I feel just like this sometimes, lately

[DiracPool]

if Trump turns out to be an exceptionally bad leader - and not just exceptionally brash - our system of government is set up to deal with that and has successfully in the past.

When was this? Did I miss something? No president has ever been successfully impeached and subsequently convicted and removed from office. If you want to use Nixon as an example, remember he resigned voluntarily. I really can't imagine Trump resigning voluntarily from anything. I think you are correct in saying that our system of governance can be effective at removing bad players from office in general. There just hasn't been a test, yet, at the actual highest office of the presidency. Maybe Trump will prove to be that test.

 

[NTL2009]

When was this? Did I miss something? No president has ever been successfully impeached and subsequently convicted and removed from office. If you want to use Nixon as an example, remember he resigned voluntarily. I really can't imagine Trump resigning voluntarily from anything. I think you are correct in saying that our system of governance can be effective at removing bad players from office in general. There just hasn't been a test, yet, at the actual highest office of the presidency. Maybe Trump will prove to be that test.

I assume he means that we have an election every four years.

 

[DiracPool]

I assume he means that we have an election every four years.

A lot can happen in 4 years. That's not a fail-safe measure to deal with a bad actor at the helm of power.

 

[NTL2009]

Life may go on fine for some, but it may not go on fine for the majority. It seems Trump has a very low approval rating.

I think people need to take a breath here. 'Life may not go on fine for the majority'? Because of a 48.6% disapproval rating (RCP average)?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html#polls

OMG! What were you saying back in Dec 2014, when Obama's disapproval rating hit 55.3%? Oh, the humanity!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

A little perspective and calm objectivity, please.

 

[NTL2009]

A lot can happen in 4 years. That's not a fail-safe measure to deal with a bad actor at the helm of power.

Just because impeachment hasn't directly removed a President from office (clearly, Nixon's resignation was as close as you can get without being able to call it 'direct'), doesn't mean it can't/won't happen in the future.

If Trump commits clearly impeachable offenses, the process is there. So let's see how this plays out.

And in the mean time, I brushed my teeth, washed my face, did some stretches, and had coffee with breakfast just like any other day.

 

[russ_watters]

When was this? Did I miss something? No president has ever been successfully impeached and subsequently convicted and removed from office. If you want to use Nixon as an example, remember he resigned voluntarily.

Nixon resigned because he believed that he would be successfully impeached and removed. But I wasn't just talking about Presidents or impeachment.

We haven't had many Presidents, so the lack of a successful conviction does not imply that a conviction would not be successful in the case of an exceptionally bad (criminal) leader. I think - and Nixon apparently agreed - that that recourse would work if needed.

Corupt holders of lower/state offices have been successfully removed on many occasions using similar tools.

Beyond that, Presidential power is held in check by both Congress and the courts on a farily regular basis, including many examples of both under Obama and already one under Trump. These limitations on Trump's ability to do (or continue to do for a long time) exceptionally bad things should not be overlooked.

And again: In my opinion, successfully dealing with an exceptionally bad leader would show the strength of the American system of government, not a weakness. It's the Apollo 13 principle.

 

[mheslep]

If Trump commits clearly impeachable offenses, the process is there...

Yes clear offenses. But also, for vague or ambiguous offenses, or if Congress simply decides it dislikes him sufficiently, the impeachment process is there, especially if Congress switches parties. For instance, Trump had the legal power to power to fire Yates, but a future Congress could deny this, as Congress did once before when it asserted the President can't fire his own Secretary of War. Should Trump lose contact with the electorate that put him in office, I think he could be taken down by a paper cut.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes clear offenses. But also, for vague or ambiguous offenses, or if Congress simply decides it dislikes him sufficiently, the impeachment process is there, especially if Congress switches parties. For instance, Trump had the legal power to power to fire Yates, but a future Congress could deny this, as Congress did once before when it asserted the President can't fire his own Secretary of War. Should Trump lose contact with the electorate that put him in office, I think he could be taken down by a paper cut.

Yes, that is an alternative danger of the Trump administration; the possibility that a rogue Congress or courts could unlawfully/unconstitutionaly act against him is very real.

 

[StatGuy2000]

But this lack of dignity is primarily a reflection of our current leader's lack of dignity and the lack of respect people have for those who voted for him -- both of which can be changed by the election of the next President, can't they?

As I see it, it is more than Trump's lack of dignity -- it is the actions that he has brought out both through his executive orders, as well as his unprecedented ouster of top military brass in the Joint Chiefs of Staff to make way for Steve Bannon (formerly employed at Breitbart News, long a source for fake news and racist propaganda) that has contributed to the "lack of dignity" within the American political climate of late.

As for lack of respect for those who have voted for Trump -- in certain cases, that lack of respect is warranted, if certain voters voted for Trump because of his sweeping slurs against whole ethnic groups and religions (I'm thinking of people like Richard Spencer and other members of the "alt-right") rather than in spite of them.

That is disheartening to hear. Much of our system of government was designed specifically to deal with the possibility of bad leaders being elected and if Trump turns out to be an exceptionally bad leader - and not just exceptionally brash - our system of government is set up to deal with that and has successfully in the past. So it is disheartening to me to hear the loss of confidence in our system of government over something that has happened and been survived many times in the past and that all Americans and most people in the world should be aware is always a possibility.

I agree that the American system of government was designed specifically to deal with the possibility of bad leaders. The concern though is that the very system of checks and balances built into the American system of government has been weakened over the past 30-40 years due to the corrupting influence of money in politics, particularly in light of Supreme Court decisions Buckley v Valeo (1976) and Citizens United vs FEC (2010), both of which have opened the floodgates for near-unlimited campaign donations to political candidates. It's this level of influence, described by some as "legalized bribery" that has contributed to the loss of faith among many Americans to their system of government, and allowed for a demagogue like Trump to be elected to begin with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo

 

[Evo]

Sorry, but this has become a political thread that has strayed from the OP's cartoon. Thread is closed.