually happen, it could be in 2016, if Trump is elected. And the more narrow the margin over 270, the more possible the scenario.
Even people who understand the electoral college procedure, may not realize that when they vote for a particular person for president along with their running mate as vice president, they are not voting for anybody in particular, but rather the political party those two candidates are running on. So in New York State for example, which is 31 electoral votes, which is made up of the 29 congressional districts plus the two Senators, if Donald Trump and his VP candidate win, then the Republican Party gets to have their 31 electoral college members meet in the second week of December at the capital, Albany in this case. And what almost nobody realizes is that those 31 electoral college members, picked by the Republican Party beforehand, are not obligated or forced to actually vote for Trump and his VP candidate.
At the 50 state capitals and Washington DC, that day, the electors who vote in the electoral college, since they are chosen by the political party, they are usually extremely loyal people to that party, and therefore will officially vote to give their electoral votes to the candidate that won that state. However, there is absolutely no law which requires them to vote for the President and VP in their party who won the state. Members of the electoral college who vote for someone else, in either of the two ballots where one is for president and the other is for vice president, are known as "faithless electors."
Over the nearly 240 year history of the country, there have been a few cases of faithless electors. But they don't have to write the opponents name on there ballot, say it was Hillary Clinton, to be faithless. Very often, especially in recent years, when there has been faithless electors, not only has it not changed the outcome of what happened on Election Day, but they might vote for a Republican that lost in the primary or the democratic Vice Presidential candidate; it doesn't have to be as I said where there's one faithless elector in New York for example and if Trump won, he or she votes for Clinton for president and whoever was her running mate, voted for him or her for VP. Sometimes they do this and sometimes they just pick someone else who wasn't running for one of those two jobs.
In 2000, when Bush was finally declared the winner Florida, and that put him just over the magic 270 mark with 271, there was a little bit of hope that there might be two faithless electors out there which would have put him under 270 mark and then the election would've been determined by Congress. Faithless electors are very rare, and exceedingly rare as far as possibly changing the outcome of election day. In fact, that has never happened. The political parties that appoint them, investigate their history with their party very seriously and only pick the very most loyal party members, to make sure they don't run into this problem.
The reason I say that it might be an actual possibility this year, if Trump is the Republican nominee and won the election, it is because the GOP establishment and many loyal members of the party, some who might be electoral college voters, are very worried that he would get the nomination because with just the things he said in the last eight months, it has reinforced the somewhat correct stereotype for decades and decades now, which is that the Republican Party is racist or at the the very least shows very little interest in the issues important to minorities, and cares mainly about the wealthy. And Trump has said so many alienating remarks about so many groups of people, and he hasn't even won the nomination yet, that the GOP is truly scared that he would be representing the Republican Party as President. And despite their extreme dislike of Hillary Clinton, they might grudgingly prefer her to be President, because they believe a Trump Presidency would be such a disaster that it might forever ruin the already damaged image of the party.
So if it was Trump against Clinton, and he narrowly defeats her, winning 274 electoral votes for example, I don't think it would be at all hard to imagine that Chairman of the Republican Party in each state might try to persuade one or more of their members of the electoral college to be "faithless," and vote for Clinton or anyone else, so Trump will not win the presidency. It also depends on which party controls each House of Congress when the new Congress is sworn in on January 3, 2017, because if neither candidate has 270, which can only happen if they each have 269, because there are 538 total electors (535 members of Congress+Washington D.C.).
So if they were able to turn five electoral college voters, and those five voted for Clinton instead, then you would have a 269–269 tie, and then the House of Representatives would determine the Presidency and the U.S. Senate would determine the Vice Presidency. But if this maneuver by the GOP were to be attempted, I am sure they would make sure that at least enough electors are going to vote for Clinton, so that she would have at least 270. Now the more that Trump were to win by, the more difficult this procedure would be obviously. But it is in fact a way, not to get Trump off the ballot, which I don't see any legal way to do that, but to prevent him from becoming President.
And as a sidenote, while I said that there is nothing obligating any electoral college member of any party to vote the way that the citizens of their state voted on Election Day, there is not. However some states do have varying penalties for electors Who vote for someone other then the party to which they are assigned. But that still does not change how they voted, and these penalties are relatively minor, in the approximately 20 states that have them.
And I say it is more of a possibility this year then in maybe the history of the country, because Trump is so disliked by the establishment of the Republican Party, especially at a time when a great number of Americans, not only Republicans, feel like their party is in such chaos right now with its ideology. This is why I believe if chump were in fact to win, which I don't think so, and if in fact it was by a small margin, this could be the one time where enough electors would vote for the losing candidates, actually making an overt attempt to have their own electors vote for the Democratic ticket, which "lost."
I would put the odds of this happening probably on the same level as him getting assassinated before being sworn in. I think around 1 in 20 for either.