If Obama had done what Trump just did...

[jsant...@aol.com]

The United States just unambiguously lost a war that it started for no good reason. A sane country would remove the imbecile who did this immediately.

When I read history, I often wonder what it must have felt like to live those events in real time, as I’m sure you do. Did it seem an ominous moment in June 1914 when Gavrilo Princip shot Archduke Franz Ferdinand? If I were a Briton in September 1938, would I have had an uneasy sense of foreboding watching the newsreel of Neville Chamberlain stepping off that plane from Munich? I think such thoughts this week because I have no doubt that future historians and readers of history will surely wonder what the ever-living fuck we were all thinking when Donald Trump both started and then lost his immoral and pointless war with Iran. What we have just witnessed is almost beyond belief, and would be beyond belief if we didn’t all know going in that Trump is such an aggressively and willfully stupid human being, utterly impervious to knowledge and facts, serenely cocooned in his carapace of ignorance, surrounded by flatterers who patronize him as one does a child and who scream at Americans about his nonexistent genius, courage, and virility. They exist in a fantasyland.

[STEVEN ROBINSON]

Well and good to blame Trump for botching his war of aggression and not suffering any direct political consequences but in reality the cause of that is not MAGA but the beloved U.S. Constitution, treated as holy writ by all  parts of the U.S. political spectrum (even some progressives, sad to say). In most other representative democracies or  republics, Trump would likely not be in office going forward. The legislature would immediately vote "no confidence" and elections would be called. And odds are a new leader would be elected.  The creaky, obsolete constitution of 1787 prevents that from happening, so we are stuck with Trump .....

 

SR

On 06/19/2026 10:45 AM PDT 'jsant...@aol.com' via new_continuum <new_co...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

 

 

The United States just unambiguously lost a war that it started for no good reason. A sane country would remove the imbecile who did this immediately.

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "new_continuum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to new_continuu...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/new_continuum/1891546098.213804.1781891117842%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Tim]

SR it is rare to read anyone's critical thoughts about the US constitution.   I have two opinions to share in response. 

First, that the US constitution's 2-4-6 election rhythm with no right of the citizens to recall or impeach sets up a playground for lobbyists and limits accountability. 

Second, that there is an undercurrent present, a hope that some rule of law will survive the fascist trampling of the Bill of Rights and parts of the Constitution, so I think what we perceive as a love of the Constitution is actually an expression of hope in some rule of law.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/new_continuum/973656168.157788.1781892644859%40connect.xfinity.com.

[srobin21]

Tim,  

The Constitution is fair game. Although there was a lot more talk about it after the 2016 election than there is now.

There is the fact that in most countries  Trump would not have been elected in the first place, in 2016, because Hillary Clinton got more  of the popular votes than he did. That wasn't the first time either. We all remember thst Gore won the popular vote in 2000. You can thank the Electoral College.

In addition, the Republicans dominate the Senate because small, usually Republican, states get as many votes as large, usually Democratic leaning ones. Sparsely populated Wyoming has equal representation to  California. That is but one example. Now, as in times past, a minority of the population controls the majority of the Senate. That is, as they say, a feature not a bug.

I am all in favor of the rule of law but without more democracy we will continue to get bad outcomes.

SR

Sent from my Galaxy

[Tim]

SR - I suppose we could go point by point through those flaws. I agree with your points.  

The law, in general, is not based on the Constitution alone, or on the Bill of Rights alone. 

Trump's brand of fascism is opposed to every kind of law, no matter the source.  All laws are simply obstacles, and the courts that apply them are obstacles, to The King, or Maximum Ruler, or Great Leader, or American Hitler, or Unitary Executive, whatever the title, getting what he wants.  Over his lifetime, Trump has railed against civil law, criminal law, constitutional law, and numerous laws made by Congress and signed by previous Presidents. If tax law does not allow him perfect relief, then statements must be manipulated, and matters must be fought in court, as in the Seven Springs property fraud case. The fault is the law, certainly not his endless avarice or poor business decisions.  Does the Constitution seem to limit him to two terms?  Well then it is wicked, and ought to be ignored!  This is tyranny, is it not?  Republicans called it the theory of the Unitary Executive, back in the Nixon years, and Nixon believed in it. 

Sen. McTurtle, as they called him, repeatedly manipulated the rules of the Senate to the benefit of his Republican party, but insisted on strict observance and compliance from the Democrats.  All this says to me that McTurtle and his adherents have no respect for law and custom, and are in fact tyrants who are not being properly restrained.   

I believe we have come to the point where it is time to recognize that our system of laws has failed at all levels in the restraint of evil. 

Yet, I was trying to say, many Democrats believe they must work hard to preserve the rule of law.

We need a very different Constitution.  We need powers of recall for the House, Senate, and Executive, control of the cabinet members by citizens, and much much more. 

We need major reform in criminal procedure and punishments. (I am thinking of Qualified Immunity, and Civil Forfeiture, and putting some sentences beyond the reach of a corrupt pardon.)

We need reforms to civil procedure. As it stands, a well-funded party can bring an action against an innocent party and cause financial ruin to that party, without consequence.  On proof of motivation, I would bring about the ruin of the dishonest attacker, and I would force imprisonment so as to protect others from this abuse.

The wrong people are in prison.  And the problem is getting worse every week. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "new_continuum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to new_continuu...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/new_continuum/alPOwkYTwm7QialPPw6fEO.1781922372.b725d5f36046454d8878f09128a2bf61.MISSINGID%40comcast.net.