Trump thinks Xi as President for life is great says "Maybe we'll give that a try"

[iu_a_att]

I can't believe my ears and eyes sometimes.

"In the closed-door remarks, a recording of which was obtained by CNN, Trump also praised China's President Xi Jinping for recently consolidating power and extending his potential tenure, musing he wouldn't mind making such a maneuver himself.
"He's now president for life. President for life. No, he's great," Trump said. "And look, he was able to do that. I think it's great. Maybe we'll have to give that a shot some day."​

President for life is not what a president is under our constitution. No President sworn to uphold the constitution should say such a thing--ever. That Trump is an autocrat wannabe is something we have known for years. I wonder if the GOPers could imagine for one minute what it would be like to hear a Democratic president say something like this? They would be at Defcon 1 and preparing for revolution. I am certain Democratic politicians would not be sitting on the sidelines either if a Democratic president said such a thing. Congress would easily pass a censorship resolution if the shoe was on the other foot. It is not just Trump who is betraying his oath of office it is pretty much the entire set of GOP elected officials. I am livid...everyone should be.

​

 

[Thyrsis]

I can't believe my ears and eyes sometimes.

"In the closed-door remarks, a recording of which was obtained by CNN, Trump also praised China's President Xi Jinping for recently consolidating power and extending his potential tenure, musing he wouldn't mind making such a maneuver himself.
"He's now president for life. President for life. No, he's great," Trump said. "And look, he was able to do that. I think it's great. Maybe we'll have to give that a shot some day."​

President for life is not what a president is under our constitution. No President sworn to uphold the constitution should say such a thing--ever. That Trump is an autocrat wannabe is something we have known for years. I wonder if the GOPers could imagine for one minute what it would be like to hear a Democratic president say something like this? They would be at Defcon 1 and preparing for revolution. I am certain Democratic politicians would not be sitting on the sidelines either if a Democratic president said such a thing. Congress would easily pass a censorship resolution if the shoe was on the other foot. It is not just Trump who is betraying his oath of office it is pretty much the entire set of GOP elected officials. I am livid...everyone should be.

​

Pretty much?

1. You being livid doesn't change much. Getting people to vote might.

2. I'm not sure what platform the Democratic Party will push in 2020, but there may well be an Independent Party of some sort that will try to offer a different alternative. If that turns out to be a Republican-ish alternative to Trump, I'll happily vote against them and support the Democratic candidate. If, instead, they represent a reasoned "centrist" alternative (as much as I loathe that terminology), I'll likely give them more than a fair hearing. But the "reasonable" GOP at this point strikes me as a group that just got a watered down dose of the crazy juice. This "debate" has been a traveshamockery since about 1980. Hopefully, sanity, reasoned debate, achievement, and excellence will form part of a new generation. I'm not holding my breath, though. Until then, I don't have much use for the serious-pretending "sane" folks in the GOP.

 

[sglowrider]

Dear Mr President For Life Trump,

Your Biggest Fan,

Steelin' Low

 

[Rockfish1]

Pretty much?

1. You being livid doesn't change much. Getting people to vote might.

2. I'm not sure what platform the Democratic Party will push in 2020, but there may well be an Independent Party of some sort that will try to offer a different alternative. If that turns out to be a Republican-ish alternative to doesn't care that Russia helpTrump, I'll happily vote against them and support the Democratic candidate. If, instead, they represent a reasoned "centrist" alternative (as much as I loathe that terminology), I'll likely give them more than a fair hearing. But the "reasonable" GOP at this point strikes me as a group that just got a watered down dose of the crazy juice. This "debate" has been a traveshamockery since about 1980. Hopefully, sanity, reasoned debate, achievement, and excellence will form part of a new generation. I'm not holding my breath, though. Until then, I don't have much use for the serious-pretending "sane" folks in the GOP.

This is a party that denies or doesn't care that Russia helped them win the White House. A party that elected an unfit imbecile and gives him an 85 percent job approval rating. It's imperative to vote them out of office.

 

[UncleMark]

My loathing for Trump is not in question. But this isn't worth getting wound up about. It was a campaign event, and he was joking. Making it out to be anything more than that just gives the Trumpsters more reason to characterize his opponents as over the top.

I'm reminded of Kissinger, who when asked if he preferred "Mr. Secretary" or "Dr. Kissinger", replied that "Your Excellency" would do.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Trump's an incompetent, but it's not actually him, but rather what he represents, that demands American voters do whatever they can to remove the GOP from power at all levels. They have fully abandoned reason in favor of know-nothing nativism. Our democratic norms are strong enough to prevent a President-for-Life, and even if they weren't, Trump's Three-Big-Mac-a-Day habit would probably make the problem short-lived. But what he represents will live beyond him, unless the GOP is taught a sharp lesson that the American electorate will not tolerate being taken down the road the party is currently traveling. Voters should vote against even "good" Republicans until that lesson is learned.

 

[RBB89]

My loathing for Trump is not in question. But this isn't worth getting wound up about. It was a campaign event, and he was joking. Making it out to be anything more than that just gives the Trumpsters more reason to characterize his opponents as over the top.

I'm reminded of Kissinger, who when asked if he preferred "Mr. Secretary" or "Dr. Kissinger", replied that "Your Excellency" would do.

I agree with this, but the constant admiration of dictators and relentless “joking around” about dictators gets a little tiring.

 

[iu_a_att]

My loathing for Trump is not in question. But this isn't worth getting wound up about. It was a campaign event, and he was joking. Making it out to be anything more than that just gives the Trumpsters more reason to characterize his opponents as over the top.

I'm reminded of Kissinger, who when asked if he preferred "Mr. Secretary" or "Dr. Kissinger", replied that "Your Excellency" would do.

Normalizing Trump is a mistake. Trump is not joking...he has said this same stuff many times and many ways. Trump does not remind me of Henry Kissinger...and Kissinger was never President to boot.

 

[Rockfish1]

Trump's an incompetent, but it's not actually him, but rather what he represents, that demands American voters do whatever they can to remove the GOP from power at all levels. They have fully abandoned reason in favor of know-nothing nativism. Our democratic norms are strong enough to prevent a President-for-Life, and even if they weren't, Trump's Three-Big-Mac-a-Day habit would probably make the problem short-lived. But what he represents will live beyond him, unless the GOP is taught a sharp lesson that the American electorate will not tolerate being taken down the road the party is currently traveling. Voters should vote against even "good" Republicans until that lesson is learned.

There are few who need to learn a lesson that will. There is only winning elections.

We can't accept the obviously unfit like they do, but then again, we don't have to accept the obviously unfit like they do. We aren't the ones repeatedly nominating people who are obviously unfit. We aren't the ones with a fringe that's mainstream. We aren't the ones living in an epistemically closed bubble. But we gotta be smart enough to win every election we can win.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

There are few who need to learn a lesson that will. There is only winning elections.

We can't accept the obviously unfit like they do, but then again, we don't have to accept the obviously unfit like they do. We aren't the ones repeatedly nominating people who are obviously unfit. We aren't the ones with a fringe that's mainstream. We aren't the ones living in an epistemically closed bubble. But we gotta be smart enough to win every election we can win.

I think this article was shared here a month ago, but if not, it's worth a read:

In a two-party system, nonpartisanship works only if both parties are consistent democratic actors. If one of them is not predictably so, the space for nonpartisans evaporates. We’re thus driven to believe that the best hope of defending the country from Trump’s Republican enablers, and of saving the Republican Party from itself, is to do as Toren Beasley [a GOP voter whose defection is described earlier in the essay] did: vote mindlessly and mechanically against Republicans at every opportunity, until the party either rights itself or implodes (very preferably the former).​

 

[Rockfish1]

I think this article was shared here a month ago, but if not, it's worth a read:

In a two-party system, nonpartisanship works only if both parties are consistent democratic actors. If one of them is not predictably so, the space for nonpartisans evaporates. We’re thus driven to believe that the best hope of defending the country from Trump’s Republican enablers, and of saving the Republican Party from itself, is to do as Toren Beasley [a GOP voter whose defection is described earlier in the essay] did: vote mindlessly and mechanically against Republicans at every opportunity, until the party either rights itself or implodes (very preferably the former).​

It's a lot to ask of Republicans that they show up to vote against their own.

If Democrats nominated Dwyane Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Comacho I'd disown the party, but I doubt I'd actually vote for even an ostensibly reasonable Republican like John Kasich. I opposed him when he was just an ordinary conservative Republican, and he hasn't grown any more attractive to me because his party has gone round the bend.

But it's hard for me to imagine that the Democratic Party would do anything like the preposterous election of Donald Trump, so perhaps my lack of imagination imperils my assessment. Maybe I'd do better if I were more horrified than I can imagine being.

 

[iuwclurker1]

Sorry to break it to you, but when Tom Perez proclaimed that those against abortion are not Democrats, he should have been ousted. Same day. That was comically incompetent. Litmus tests may not guarantee losing elections, but they come awfully close to it. Trump's a genius by comparison.

Don't shoot the messenger, but someone has to be willing to face the truth.

 

[iuwclurker1]

In a two-party system, nonpartisanship works only if both parties are consistent democratic actors. If one of them is not predictably so, the space for nonpartisans evaporates.​

Right, and I've got some beach front property for you up in the Arctic.

Forget the public. Act as if they're all rapid partisan clowns. Who cares if Joe and Jane Public are sick of politics as usual, as shown by the single-digit popularity of Congress. Stay the course and pour coal on the ideology. After all, Democrats are perfect and their ideology is the Second Coming of Genius. (dws)

This is fine for the few Republicans and independents who are going to vote Dem anyway. But it glosses over the endless mistakes that Democrats make that has put them in this position. Trump is the consequence of those mistakes. Until Democrats look in the mirror and do their duly diligent soul searching, aint' nuttin much gonna change.

 

[iu_a_att]

It's a lot to ask of Republicans that they show up to vote against their own.

If Democrats nominated Dwyane Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Comacho I'd disown the party, but I doubt I'd actually vote for even an ostensibly reasonable Republican like John Kasich. I opposed him when he was just an ordinary conservative Republican, and he hasn't grown any more attractive to me because his party has gone round the bend.

But it's hard for me to imagine that the Democratic Party would do anything like the preposterous election of Donald Trump, so perhaps my lack of imagination imperils my assessment. Maybe I'd do better if I were more horrified than I can imagine being.

The duty of the party being taken over by an autocrat wannabe is to put aside sectoral disagreements and keep the autocrat out of power, If the shoe were on the other foot I don't doubt that you and I would do the right thing and work to install a Kasich rather than, say, a Hugo Chavez. We just saw this happen in France as the moderates and left teamed together to keep La Pen out of power.

But this did not happen here...despite that fact that all of the GOP leadership perfectly understood that Trump was unfit for office. In the ascendance of Trump we have seen multiple profound and serious violations of the norms necessary to sustain democracy. We have witnessed and are witnessing a deep betrayal of democratic norms not just by Trump but by his defenders and supporters. The consequences of that betrayal are yet to be fully appreciated. How do those of us who have been betrayed ever trust the betrayers again? How do the betrayers ever persuade themselves that we, the betrayed, won't betray them in turn if they should dare to turn over power to us? This is how democracies end.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Sorry to break it to you, but when Tom Perez proclaimed that those against abortion are not Democrats, he should have been ousted. Same day. That was comically incompetent. Litmus tests may not guarantee losing elections, but they come awfully close to it. Trump's a genius by comparison.

Don't shoot the messenger, but someone has to be willing to face the truth.

Can't think of too many people, actually anyone, that Trump is a genius compared to, quite honestly.

 

[Rockfish1]

The duty of the party being taken over by an autocrat wannabe is to put aside sectoral disagreements and keep the autocrat out of power, If the shoe were on the other foot I don't doubt that you and I would do the right thing and work to install a Kasich rather than, say, a Hugo Chavez. We just saw this happen in France as the moderates and left teamed together to keep La Pen out of power.

But this did not happen here...despite that fact that all of the GOP leadership perfectly understood that Trump was unfit for office. In the ascendance of Trump we have seen multiple profound and serious violations of the norms necessary to sustain democracy. We have witnessed and are witnessing a deep betrayal of democratic norms not just by Trump but by his defenders and supporters. The consequences of that betrayal are yet to be fully appreciated. How do those of us who have been betrayed ever trust the betrayers again? How do the betrayers ever persuade themselves that we, the betrayed, won't betray them in turn if they should dare to turn over power to us? This is how democracies end.

The problem I'm having here is at least in part a failure of imagination -- I just can't identify anyone Democrats might plausibly nominate that corresponds to Trump. When I'm not using Idiocracy's fictional president as a reference I sometimes resort to Kim Kardashian, and you've used Hugo Chavez (who'd certainly have been more dangerous than a mere Kardashian). Who would be a Democratic counterpart to Trump?

 

[iu_a_att]

The problem I'm having here is at least in part a failure of imagination -- I just can't identify anyone Democrats might plausibly nominate that corresponds to Trump. When I'm not using Idiocracy's fictional president as a reference I sometimes resort to Kim Kardashian, and you've used Hugo Chavez (who'd certainly have been more dangerous than a mere Kardashian). Who would be a Democratic counterpart to Trump?

Imagine Huey Long as the closest America has come to Chavez type populist. But Long seems not to have the contempt Trump routinely expresses for democracy. Honestly, I can't think of any analog to Trump on left or right. The best examples on the left probably come from Latin America.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

meanwhile back at the ranch, we need to get rid of senators and congressmen/women for life.

term limits.

no more than 4 yrs for anyone at the national level.

and not 4 yrs in congress, then 4 yrs in the senate, then 4 more as prez.

4 years total.

and yes, i realize that would need bringing senators down from a 6 yr term to a 4 yr one.

 

[iuwclurker1]

Can't think of too many people, actually anyone, that Trump is a genius compared to, quite honestly.

Pivot.

 

[iuwclurker1]

The duty of the party being taken over by an autocrat wannabe is to put aside sectoral disagreements and keep the autocrat out of power, If the shoe were on the other foot I don't doubt that you and I would do the right thing and work to install a Kasich rather than, say, a Hugo Chavez. We just saw this happen in France as the moderates and left teamed together to keep La Pen out of power.

But this did not happen here...despite that fact that all of the GOP leadership perfectly understood that Trump was unfit for office. In the ascendance of Trump we have seen multiple profound and serious violations of the norms necessary to sustain democracy. We have witnessed and are witnessing a deep betrayal of democratic norms not just by Trump but by his defenders and supporters. The consequences of that betrayal are yet to be fully appreciated. How do those of us who have been betrayed ever trust the betrayers again? How do the betrayers ever persuade themselves that we, the betrayed, won't betray them in turn if they should dare to turn over power to us? This is how democracies end.

If the GOP were serious about preventing another Trump ascendancy, even already in 2020, they'd adjust their primary system so Trump couldn't win the nomination with 35% of the Republican vote.

 

[iu_a_att]

If the GOP were serious about preventing another Trump ascendancy, even already in 2020, they'd adjust their primary system so Trump couldn't win the nomination with 35% of the Republican vote.

It is Trump's party now. There is no way the GOP prevents Trump from running again...unless they do the right thing and impeach him.

 

[iuwclurker1]

It is Trump's party now. There is no way the GOP prevents Trump from running again...unless they do the right thing and impeach him.

It's not preventing, it's making him win the primary with 50+%, no matter how many candidates run.