Reasons Why Pence Will Make a Better or Worse President Than Trump

[Ingledsva]

That's for the elite to decide. We commoners really have no say in the matter when it boils down to the reality here.

Personally I was prepared for a win by Hillary although I sided with Trump as I'm a proponent for the popular vote. Neither was to my liking as with most people on both sides of the aisle, but that's the way it turned out.

Trump is here to stay for four years. Next election should be as interesting as this one was.

It will be interesting indeed whenever it is.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

And that still doesn't open the spot for Hillary. To accuse all Republicans in such a way, you'll need to charge everyone last one of them and invalidate every election across America where they won.

Who is accusing all Republicans?

I am saying if the Republicans are in "presidential" power because of crimes by Trump, then they shouldn't be allowed succession, if needed.

If he cheated and broke the law to get elected, - they should hold new elections, - so the people's choice gets in.

*

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Pence is politically abhorrent. Trump is pathologically unstable. There really is a lesser of two evils here.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I realize that there are those that have an issue with the current President, but what I can't understand are those that want to overthrow the duly elected President by use of force or non Constitutional actions.

I can: she doesn't think the President was "duly elected" at all.

She's wrong, of course... but I can see how someone could come to that conclusion if they mistakenly assumed that the American electoral system was fairer and more democratic than it actually is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

An opinion piece in today's Toronto Star: the former head of Al Jazeera English is predicting that this will all end with Trump resigning on the condition that Pence pardons him:

We now know how the Trump presidency will end. Let's hope we survive: Burman | Toronto Star

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Who is accusing all Republicans?

I am saying if the Republicans are in "presidential" power because of crimes by Trump, then they shouldn't be allowed succession, if needed.

If he cheated and broke the law to get elected, - they should hold new elections, - so the people's choice gets in.

*

Are you trying to say that this ought to happen under whatever you think is an ideal system, or are you claiming that what you propose would be legal under current American law?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Who is accusing all Republicans?

You pretty much are by stating Paul Ryan doesn't deserve his legal-and-rightful position of succession because of what Trump and his lackeys may-or-may-not have done.

I am saying if the Republicans are in "presidential" power because of crimes by Trump, then they shouldn't be allowed succession, if needed.

You'd have to prove who assisted, who knew, and so on. You can't just deny someone something that is rightfully theirs over what some ******* who just walked in the room does. Like it or not, Paul Ryan would most likely still probably have this position even had Hillary won.

If he cheated and broke the law to get elected, - they should hold new elections, - so the people's choice gets in.

We already have a system set up for that, and it does not include installing the "runner up" into office or holding a new election, unless called for by the citizens. But we have an order of succession plan, so that just won't be happening. Nor should it. Our system can't afford too many blows and shocks as it's getting increasingly unstable as it is. If Trump and crew are thrown out and Hillary installed, I fear what America may look like the next morning.

 

[Nous]

Pence is politically abhorrent. Trump is pathologically unstable. There really is a lesser of two evils here.

I agree.

 

[Ingledsva]

Are you trying to say that this ought to happen under whatever you think is an ideal system, or are you claiming that what you propose would be legal under current American law?

You folks are missing the - IFs.

IF Trump and his people committed these crimes. And IF he got help from a foreign government to alter our elections, - putting himself and the Republican party into the presidency. THEN - a court could potentially legally find that the party in power through illegal acts and election tampering, has no right to succession from that illegal Presidency. In other words, even though the rest MAY have done no wrong, - they would be in power ONLY through illegal acts, - thus no right to succession, and holding on to the power.

I don't know why you folks have a problem with this.

*

 

[esmith]

You folks are missing the - IFs.

IF Trump and his people committed these crimes. And IF he got help from a foreign government to alter our elections, - putting himself and the Republican party into the presidency. THEN - a court could potentially legally find that the party in power through illegal acts and election tampering, has no right to succession from that illegal Presidency. In other words, even though the rest MAY have done no wrong, - they would be in power ONLY through illegal acts, - thus no right to succession, and holding on to the power.

I don't know why you folks have a problem with this.

*

easy because you are wrong

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't know why you folks have a problem with this.

Because it just won't happen, and that just isn't how it works. If Trump, etc. is found guilty, they will be punished, and removed from office accordingly. But, however, Paul Ryan is not on trial, nor is the Republican party. It would mean Trump got the White House illegally, true, but Trump would be removed.
Another issue is I highly doubt Pence is dumb enough to fall into the same pitfalls. If anything, Trump and his "crew" (which Pence has quietly distanced himself from) will get the boot, opening the position for Pence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Interesting development: it seems that the Senate is taking some extraordinary measures to stop Trump from appointing another Attorney General who would be able to fire Robert Mueller.

According to the article below, when Senate is in recess, the President can fill cabinet vacancies with a one-year appointment without Senate approval. However, the Senate just approved a motion to "meet" every three days during what would be their break so that the Senate is never officially in a recess that would allow Trump to use this loophole.

Senate blocks Trump from replacing Sessions during recess | Daily Mail Online

 

[esmith]

Interesting development: it seems that the Senate is taking some extraordinary measures to stop Trump from appointing another Attorney General who would be able to fire Robert Mueller.

According to the article below, when Senate is in recess, the President can fill cabinet vacancies with a one-year appointment without Senate approval. However, the Senate just approved a motion to "meet" every three days during what would be their break so that the Senate is never officially in a recess that would allow Trump to use this loophole.

Senate blocks Trump from replacing Sessions during recess | Daily Mail Online

So what. Senate pro forma session have happened before. Or maybe you forgot it happened during the Obama's term?
Obama Supreme Court recess appointment thwarted by Senate pro forma sessions

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So what.

So it means that at the very least, the Senate doesn't trust Trump to just do what he would normally be allowed to do without Senate oversight.

Senate pro forma session have happened before. Or maybe you forgot it happened during the Obama's term?
Obama Supreme Court recess appointment thwarted by Senate pro forma sessions

I didn't realize this, actually, but I do remember the Senate working against Obama in different ways.

If the Senate is now using the same tactics against Trump, this would suggest to me that they're now working against Trump... or at least are trying to keep him in check. Do you have a different take on this?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Interesting development: it seems that the Senate is taking some extraordinary measures to stop Trump from appointing another Attorney General who would be able to fire Robert Mueller.

According to the article below, when Senate is in recess, the President can fill cabinet vacancies with a one-year appointment without Senate approval. However, the Senate just approved a motion to "meet" every three days during what would be their break so that the Senate is never officially in a recess that would allow Trump to use this loophole.

Senate blocks Trump from replacing Sessions during recess | Daily Mail Online

That's not all:

Bipartisan Bills Submitted to Prevent Trump from Firing Mueller

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If the Senate is now using the same tactics against Trump, this would suggest to me that they're now working against Trump... or at least are trying to keep him in check. Do you have a different take on this?

The Senate is working against Trump in several ways. They wrote legislation increasing sanctions on Russia (and Iran and North Korea) that forbids Trump from intervening, they're having these pro forma summer sessions to prevent Trump from making appointments without their consent, and then there's the matter I just linked to prohibiting Trump from firing Mueller.

I'd call that a clear vote of no confidence.

 

[esmith]

So it means that at the very least, the Senate doesn't trust Trump to just do what he would normally be allowed to do without Senate oversight.


I didn't realize this, actually, but I do remember the Senate working against Obama in different ways.

If the Senate is now using the same tactics against Trump, this would suggest to me that they're now working against Trump... or at least are trying to keep him in check. Do you have a different take on this?

Nope

 

[esmith]

The Senate is working against Trump in several ways. They wrote legislation increasing sanctions on Russia (and Iran and North Korea) that forbids Trump from intervening, they're having these pro forma summer sessions to prevent Trump from making appointments without their consent, and then there's the matter I just linked to prohibiting Trump from firing Mueller.

I'd call that a clear vote of no confidence.

Would you say that applies to all cases of the Senate enacting the pro forma sessions?