President Donald Trump–Doing what he does Best

February 19, 2017

President Donald J. Trump–Doing what he does Best: Electioneering in stead of Governing

Listen to President of the United States at Melbourne, Florida and tell me what you think. His speech resonates with his supporters  no doubt, but it raises more concerns for the rest of us around the world. America, the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, is not an Island onto itself. Under the 45th President, it is  also a fading City on a Hill.

As a  friend of America, I am disappointed at what is happening in America today. In less than a month in office, Mr Trump, you are not acting presidential, but more like a demagogue.

What America is in 2017 reminds me of 1968. To me, you are like the coming of another Richard Milhous Nixon. A divided, polarized, paranoiac, and inward looking America led by another toxic President is not good for a distracted America, and the world which depends on sanity and order in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC.

Taking on the Press is not the solution. It is time for you, Mr. President, to tap the power of the  Press to support and promote your agenda for change. Antagonism towards the Media is, therefore, counterproductive.

So please get out of  your campaign mode, and start governing and making friends with the Media and the rest of the world. It has to be “I am Okay, You are Okay”(Eric Berne) paradigm for global peace and stability. You need, Mr. Trump, friends to keep America and the world safe from terrorism, racism and other forms of extremism, not just ISIS/Dash.–Din Merican.

15 thoughts on “President Donald Trump–Doing what he does Best

  1. A divided, polarized and inward looking America led by another toxic President is not good for the world.

    I agree with this view but then
    Is this not a world culture where some political leaders in some countries are perceived to have policies which serve their own political ambitions though their policies may be dividing the nation and the citizens with policies relating to race-religion-color-etc?
    One may not need to have to look at other countries to see how dividing, polarizing and inward looking policies for self interests and greed for power in some countries may have been voiced to be not good for the country and its citizens but may still be implemented via any means possible..

  2. Quote:- “…start governing and making friends”

    He is, just that his definition of “governing and making friends” may differ from the rest of us.

  3. Unbelievable, what is happening to America today under Trump. LaMoy and my other American friends, it is scary and what are you guys doing about this. If Tump continues in this mode, America will be losing friends around the world. How do you propose to fight terrorism when you are antagonizing the world?–Din Merican

    • Politicians do not want friends but loyal unquestioning followers who will support all their decisions be they right or wrong for the good of the country as long as they advance the agenda of the politician in power.

  4. After watching the brouhaha in the White House for the past month, I’m convinced that Trump did not expect to win the presidency and was not prepared to run the country. Heck, he’s still looking for candidates to fill many vacant positions in his administration. Normally, a serious presidential candidate has the personnel all figured out as to who plays what role in which department of his presidency before and during the presidential campaign. Trump doesn’t know what he is doing. He put together in a hurry a loose bunch of people who are now struggling for power among themselves.

    Trump was put into the White House by surprise. He has no real, good and well-planned programs to offer the country. To put in Deng Xiaoping’s words: he’s to cross the river by feeling the stones. What he does have is his natural strong authoritarian tendencies and, like other demagogues, he knows that perceived enemies can help him fire up the base, rally the crowds and shift responsibility. Don’t look at me, this script cries out; look over there, there is a threat, a danger, a foe. His administration is in chaos, but it’s all the media’s fault. And besides, there is no chaos. But if there were….

    When it comes to enemies, a demonized media is even more useful than the average antagonist. Trump’s real nemesis is the truth. By attacking the media, he opens up a new line of attack against facts, his true target. He is trying to confuse the public so that they will not believe inconvenient truths. Trump wants America to think that it is not his administration but the media that is out of control, because he wants to control what people view as true and false. It seemed like a good plan, but it has a fatal flaw. He underestimates people are learning the difference between good journalism and bad. Trump’s tactic may work for dictatorships. It won’t work in the United States.

    If you watched Trump’s astonishing press conference on Thursday, you might be forgiven for concluding that the most urgent problem facing America is that the media “is out of control.” Some media “is fantastic,” Trump allowed. But on the whole, journalism is plagued by “false, horrible, fake reporting.” Trump unleashed torrents of lies, distortions and fabrications. What he wants is to manufacture his own pseudo-truth; to create a reality where he always wins. Where the only polls that count are the ones where he’s doing great. Where the only comments about him are compliments, and where anything negative is false, the work of an out-of-control media. Where when things go wrong it is someone else’s fault. Trump thinks this scheme will work because journalists are unpopular, but he is wrong because he’s reading the polls about journalists incorrectly.

    When Trump says the people don’t trust the media, he doesn’t know that the media outlets the people don’t trust are the ones he likes — and like him in return; probably the ones he described as “fantastic.” A recent study by Morning Consult found that the majority of the people find the major media outlets are credible. At the top, ABC News was found credible by 67%, CBS by 65%, The New York Times by 63% and CNN by 60% of the public. The averages are brought down by the likes of Breitbart, the former professional home of Trump’s top adviser, Steve Bannon. Only 19% believe what they report, just ahead of the satirical site The Onion, which doesn’t even claim to tell the truth, but which nevertheless was found more credible than Infowars, the wild conspiracy peddling operation of Alex Jones, a Trump’s supporter.

    God, if you exist and whatever you may be, bless America and the world.
    Your views on American politics and pungent comments on the Trump Administration in the first 1 month since his inauguration on January 20, 2017 make me ask this question, can’t Americans think anymore? Maybe his supporters. The media like the New York Times, LA Times, The Washington Post, CNN and other networks ought to apply pressure and hopefully they can find grounds for the House and Senate to impeach him. Why isn’t Mr. Trump releasing his tax returns? What will the CIA do? –Din Merican

    • Most Americans have not even been out of their own hometowns (village/kampong) so they don’t really know what the hell is going on. Even for the young and savvy internet connected, they only get to experience the virtual portion, not the real world. So can they really think?

  5. Bro Din:
    Fair questions. The American people are virtually in a civil war right now. The country is absolutely divided, just like in Malaysia. The media is doing a good job putting pressure on Trump reporting on his every move and that’s why he is declaring the media his public enemy #1. There’s no law that requires Trump to disclose the returns, since the papers are considered private information. But there’s also no law that says he can’t release them. If you think Trump would ever do this voluntarily, you haven’t been paying attention. But a court order might be just the thing to pry them from his grip. Norman Eisen, one of the lawyers bringing an ethics lawsuit against Trump, raised the possibility on CNN on Monday that a judge might order Trump’s tax returns released as part of the case. The CIA answers to the President, but there are awfully lots of leak to the media recently. Wonder where they all are coming from.

    Shortly following new revelations from the New York Times that President Donald Trump’s campaign team was in “repeated” contact with Russian officials ahead of the 2016 election, #TrumpImpeachmentParty began trending on Twitter in a call to take Trump out of office. But while the hashtag might be gaining steam, the process of impeaching a president is a lot easier said than done.

    What does it mean for a president to be impeached, what does the process look like, and is it even possible for Donald Trump to be impeached in a month into his presidency? Here’s what you need to know.

    What does it mean to be impeached? One of the most common misconceptions is that “impeached” is synonymous with “taken out of office,” but that’s not the case. Instead, impeachment means bringing formal charges (an “indictment” in legalese) against a public official. The legislative branch (i.e. the House of Representatives and the Senate) can bring charges against a high-level government official, try that person, and decide whether or not to convict and remove that person from office.

    What does the process of impeachment look like?
    Articles I and II of the U.S. Constitution lay out the process of impeachment. In practice, the House of Representatives has the sole duty of bringing formal charges against a “civil officer,” which has been interpreted to mean presidents, vice presidents, federal judges. The question of who, specifically, is considered a “civil officer” for purposes of impeachment is unresolved. The articles of impeachment can be introduced by an individual member of the chamber or by a committee, petition, special prosecutor, or president; from there, an inquiry can be opened, usually by the House Judiciary Committee, to see if there are grounds for impeachment. Typically there is a great deal of investigation and debate within the committee, and a majority of the committee must vote to move the resolution to a full House vote. If the motion to impeach is put to a vote, the House must achieve a simple majority of all representatives present for an official to be charged and the proceedings to move to the Senate. Only the House itself may formally vote to impeach the president; the public doesn’t have a direct say or vote.

    The Senate has the sole duty of trying the accused, and if the Senate finds the person guilty of the charges brought against him or her, that person is removed from that position. To decide on whether or not to convict or acquit someone, the Senate may call the accused to speak on his or her behalf, and counsel and House “managers” (who are selected to present the matter to the Senate) are also called to speak for or against the person up for impeachment. Once inquiries are completed, the Senate holds a closed session to debate the case, and a two-thirds vote of all senators present is required to convict. Additionally, the Constitution explains that impeachments are the only proceedings where the accused doesn’t stand before a jury, meaning that the judicial branch isn’t involved.

    What does it take to be impeached? Article II Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution is vague in terms of what are grounds for impeachment: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
    Because the constitution doesn’t say that specific actions are impeachable per se, the legislature must discern if a person’s actions can be seen as treason, bribery, or another crime that’s considered detrimental to the country.

    Given that #TrumpImpeachmentParty is trending, obviously some people believe there are grounds for impeachment. For example, Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig and fellow Harvard Law faculty member Tamara Piety started a campaign called, calling for Trump’s impeachment. The campaign focuses on the fact that Trump’s continued ownership of his businesses create potential conflicts of interest. Additionally, Democratic representative Seth Moulton said the recent revelations that members of Trump’s campaign team were in contact with Russian officials before the election is “the very definition of treason,” which is technically impeachable under the Constitution if other members of the House agree with Moulton. However, the impeachment process comes down to interpretation; an offense is only formally impeachable if the House decides to go through the initial proceedings.

    Are there other examples of presidents being impeached? Impeachment in general is incredibly rare; the U.S. House of Representatives website say that impeachment proceedings have only been initiated around 60 times, but only about one-third of those proceedings have been tried in the Senate. In total, eight people (all federal judges), have been found guilty and removed from office after being tried before the Senate. Thus far, two presidents, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, have successfully been impeached by the House of Representatives, though both were acquitted by the Senate. The House of Representatives also began impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon, but he resigned soon after three articles of impeachment were approved.

    For those calling for Donald Trump’s impeachment, the biggest hurdle is that his own party, the Republicans, have majorities in both chambers of Congress. An event or series of events would have to create a big enough rift that the Republicans choose to go through such formal proceedings to get rid of a president who theoretically shares the same ideology.

    The way I see it, even if Trump could survive the four years, it’s almost impossible for him to govern the country efficiently and effectively. In such a short period he has already made enemies every where inside and outside of the country, pissed off almost all our allies, except Israel, and driven Europe to increasingly warmer relations with China. Even Japan under Abe, who is staunchly anti-Chinese, is softening towards China and very recently showing signs of warm relations developing between the two countries. If Trump truly proclaims he is a patriot and loves the country very much (which I do not believe for he had evaded the country’s call for duty during the Vietnam War by dodging the draft), he should resign from his office. But one could never know what a narcissist child bully coward would do.

    • Bro LaMoy,

      Thanks for your clarification on impeachment. Bill Clinton was impeached over a misdemeanor, which was a private matter. He survived by the skin of his teeth and became a great President. How come? –Din Merican

    • An impeachment proceeding against Trump would cost Democrats even more seats in 2018 mid-term election given the increasing favorable mood to Trump. If Democrats want to be that stupid, nobody can help them.

    • In fact, due to his bizarre behavior, there is increasingly unsubtle speculation in Washington about the health of Trump’s mind. The president of the United States has essentially unconstrained authority to use nuclear weapons however he sees fit. So what would happen if the president, in the judgment of those closest to him, were not be in his right mind? In such a scenario, there is, in fact, something that could quickly and legally be done to avert global catastrophe. The answer lies in Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution.

      The amendment states that if, for whatever reason, the vice president and a majority of the eight sitting Cabinet secretaries decide that the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,” they can simply put that down in writing and send it to two people — the speaker of the House and the Senate’s president pro tem. Then the vice president would immediately become “Acting President,” and take over all the president’s powers. The president can dispute this move but then it would be up to Congress to settle the matter with a vote. A two-thirds majority in both houses would be necessary to keep the vice president in charge. If that threshold isn’t reached, the president would regain his powers.

      The 25th Amendment exists as a fail-safe that can be used if any president truly does appear to be unwell physically or mentally — as long as the people involved have the courage to actually go through with it, and the competence to carry it out without causing an even greater disaster.

      This is not an impeachment. This sorta feels like a coup but it’s not technically a coup, because it’s indisputably legal and constitutional. There’s zero precedent for this actually happening in US history, and the vast majority of Americans are likely unaware that it’s even possible.
      LaMoy, you should watch the movie Dr. Strangelove released in 1964. –Din Merican

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.