I was originally going to pose the question in this post's title as "President, King, or Chancellor?" I decided to remove "King" because, as seriously as Felondent Trump meant it, it was too far on the ridiculous scale, considering the spirit of this post. Our first ancestors and founders of this country had kings; our later ancestors and the rest of us in subsequent centuries, since 1789, have presidents. Period.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy came to the White House last week to get on the same page, at least relatively so, with Trump. He was going to agree to a mineral deal -- it's always about making money with Trump -- in order to move along some sort of a peace deal with Russia. Zelenskyy's willingness to acquiesce to Trump's transactional "peace deal" requirement was not one-dimensional; he wanted security assurances from America. To Trump, that translates as both: "I'm not blindly agreeing" and/or "You're not doing enough."
And you know how that must have landed with Trump.
Last Friday, we saw the most disgraceful, pathetic, childish, non-presidential, un-American and undiplomatic display from an American president. Then again, the entire meeting was a set-up, so you can't expect any good behavior in that context, not just considering the presence of Felondent Trump.
Countless number of times, over the past ten years, we have seen cow-towing ring-kissers who will speak loudly, sometimes even shouting, to show their "strength", as if what they are talking about is the most important thing in the world. Over the years, commentators have correctly identified these individuals as "speaking to an audience of one". That audience of one is, of course, Donald Trump.
So, last Friday, there they were in the Oval Office: President Zelenskyy, Felondent Trump, Vice-President Vance, and various political Stepford husband supplicants, with many members of the press. Just like the speaking to an audience of one mentioned above, this set-up job included not one, but two elements of speaking to an audience of one.
There was Vice-President J.D. Vance, who popped up like a preset jack-in-the-box, who started attacking Zelenskyy, harping over and over again about Zelenskyy saying thank you right there in that meeting. He was speaking to an audience of one -- Donald Trump.
Felondent Trump, who also mentioned thanking him, was speaking Russian Anti-Ukraine talking points, cutting off Zelenskyy several times, and engaging in his typical hyperbolic rhetoric (e.g. "You don't have the cards", "Toying with the lives of millions of people", "Toying with World War III"). He, too, was speaking to an audience of one; that audience was Vladimir Putin.
There was supposed to be a joint press conference with the two leaders -- never happened. There was supposed to be a luncheon for Zelenskyy while at the White House, and the food was supposedly on carts ready to be served -- never happened. Zelenskyy was even told to leave the White House after the blow up!
Three years ago, Putin attacked Ukraine in a war Ukraine did not start. Last week, Ukraine's leader Zelenskyy was verbally attacked by Trump and Vance in an argument Zelenskyy did not start. Anyone else see the parallels?
But, according to Trump, Zelenskyy is the dictator.
Trump enacted this set-up to do nothing more than to dress down President Zelenskyy. it was nothing short of disgusting! At the end, Trump commented that it "made for good television". No doubt it was good television for Vladimir Putin.
Four days later, on Tuesday, Donald Trump addressed a joint session of Congress in what amounted to, at least in some measure, a quasi-State of the Union Address. From his opening declaration of "America is back!" -- maybe he meant America is going backwards -- it was a 100-minute slog-fest overflowing with deceptions, demagoguery, and divisiveness, along with self-aggrandizement and showmanship.
I think a more powerful protest by the Democrats would have been to walk out during the speech or to never show up, but I doubt the party leadership would have allowed for that. I initially thought the paddle signs they held up with things like False, Musk Steals, Save Medicaid, and Protect Veterans written on them was a good protest -- Trump clearly didn't like them -- but I can see how others saw it as silly. Still, the Democrats remaining seated the entire time -- they didn't rise for Trump's entrance, for any of his introductions of people in the gallery, or for specific points he was making.
As far as standing and cheering, the POT certainly did more than their fair share of both. With them fully under his spell, Trump's band of sycophantic congressional cultists seized on every opportunity to shout and cheer like a sporting event crowd cheering on the home team scoring... or like an angry mob, giddy with delight, happily cheering the bully who just beat the hell out of someone.
Granted, someone like Trump can cause the worst out of a lot of people, even opponents, and we saw Texas Democratic Representative Al Green so enraged as to stand up, to remain standing, and to shout at Felondent Trump. He was removed from the chamber; first time that's ever happened during a joint address. Rep. Green said he would take whatever punishment came after exiting the chamber.
Today, he was censured by the House of Representatives. He acknowledged what he did, and that the Speaker Mike Johnson was correct in removing him, etc., all while standing firm on his grievance that he was shouting during the address -- the Felondent does not have a mandate to gut Medicaid. He stood his ground and took the punishment like a man, not like a petulant child. (The petulant children were House POT members.)
Between last Friday and this past Tuesday, Felondent Trump seems to have made two grossly incorrect equivocations. First, putting down someone else makes you look stronger (aka The Bully's Logic). Second, Trump saying, "We will restore true democracy to America again" during his address equates fascist oligarchy with true democracy.
Now we know what Felondent Trump understands as "true democracy".
In closing, let's go back to the title of this post. It is a question related to Donald Trump, of course, and there are two ways to answer the question. One way is in terms of the title he holds. The other way is in terms of what he is doing.
Terry
