ebikeerwidnes
Senior Member
I think they will give it a few months
Donald I, emperor of the world.
- Thread starter C R
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I think they will give it a few months
icowden
Squire
Of course he does, you utter *%*%. He isn't going to end it by doing a deal with a serial liar, racist, rapist and Putin patsy. He has to do deals with countries that might actually help him, not ones that will sell out the UK to Putin.
I know you are a number one Trump fan, but even the Mail Online can't support Trump's attitude to Zelensky and they were fans of Hitler back in the day.
yello
New Member
I'm late in on this thread so forgive me for perhaps going over already trodden ground but I'm baffled by something. And today's announcement of the suspension of US aid to the Ukraine just exemplifies it. That is, how can one man (albeit president of the USA) dictate the shots?
When Trump was elected, I naively thought, 'oh, you know, checks and balances will curtail the worst of his excesses'. I thought his show of sharpie signed executive orders was simply that - a show. How wrong it seems I was. How can Musk and DOGE even happen? I'm stunned. I get that Trump was elected but to be able to exercise the degree of authority that he can, seemingly on a whim, all apparently unchallenged and unhindered just leaves me aghast.
What does it say about the US's political system? It seems you can elect a dictator.
Edit: I heard yesterday on the channel 4 news (so it must be true) that withdrawing the US from NATO does require a house majority that Trump/the Republicans do not have, so there is at least one 'check and balance'
When Trump was elected, I naively thought, 'oh, you know, checks and balances will curtail the worst of his excesses'. I thought his show of sharpie signed executive orders was simply that - a show. How wrong it seems I was. How can Musk and DOGE even happen? I'm stunned. I get that Trump was elected but to be able to exercise the degree of authority that he can, seemingly on a whim, all apparently unchallenged and unhindered just leaves me aghast.
What does it say about the US's political system? It seems you can elect a dictator.
Edit: I heard yesterday on the channel 4 news (so it must be true) that withdrawing the US from NATO does require a house majority that Trump/the Republicans do not have, so there is at least one 'check and balance'
Last edited:
CXRAndy
Senior Member
yello
New Member
I don't call the exact figure (I'm sure it's a web search away) but there's something like a two thirds majority required for that particular vote.
Edit: I'm sure a more authoritative source could be cited but it's the first I found...
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-nato-withdrawal-us-marco-rubio-2025-3
Last edited:
yello
New Member
With all due respect, I think you are misreading me.
I meant that the US withdrawing from NATO requires a senate vote, not the stopping of aid to the Ukraine (as I'm guessing you thought I meant) I've no idea what the latter requires but, again and as with the substance of my initial post, I had naively assumed it couldn't be solely on the directive/wishes of the president and the president alone.
matticus
Guru
I don't have nearly enough knowledge of their legal system to answer this, but it is clear that the courts - despite whatever majorities Trump may hold - are opposing him on multiple fronts. (Perhaps it's all merely delaying inevitable outcomes, but I recall Doge having to row back on at least one set of orders, maybe last week?)
Anyway, knock yourself out: https://www.google.com/search?sca_e...CEU_enGB857GB857&q=court+rulings+against+doge
icowden
Squire
There's a good read here:-
https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/what-is-an-executive-order-and-how-does-it-work
The TL
R is that executive orders are instructions which government agencies have to obey, but they cannot break or change existing laws. So: The problem is that Trump doesn't understand or care about laws so many of his "orders" are illegal. He can also order Congress to change the law but that then requires the Senate to make a law change which in turn requires a two thirds majority in favour.
yello
New Member
I've been reading about executive orders and the president does actually have a broad authority to effectively command something. Trump is, as of today, well down the league table of number of orders issued but time is yet young. In times of war, one can understand their use so you have to conclude that the mechanism itself is needed.
These orders often come on the back of congress or departmental advice, the result of research and discussion, but not all. They can be a simple directive from on high. As we see with DOGE (and as mentioned above), such orders can be challenged (either in the courts or indeed in congress) but such attempts seek to thwart and frustrate whilst attempting to establish illegality or being unconstitutional. The default is that they have to be carried out.
I don't know how these orders have been used in the past but of course one might ask the question of whether Trump is overusing, or abusing even, this privelage/process for his own means/beliefs. It is though prima facie legit to issue them.
Edit: cross post with icowden above.
These orders often come on the back of congress or departmental advice, the result of research and discussion, but not all. They can be a simple directive from on high. As we see with DOGE (and as mentioned above), such orders can be challenged (either in the courts or indeed in congress) but such attempts seek to thwart and frustrate whilst attempting to establish illegality or being unconstitutional. The default is that they have to be carried out.
I don't know how these orders have been used in the past but of course one might ask the question of whether Trump is overusing, or abusing even, this privelage/process for his own means/beliefs. It is though prima facie legit to issue them.
Edit: cross post with icowden above.
icowden
Squire
An interesting detail of the meeting with Starmer is that it confirmed that Trump's literacy is very poor. He stared at the letter from King Charles for some time before giving it back to Starmer to read.
Thusly, whilst he is *signing* loads of executive orders, he is neither reading them nor understanding them. He is literally being told "this piece of paper does this - sign here". Trump isn't running his own show. He just thinks that he is.
Thusly, whilst he is *signing* loads of executive orders, he is neither reading them nor understanding them. He is literally being told "this piece of paper does this - sign here". Trump isn't running his own show. He just thinks that he is.
If Trump thinks it's acceptable to ambush foreign visiting leaders then he'll be quite happy when his State Visit formal and well photographed dinner also has Canadian PM attending (unannounced) and Canadian PM sitting next to King, Trump having some junior aids on each side.
Won't happen but maybe it should. World needs to stop feeding Trump's narcissism.
Ian
matticus
Guru
I really don't want to be bigging up Trumps intellect, but in this case I interpreted that moment as an eyesight issue!
(note that Starmer was the only one not too vain for spectacles ... )
icowden
Squire
If you knew you didn't have your reading glasses, how long would you stare at a piece of paper before conceding that you couldn't read it? He really tries to read it but doesn't understand what it says.
CXRAndy
Senior Member
There are many ways the US government could shutdown NATO without a vote. Most obvious, starve it of funds, wither on the vine.
I believe it's 60% of senate vote to pass something like withdrawing from NATO
Similar threads
