Philosophy Now Forum

This news just came out.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:This news just came out.

PhilX

If only it wasn't April Fool's Day.

uwot wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:This news just came out.

PhilX

If only it wasn't April Fool's Day.

No, it's true and I shall be taking his place.

xxx

ForCruxSake wrote:No, it's true and I shall be taking his place.

Well, you're obviously stupid enough!

I doubt if Trump will last much longer in the job. It's Murphy's law. That vile little critter Pence will take over, and the PC hypocrite fuckheads will pat themselves on the back and consider it another job well done. Has anyone considered that Trump was just a red herring all along, and Pence was the real choice? But who would have voted for him?

You folks are funny!

bobevenson wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote:No, it's true and I shall be taking his place.

Well, you're obviously stupid enough!

It's seen me! Someone's just told me to duck for cover...

Well, hello there, Reverend Bob.

Clearly you are American and either have little understanding of humour or feel so attacked now by everyone else here, that you feel you need to turn on a newbie.

It's nice to actually have the opportunity to exchange words with you for the first time. The reason I've not commented on anything you've written on the forum so far, is that most of what you write is so clearly the most appalling bollocks, that it isn't worth commenting on, more than what everyone else has to say about its being the most appalling bollocks. However thank you for giving me this marvellous opportunity to say hello to you.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I doubt if Trump will last much longer in the job. It's Murphy's law. That vile little critter Pence will take over, and the PC hypocrite fuckheads will pat themselves on the back and consider it another job well done. Has anyone considered that Trump was just a red herring all along, and Pence was the real choice? But who would have voted for him?

The whole thing's so stupid, that we can't believe it's actually soooo stupid and start wondering if there is some kind of conspiracy at work.

Will Pence actually be able to get away with half the stuff he wants to bring in? He still has to get congress on side, surely, if he wants to change anything? He has the power of veto, on anything he objects to, but even this can be overturned by congress with a two thirds majority. Surely, he'll be ousted by his own party? Where's the surety that he's likely to be any the more successful at radically changing U.S policy more than Trump?

ForCruxSake wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I doubt if Trump will last much longer in the job. It's Murphy's law. That vile little critter Pence will take over, and the PC hypocrite fuckheads will pat themselves on the back and consider it another job well done. Has anyone considered that Trump was just a red herring all along, and Pence was the real choice? But who would have voted for him?

The whole thing's so stupid, that we can't believe it's actually soooo stupid and start wondering if there is some kind of conspiracy at work.

Will Pence actually be able to get away with half the stuff he wants to bring in? He still has to get congress on side, surely, if he wants to change anything? He has the power of veto, on anything he objects to, but even this can be overturned by congress with a two thirds majority. Surely, he'll be ousted by his own party? Where's the surety that he's likely to be any the more successful at radically changing U.S policy more than Trump?

The first thing he would do is reinstate the TPP, which Trump threw out. The US President probably has more power than any other Western leader. Pence is a seasoned cynical professional politician. The far more dangerous animal.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I doubt if Trump will last much longer in the job. It's Murphy's law. That vile little critter Pence will take over, and the PC hypocrite fuckheads will pat themselves on the back and consider it another job well done. Has anyone considered that Trump was just a red herring all along, and Pence was the real choice? But who would have voted for him?

The whole thing's so stupid, that we can't believe it's actually soooo stupid and start wondering if there is some kind of conspiracy at work.

Will Pence actually be able to get away with half the stuff he wants to bring in? He still has to get congress on side, surely, if he wants to change anything? He has the power of veto, on anything he objects to, but even this can be overturned by congress with a two thirds majority. Surely, he'll be ousted by his own party? Where's the surety that he's likely to be any the more successful at radically changing U.S policy more than Trump?

The first thing he would do is reinstate the TPP, which Trump threw out. The US President probably has more power than any other Western leader. Pence is a seasoned cynical professional politician. The far more dangerous animal.

The TPP benefits the U.S. but U.S. withdrawal from the TPP could benefit the EU, opening up trade for Europe rather than creating a strong trade block that could lock out Europe, but even if Pence does that, we're just back to where we were anyway. No difference, surely?

The U.S. President may well be powerful but any executive order must still be ratified by congress. Trump has shown us that you can make whatever executive order you like, cherry pick from a bunch of brown-nosing, power hungry sycophants for high executive or judicial posts, but in the farmyard of government you still have to get those sheep past congress.

ForCruxSake wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote: The whole thing's so stupid, that we can't believe it's actually soooo stupid and start wondering if there is some kind of conspiracy at work.

Will Pence actually be able to get away with half the stuff he wants to bring in? He still has to get congress on side, surely, if he wants to change anything? He has the power of veto, on anything he objects to, but even this can be overturned by congress with a two thirds majority. Surely, he'll be ousted by his own party? Where's the surety that he's likely to be any the more successful at radically changing U.S policy more than Trump?

The first thing he would do is reinstate the TPP, which Trump threw out. The US President probably has more power than any other Western leader. Pence is a seasoned cynical professional politician. The far more dangerous animal.

The TPP benefits the U.S. but U.S. withdrawal from the TPP could benefit the EU, opening up trade for Europe rather than creating a strong trade block that could lock out Europe, but even if Pence does that, we're just back to where we were anyway. No difference, surely?

The U.S. President may well be powerful but any executive order must still be ratified by congress. Trump has shown us that you can make whatever executive order you like, cherry pick from a bunch of brown-nosing, power hungry sycophants for high executive or judicial posts, but in the farmyard of government you still have to get those sheep past congress.

The President 'technically' needs congress to declare war, but that means diddly squat, since the US hasn't 'declared war' since WW11 yet it has been blowing up other countries ever since. As I understand it the President, without congress, can send 'troops' to harass the world's citizens. I don't know why people insist on calling the rape of Iraq the 'Iraq war'. It was nothing of the kind.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: The first thing he would do is reinstate the TPP, which Trump threw out. The US President probably has more power than any other Western leader. Pence is a seasoned cynical professional politician. The far more dangerous animal.

The TPP benefits the U.S. but U.S. withdrawal from the TPP could benefit the EU, opening up trade for Europe rather than creating a strong trade block that could lock out Europe, but even if Pence does that, we're just back to where we were anyway. No difference, surely?

The U.S. President may well be powerful but any executive order must still be ratified by congress. Trump has shown us that you can make whatever executive order you like, cherry pick from a bunch of brown-nosing, power hungry sycophants for high executive or judicial posts, but in the farmyard of government you still have to get those sheep past congress.

The President 'technically' needs congress to declare war, but that means diddly squat, since the US hasn't 'declared war' since WW11 yet it has been blowing up other countries ever since. As I understand it the President, without congress, can send 'troops' to harass the world's citizens. I don't know why people insist on calling the rape of Iraq the 'Iraq war'. It was nothing of the kind.

What has the declaration of war, or even Iraq, to do with what we were originally talking about? I'm not following your logic, particularly as Bush was not authorised to use military force until congress passed it. (Google 'Iraq Resolution' or ' Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002')

ForCruxSake wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

ForCruxSake wrote: The TPP benefits the U.S. but U.S. withdrawal from the TPP could benefit the EU, opening up trade for Europe rather than creating a strong trade block that could lock out Europe, but even if Pence does that, we're just back to where we were anyway. No difference, surely?

The U.S. President may well be powerful but any executive order must still be ratified by congress. Trump has shown us that you can make whatever executive order you like, cherry pick from a bunch of brown-nosing, power hungry sycophants for high executive or judicial posts, but in the farmyard of government you still have to get those sheep past congress.

The President 'technically' needs congress to declare war, but that means diddly squat, since the US hasn't 'declared war' since WW11 yet it has been blowing up other countries ever since. As I understand it the President, without congress, can send 'troops' to harass the world's citizens. I don't know why people insist on calling the rape of Iraq the 'Iraq war'. It was nothing of the kind.

What has the declaration of war, or even Iraq, to do with what we were originally talking about? I'm not following your logic, particularly as Bush was not authorised to use military force until congress passed it. (Google 'Iraq Resolution' or ' Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002')

He might have got the congress vote, but he didn't need it.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:... The US President probably has more power than any other Western leader. ...

Depends what you mean by power? But anyhoo a British PM has way more power in government than a US President.