And there is, of course, the (likely apocryphal) line attributed to Andrew Jackson: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”
Can you cite a source for that quote? To my knowledge, Andrew Jackson never said them.
Google the quote (without quotes) and you will find lots of sites discussing whether or not Jackson said them or not.
According to wiki, it was first attributed to Jackson in a book by Horace Greeley published in 1865.
Andrew Jackson died in 1845. Your source is 20 years later. Does not prove he said it. Now if you can find a couple of other people saying it was indeed what Jackson said, then I might consider its validity.
And there is, of course, the (likely apocryphal) line attributed to Andrew Jackson: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”
Can you cite a source for that quote? To my knowledge, Andrew Jackson never said them.
Google the quote (without quotes) and you will find lots of sites discussing whether or not Jackson said them or not.
According to wiki, it was first attributed to Jackson in a book by Horace Greeley published in 1865.
Andrew Jackson died in 1845. Your source is 20 years later. Does not prove he said it. Now if you can find a couple of other people saying it was indeed what Jackson said, then I might consider its validity.
I was not trying to prove that he said it. I meant that the first attestation is Horace Greeley in 1865, and he doesn't appear to have been citing anyone else, so there seems insufficient evidence that Jackson said it.
I’m not Nick Tamen, and as he said the quotation is probably apocryphal, but here’s a reference to it from the (US) National Council on Public History, and here’s a reference to it from Wikipedia. Both these sources agree with Nick Tamen that the quotation is likely apocryphal.
A question for our US shipmates: What could be done if there are serious concerns that DJT is showing all the signs of RPD?
I had to look up RPD.
"Patients typically develop problems with their thinking, mood/personality/behavior, ability to speak or understand, or ability to control their movements."
trump has had these issues for years.
Nothing new about any of them imo .
A question for our US shipmates: What could be done if there are serious concerns that DJT is showing all the signs of RPD?
I had to look up RPD.
"Patients typically develop problems with their thinking, mood/personality/behavior, ability to speak or understand, or ability to control their movements."
trump has had these issues for years.
Nothing new about any of them imo .
RPD is Rapid Progressive Dementia which progresses quite fast within a couple of years. Trump's disorder has been evident since 2016, so I doubt it is rapid.
In a popular quotation that is believed to be apocryphal, President Andrew Jackson reportedly responded: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" This quotation first appeared twenty years after Jackson's death in newspaper publisher Horace Greeley's 1865 history of the U.S. Civil War, The American Conflict. It was reported in the press in March 1832 that Jackson was unlikely to aid in carrying out the court's decision if his assistance were to be requested. In an April 1832 letter to John Coffee, Jackson wrote that "the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate." In a letter in March 1832, Virginia politician David Campbell reported a private conversation in which Jackson had "sportively" suggested calling on the Massachusetts state militia to enforce the order if the Supreme Court requested he intervene, because Jackson believed Northern partisans had brought about the court's ruling.
The question is, would the Cabinet do it? I think Trump would have to exhibit far more extreme behavior before they'd even consider it. Every single one of them will be thinking about whether their political career would survive taking such action.
The question is, would the Cabinet do it? I think Trump would have to exhibit far more extreme behavior before they'd even consider it. Every single one of them will be thinking about whether their political career would survive taking such action.
It's also a win-win if you hope to succeed him and hope to gut the state and don't really care too much about the fallout, you showed yourself as maximally loyal and can blame all the failures on him.
The question is, would the Cabinet do it? I think Trump would have to exhibit far more extreme behavior before they'd even consider it. Every single one of them will be thinking about whether their political career would survive taking such action.
No. One benefit of Trump picking massively unqualified cabinet members (at least from Trump's perspective) is that they are all well aware that no one other than Donald Trump would put them in such positions. They rise or fall with him and they know it. Pure self-interest will keep them loyal and give them a motive to ignore or cover up any mental issues Trump may be having.
We had a discussion on this phenomenon in the U.S. Senate a few years back. Senators in decline are reluctant retire because the amenities available in to Senators (on-site medical care, dining, barber shop, fitness center, etc.) cannot be easily replicated by private individuals. Their staffers likewise know that any replacement Senator will probably bring their own staff with them and so are highly motivated to conceal any problems from the public.
The question is, would the Cabinet do it? I think Trump would have to exhibit far more extreme behavior before they'd even consider it. Every single one of them will be thinking about whether their political career would survive taking such action.
No. One benefit of Trump picking massively unqualified cabinet members (at least from Trump's perspective) is that they are all well aware that no one other than Donald Trump would put them in such positions. They rise or fall with him and they know it. Pure self-interest will keep them loyal and give them a motive to ignore or cover up any mental issues Trump may be having.
We had a discussion on this phenomenon in the U.S. Senate a few years back. Senators in decline are reluctant retire because the amenities available in to Senators (on-site medical care, dining, barber shop, fitness center, etc.) cannot be easily replicated by private individuals. Their staffers likewise know that any replacement Senator will probably bring their own staff with them and so are highly motivated to conceal any problems from the public.
Plus, whoever does actually get rid or Trump, or attempt to, will be forever remembered as the Brutus to Trump's Caesar. The MAGA cult will never forgive someone who drives a knife into the back of their Messiah, or attempts to. And, while the MAGA cult rules the Republican Party that's the end of any sort of political career. It will only happen if the MAGA cult is ousted from the Republican Party and Brutus can play the "I saved the Republicans from Trump" card and gain support from Republicans for doing that.
Well there goes the US department of education. I guess he really can’t dismantle it. Surely that takes more than the President. From what I can see he is not doing much to convince the world he is not a Russian asset.
What happens to all those people who lose their jobs?
In the Trump/Musk worldview, they go and get "more productive" jobs in the private sector. In the Trump/Musk worldview, nothing the government does is useful or productive.
The people who were fired from DOE were mostly from the student aid office (the people that administer the student loan programs), from the office for civil rights (the people that investigate civil rights complaints against public schools. Republicans like civil rights violations, as long as they're doing the violating.), and a lot of the education science folks responsible for things like understanding how effective various teaching methods are, for the National Assessment of Educational Progress, and so on. Republicans don't want policy to be driven by data, because then they'd have to admit that their policies are wrong. They want policies to be driven by belief, and "equally valid" opinion, and prejudice. Having actual data is an impediment to that.
The problem with the termination letter the federal employees are receiving is they have a clause saying they are not meeting the expectations of their position. That clause will mean their applications elsewhere will be flagged keeping them from being hired elsewhere.
What happens to all those people who lose their jobs?
In the Trump/Musk worldview, they go and get "more productive" jobs in the private sector. In the Trump/Musk worldview, nothing the government does is useful or productive.
That goes back at least as far as Ronald Reagan, who infamously quipped that the nine scariest words in the English language were, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." The flip-side of that coin is that higher education is nefarious / intellectual rigor is suspect.
What happens to all those people who lose their jobs?
In the Trump/Musk worldview, they go and get "more productive" jobs in the private sector. In the Trump/Musk worldview, nothing the government does is useful or productive.
That goes back at least as far as Ronald Reagan, who infamously quipped that the nine scariest words in the English language were, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." The flip-side of that coin is that higher education is nefarious / intellectual rigor is suspect.
Ah, @Bullfrog here's agreement with what you've been saying for the last 20 years.
The problem with the termination letter the federal employees are receiving is they have a clause saying they are not meeting the expectations of their position. That clause will mean their applications elsewhere will be flagged keeping them from being hired elsewhere.
I doubt it. I suspect any employer they’d want to work for would see that clause as pretextual. As would, I suspect, a court in an action for wrongful discharge.
It’s just another example of Musk and DOGE’s incompetence that they can’t even give a halfway defensible reason for the blanket terminations.
What happens to all those people who lose their jobs?
In the Trump/Musk worldview, they go and get "more productive" jobs in the private sector. In the Trump/Musk worldview, nothing the government does is useful or productive.
That goes back at least as far as Ronald Reagan, who infamously quipped that the nine scariest words in the English language were, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." The flip-side of that coin is that higher education is nefarious / intellectual rigor is suspect.
Ah, @Bullfrog here's agreement with what you've been saying for the last 20 years.
Not only does it seem (to this Brit) that Trump can do whatever he pleases, but also that this immunity will apply to any successor, be they Vance, another Republican, or a Democrat.
I appreciate (and hope!) that I may be mistaken in my surmise.
I assume the only way out of that eventuality is to get a constitutional amendment saying the president is not exempt from the law.
We also need a con stitutional amendment that somehow makes the law enforcement forces of the federal government free from interference by the other three branches, so (say) Musk can't hide behind them and do whatever he wants without fear of being arrested for his many crimes, since he's being protected by the marshalls or whomever.
The problem with the termination letter the federal employees are receiving is they have a clause saying they are not meeting the expectations of their position. That clause will mean their applications elsewhere will be flagged keeping them from being hired elsewhere.
I doubt it. I suspect any employer they’d want to work for would see that clause as pretextual. As would, I suspect, a court in an action for wrongful discharge.
It’s just another example of Musk and DOGE’s incompetence that they can’t even give a halfway defensible reason for the blanket terminations.
I should have added that the real problem posed by letters saying those employees were fired for cause is how it could affect the ability of those fired to get unemployment benefits.
We also need a con stitutional amendment that somehow makes the law enforcement forces of the federal government free from interference by the other three branches, so (say) Musk can't hide behind them and do whatever he wants without fear of being arrested for his many crimes, since he's being protected by the marshalls or whomever.
That would leave the law enforcement branch free from watchers. The position of inspectors general in the US are suppose to be the overseers watching for corruption with limited but deep powers; however, they were the first to go. Traditionally it has been the duty of the House and Senate with their powers to investigate and impeach. The imperial Chinese organization usually translated as censorate had a similar role including at times the duty to admonish the emperor (this didn't always work well for the individual censor). Some other Asian countries such as Korea had similar organizations. They also had their problems.
My best guess is that the Daily Mail was reporting third-hand rumours that will come to nothing, but that doesn't change the fact that Trump appeared to endorse the idea after it had been reported.
The original "story" attributed it to "sources at The Palace" and said the idea had come from QEII - a suggestion that has provoked near universal mirth.
My best guess is that the Daily Mail was reporting third-hand rumours that will come to nothing, but that doesn't change the fact that Trump appeared to endorse the idea after it had been reported.
The original "story" attributed it to "sources at The Palace" and said the idea had come from QEII - a suggestion that has provoked near universal mirth.
Wasn't this the final twist in the GBS play, 'The Apple Cart'? Except that IIRC there, it was the Americans who applied for readmisson, and the King who correctly realised that this was a takeover bid.
My best guess is that the Daily Mail was reporting third-hand rumours that will come to nothing, but that doesn't change the fact that Trump appeared to endorse the idea after it had been reported.
The original "story" attributed it to "sources at The Palace" and said the idea had come from QEII - a suggestion that has provoked near universal mirth.
Is there a safe link, please?
Bloomberg has an article up...
Trump Says Joining Commonwealth 'Sounds Good to Me'
My best guess is that the Daily Mail was reporting third-hand rumours that will come to nothing, but that doesn't change the fact that Trump appeared to endorse the idea after it had been reported.
The original "story" attributed it to "sources at The Palace" and said the idea had come from QEII - a suggestion that has provoked near universal mirth.
Is there a safe link, please?
Bloomberg has an article up...
Trump Says Joining Commonwealth 'Sounds Good to Me'
I suspect he doesn’t really understand the Commonwealth. Smaller nations talking fairly equally with bigger nations. Talking about the way the environmental crisis is affecting the smaller countries. I could of course be wrong but…
Not quite so interested in wealth for the commons though.
But, I don't think many in positions of power in the Commonwealth (any of the Commonwealths throughout history) considered distributing wealth among the commons to be important.
Not quite so interested in wealth for the commons though.
But, I don't think many in positions of power in the Commonwealth (any of the Commonwealths throughout history) considered distributing wealth among the commons to be important.
I suspect a guy like Modi wouldn't mind a lotta wealth redistributed in the direction of India qua India, but much less enthusiastic about redistributing it within India.
Briefly: the idea that the media and academia control things, and that their control should be dismantled and replaced by a single leader from the corporate world, with tech billionaires to assist. Democracy is considered outdated, elections to be abolished, the government dismantled and replaced by private corporations. Public opposition is dealt with by a flurry of distractions and deliberate chaos.
I do remember the last time he stepped in front of the queen in reviewing the troops. She did not have a pleasant look on her face. I would not put it past him to take CII's place, I know he thinks he is above everyone else.
I do remember the last time he stepped in front of the queen in reviewing the troops. She did not have a pleasant look on her face. I would not put it past him to take CII's place, I know he thinks he is above everyone else.
Do you think he could be persuaded to take CI's place?
I do remember the last time he stepped in front of the queen in reviewing the troops. She did not have a pleasant look on her face. I would not put it past him to take CII's place, I know he thinks he is above everyone else.
Do you think he could be persuaded to take CI's place?
Comments
Google the quote (without quotes) and you will find lots of sites discussing whether or not Jackson said them or not.
According to wiki, it was first attributed to Jackson in a book by Horace Greeley published in 1865.
Andrew Jackson died in 1845. Your source is 20 years later. Does not prove he said it. Now if you can find a couple of other people saying it was indeed what Jackson said, then I might consider its validity.
I was not trying to prove that he said it. I meant that the first attestation is Horace Greeley in 1865, and he doesn't appear to have been citing anyone else, so there seems insufficient evidence that Jackson said it.
I had to look up RPD.
"Patients typically develop problems with their thinking, mood/personality/behavior, ability to speak or understand, or ability to control their movements."
trump has had these issues for years.
Nothing new about any of them imo .
Maybe, but there is a definite worsening IMHO.
The downside is that this could lead to Vance being POTUS.
Indeed. I thought it had, but couldn't offhand remember which Amendment applied. Apologies to US Shipmates for causing you to repeat yourselves.
(Footnotes omitted)
It's also a win-win if you hope to succeed him and hope to gut the state and don't really care too much about the fallout, you showed yourself as maximally loyal and can blame all the failures on him.
No. One benefit of Trump picking massively unqualified cabinet members (at least from Trump's perspective) is that they are all well aware that no one other than Donald Trump would put them in such positions. They rise or fall with him and they know it. Pure self-interest will keep them loyal and give them a motive to ignore or cover up any mental issues Trump may be having.
We had a discussion on this phenomenon in the U.S. Senate a few years back. Senators in decline are reluctant retire because the amenities available in to Senators (on-site medical care, dining, barber shop, fitness center, etc.) cannot be easily replicated by private individuals. Their staffers likewise know that any replacement Senator will probably bring their own staff with them and so are highly motivated to conceal any problems from the public.
It's rather a trap for corruption. I wonder if the FF's realized that. Fucking Founders...
In the Trump/Musk worldview, they go and get "more productive" jobs in the private sector. In the Trump/Musk worldview, nothing the government does is useful or productive.
The people who were fired from DOE were mostly from the student aid office (the people that administer the student loan programs), from the office for civil rights (the people that investigate civil rights complaints against public schools. Republicans like civil rights violations, as long as they're doing the violating.), and a lot of the education science folks responsible for things like understanding how effective various teaching methods are, for the National Assessment of Educational Progress, and so on. Republicans don't want policy to be driven by data, because then they'd have to admit that their policies are wrong. They want policies to be driven by belief, and "equally valid" opinion, and prejudice. Having actual data is an impediment to that.
That goes back at least as far as Ronald Reagan, who infamously quipped that the nine scariest words in the English language were, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." The flip-side of that coin is that higher education is nefarious / intellectual rigor is suspect.
Ah, @Bullfrog here's agreement with what you've been saying for the last 20 years.
It’s just another example of Musk and DOGE’s incompetence that they can’t even give a halfway defensible reason for the blanket terminations.
At least, and my dad probably before.
We also need a con stitutional amendment that somehow makes the law enforcement forces of the federal government free from interference by the other three branches, so (say) Musk can't hide behind them and do whatever he wants without fear of being arrested for his many crimes, since he's being protected by the marshalls or whomever.
That would leave the law enforcement branch free from watchers. The position of inspectors general in the US are suppose to be the overseers watching for corruption with limited but deep powers; however, they were the first to go. Traditionally it has been the duty of the House and Senate with their powers to investigate and impeach. The imperial Chinese organization usually translated as censorate had a similar role including at times the duty to admonish the emperor (this didn't always work well for the individual censor). Some other Asian countries such as Korea had similar organizations. They also had their problems.
SM is blowing up about this nonsense.
The original "story" attributed it to "sources at The Palace" and said the idea had come from QEII - a suggestion that has provoked near universal mirth.
Is there a safe link, please?
Bloomberg has an article up...
I suspect he doesn’t really understand the Commonwealth. Smaller nations talking fairly equally with bigger nations. Talking about the way the environmental crisis is affecting the smaller countries. I could of course be wrong but…
But, I don't think many in positions of power in the Commonwealth (any of the Commonwealths throughout history) considered distributing wealth among the commons to be important.
I suspect a guy like Modi wouldn't mind a lotta wealth redistributed in the direction of India qua India, but much less enthusiastic about redistributing it within India.
Not sure. I'm familiar with Dark Brandon, the affectionate caricature of Joe Biden as a comic-book supervillain. What's Dark Maga?
Briefly: the idea that the media and academia control things, and that their control should be dismantled and replaced by a single leader from the corporate world, with tech billionaires to assist. Democracy is considered outdated, elections to be abolished, the government dismantled and replaced by private corporations. Public opposition is dealt with by a flurry of distractions and deliberate chaos.
Don't give him ideas ...
Do you think he could be persuaded to take CI's place?