Dear Shadow Minister,

The Twenty-fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Article 4,
allows - for members of the Cabinet or the Republican
leadership in Congress to declare in writing that the
President is unable to discharge the powers and duties
of his office. The Vice President then immediately can
assume the powers and duties of the office as acting
President.

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/25/dont-look-now-its-president-pence-donald-trump-can-be-deposed-even-without-impeachment/

Taken from the link :

"Of course it's an extreme long shot that members of
Trump's Cabinet or the Republican leadership in Congress
would ever take such a drastic step. This would only
happen if Trump really started to behave in an unhinged
fashiopn. After all the bizarre behaviour he has
exhibited over the past 18 months one can't help but
wonder."

"What could possibly count as going too far?
It's almost too terrifying to imagine."

Hear, hear!

Is playing dumb your next tactic, phanto? Given up on the pseudo-psychology, have we? Maybe this new angle of yours will finally make me look terrible, eh? Let’s see.

<<How come it is serious when Trump says it but not serious when you say it?>>

Trump was using his own words to brag during a private conversation, whereas I was using someone else’s words in mockery on a public forum for shock value to convey a point, and to possibly expose a double standard. The latter didn’t work. Apparently the former didn’t work either, where you’re concerned.

Are you really that dense, or do you not get sarcasm?

I've been pondering a response elsewhere to the question of removal.

A few points.
- My impression is that so far he is pretty much doing things he said he was going to do.
- Wondering if the VP would actually be a safer option for some of the more vocal anti-Trump voices? He may be more conventional but from some of what I've seen could be much further to the "right" than Trump.
- Finding a way to remove Trump from office does not take away the mood of discontent with the status quo that got him elected in the first place. If anything anything it would make it substantially worse and make it easier for someone even more extreme than Trump to gain office in the future.
- My impression is that both major parties are very corrupt.
- So called progressives have generally given up on truth and any concept of consistency in pursuit of identity politics and accepted causes. There is an unwillingness to reform (although some of the left have spoken out about aspects of it). That they will punish anybody they can who challenges the narrative and it seems to many that the only electable alternatives are on the extremes. There are no strong voices for genuine social justice, just the sad parodies of it.
- I think it's going to be difficult for voices for reform in the Republican party in the US to gain traction while they hold power even if many are uncomfortable about the direction that power is taken.

If we want to avoid the spiral to one form of extremism it will take genuine reform from those claiming to present an alternative approach. A reform where truth and fair play start to matter and that seems unlikely.

R0bert

AJ Phillips:

Why would you need to add 'shock value? If the point you were trying to make was reasonable and logical then surely that would be enough? Wouldn't you want people to be persuaded of your point on the merits of its reason and logic? What does shock value add to the reasonableness and logic of you point? You would only need to add shock value because you were not confident in the logic of your point.

"possibly expose a double standard."

Do you mean you are not sure if there was a double standard or not sure whether you wanted to draw attention to it? If the former what was the double standard?

Because our gets the point across quickly, phanto.

<<Why would you need to add 'shock value?>>

Of course, you already knew that, didn't you?

<<If the point you were trying to make was reasonable and logical then surely that would be enough?>>

You would think so, wouldn't you?

<<Wouldn't you want people to be persuaded of your point on the merits of its reason and logic?>>

Yes, I would.

<<What does shock value add to the reasonableness and logic of you point?>>

Brevity.

<<You would only need to add shock value because you were not confident in the logic of your point.>>

Or if I wanted to keep it brief. I was, after all, boarding a plane when I posted that.

You would only suggest that there was only one possibility if you wanted me to lack confidence and were insecure about whether or not that were the case.

You see? Two can play at that game.

<<Do you mean you are not sure if there was a double standard or not sure whether you wanted to draw attention to it?>>

Neither. I meant what I said. I’d suggest that you read what I wrote again, but you even quoted it and still didn't understand. Or is it be that you are again deliberately trying to draw something from what I said that wasn't there? You must take me for a fool.

<<... what was the double standard?>>

That is it is alright to support someone who bragged about sexually assault, but not alright for me to even suggest it in sarcasm. Just imagine if my post was deleted for vulgarity, eh? Now that would’ve been the ultimate way for my point to have been made.

Foxy,

If you actually read the constitution you would realise while a handful of people could remove him from office, it would have to be ratified by a 2/3 vote of congress, without which he would be automatically reinstated within 21 days, when he could fire his VP and ruin everyone else in the plot.

You and your left whinge blogs are grasping at straws.