President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

MightyMandarin

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I know i shouldn't but I laughed at your post because it's madness that that's not fake but actual true.

You should find the question about anti Semitism in the USA from the press conference today, that he partly answered by talking about his electoral college victory.

It's the general distrust of immigrants among many Americans that just seems odd to me. People like Bannon for example who've made pretty clear that America should consist almost entirely of people born there, just seem ridiculous, particularly as he wouldn't even be considered 'American' had his ancestors not been immigrants.

If anything, the indians are the only people who can claim to be 'real Americans' but even then they came from Asia aswell, so is anyone really 'American' at all, and considering that humans first existed around Ethiopia, according to some scientists, does that mean we're all actually Ethiopians? I doubt the Ethiopians would like all of us foreigners claiming citizenship there.

This nonsense post just sums up why the argument against immigrants is just plain dumb, and always has been. People have been xenophobic since the dawn of time and it's done nothing but cause wars and stupid arguments.

wildgreen

sondagefaux wrote: »

It's not unconstitutional for federal employees, including those working in the intelligence services, to report suspicions of wrongdoing, including waste, fraud or abuse in intelligence operations.

What distinguishes them from whistleblowers who get demonised?

Blowfish

So another potential nuke has dropped. If this article is even close to being true, I struggle to see how even the GOP could stand by him: http://europe.newsweek.com/allies-intercept-russia-trump-adviser-communications-557283?rm=eu

RobertKK

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Based on this video (and yes I know it's Vice), it looks like immigration officials are actually breaking the law when asylum seekers present themselves at the border.

It's quite an interesting reason to see why a lot of would-be asylum seekers choose the illegal route in gaining access to the US, particularly as 'illegal immigration' is such a hardline stance in the US at the moment, especially since Trump insists legal migrants are welcome.

I certainly don't begrudge any asylum seeker from going 'the desert route' given that their rights are being violated by the people legally required to assist them.

Who are these people fleeing from in Mexico?

Billy86

Itssoeasy wrote: »

You should find the question about anti Semitism in the USA from the press conference today, that he partly answered by talking about his electoral college victory.

It won't be too easy to find, what between his answering about that by bringing up his EC victory, answering about the Canadian border by bringing up his EC victory, answering questions on the Mike Flynn debacle by bringing up his EC victory. We're at the point where nobody even needs to write a script for Alec Baldwin anymore, verbatim will do just fine.

He's a broken record and the returns are diminishing - quicker than I expected, to be honest.

Mr.Micro

Itssoeasy wrote: »

CNN is reporting that a US official is saying that the pentagon is considering a proposal of sending combat ground troops into northern Syria. Is that really a good idea ?

Let's face it, Trump needs a distraction at the moment. It's gets worse by the day. Do the Americans realise they elected a guy who clearly does not believe in democracy or debate. A man who wants to rule by dictate, his way or no way.

Inquitus

Trump to hold rally in Florida this weekend, one can only think he needs his ego stroked in front of a friendly crowd, a definite whiff of Fascism about this now he's off the campaign trail and inaugurated.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-rally-melbourne-florida-235061

Peregrinus

RobertKK wrote: »

Who are these people fleeing from in Mexico?

What makes you think they're fleeing from someone in Mexico???

They may or may not be fleeing from persecution in Mexico; I don't see why that would be relevant. The US is a party to the Refugee Convention, and nothing in the Refugee Convention says that states can only afford protection to those fleeing persecution in immediately neighbouring states.

Akrasia

Billy86 wrote: »

He seems to be getting pretty frustrated that his attempts at deflection are suffering from increasingly diminishing returns.

Not on Fox news.

Fox news are lapping it up.

You have to remember that the U.S. has a deeply segregated media. Many people only ever watch fox news, and listen to conservative talk radio, and read conservative press, and here we're seeing Pravda like levels of propaganda

Here are the stories featured on the Fox News website this morning

7
Mass hysteria over General Michael Flynn

Hannity: Do not trust the alt-left propaganda media

Chaffetz: We want inspector general to investigate leaks

Dr. Sebastian Gorka responds to attacks on his credibility

Krauthammer on Puzder withdrawal, Flynn, Mideast policy

Bruce: Ivanka attacks show feminist movement now anti-woman

Piers Morgan: Media fueling 'crazy hysteria' against Trump

Gutfeld: Under Trump, media lapdogs rediscover their bark

Christians forgotten 'revolutionary nature' of the cross?

TRUMP IN THE DARK?
Report: US spies keeping intelligence from president

'THE FIRST 100 DAYS: Chaffetz asks Justice Dept. IG to probe Flynn leaks Sources: Vice Adm. Harward expected to be named national security adviser

THE O'REILLY FACTOR: Media 'talking trash' about Trump and Russia with no credible evidence

GREGG JARRETT: The leak of Flynn's conversations is a crime

If you're a fox news viewer, this, the Trump party line, is repeated so often that it becomes 'obviously true'

Trump doesn't need to be popular amongst democrats and independents. He needs to keep support amongst the republican base because the GOP need these people to secure their own re-elections when they're due to run again.

dudara

Inquitus wrote: »

Trump to hold rally in Florida this weekend, one can only think he needs his ego stroked in front of a friendly crowd, a definite whiff of Fascism about this now he's off the campaign trail and inaugurated.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-rally-melbourne-florida-235061

He needs to be told that he's loved. Needs a big hug. Too many fake media and liberals hating on him at the moment.

On a serious note, have presidents in the past held rallies like this? It seems a bit, well... "love the glorious leader". And I also wonder how many places will be filled by people who want to protest Trump?

Christy42

So what is happening with regards to immigration. His appeal failed last week and I have heard nothing about either a potential Supreme Court appeal or a replacement EO which was rumoured to be coming out early this week. I mean we have had a week of "bad dudes" rushing into America and it should be a top priority given THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE.

dudara

I think I read last night (don't remember the where, sorry) that the EO appeal will be listened to by an "en banc" panel (i.e. 11 judges) of the Ninth Circuit court; the appeal is not going to SCOTUS at the moment.

Akrasia

dudara wrote: »

He needs to be told that he's loved. Needs a big hug. Too many fake media and liberals hating on him at the moment.

On a serious note, have presidents in the past held rallies like this? It seems a bit, well... "love the glorious leader". And I also wonder how many places will be filled by people who want to protest Trump?

There's also a big difference between having a private rally for republican supporters with security on the door to make sure that you're the right kind of person, and the actual president of the USA holding a rally and vetting who gets to attend via race and demographics

Trumps rally will have protests at it. There will also be protesters inside the venue.

Whats he gonna do when they start chanting slogans that he doesn't like?
In the Primaries and the GE, he got them thrown out. As president, can he get them arrested and charged with something? (remember his comments about the good old days?

President Donald J Trump wrote:

"Oh, I love the old days, you know? You know what I hate? There's a guy, totally disruptive, throwing punches, we're not allowed to punch back anymore. I love the old days. You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They'd be carried out on a stretcher, folks," Trump said to cheers. "You know, I love our police, and I really respect our police, and they're not getting enough. They're not. Honestly, I hate to see that. Here's a guy, throwing punches, nasty as hell, screaming at everything else when we're talking, and he's walking out, and we're not allowed -- you know, the guards are very gentle with him, he's walking out, like, big high fives, smiling, laughing -- I'd like to punch him in the face, I'll tell you."

Akrasia

Christy42 wrote: »

So what is happening with regards to immigration. His appeal failed last week and I have heard nothing about either a potential Supreme Court appeal or a replacement EO which was rumoured to be coming out early this week. I mean we have had a week of "bad dudes" rushing into America and it should be a top priority given THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE.

The appeal last week was to overturn the staying order that prevented his EO from being carried out while the courts test the actual EO for constitutionality.

Every lawyer I've heard speak on this says that the executive order itself is legal and constitutional, but the there is a possibility that the comments that trump has made about muslim bans might be grounds to declare the EO to be a breach of church state separation because it's a law that favours one religion over another. This would be a court interpretation that the extraneous comments by Trump and his administration indicate the fundamental intention of the EO, beyond what the order itself says.

It depends on whether the appeals court judges are prepared to rule on the overall context of the order, or just the text of the order itself.

wonderfullife

dudara wrote: »

On a serious note, have presidents in the past held rallies like this? It seems a bit, well... "love the glorious leader". And I also wonder how many places will be filled by people who want to protest Trump?

The short answer is no, they haven't.

The longer answer is most Presidents from Bill Clinton onwards have used major speeches to "campaign". Push their successes, achievements etc with an eye on the next election.

No President has ever organized an explicit campaign rally one month into their Presidency.

The even longer answer is this rally is taking place for 2 reasons:

1. Most importantly, the venue for the rally is a smidgen over 100 miles from Mar-a-Lago. This means that Trump can get another weekend vacation in Mar-a-Lago, at taxpayers expense. Mar-a-Lago also charges overnight guests $2,000 for a room. The more events he can host close to it, the better it is for his bank account.

The man who ran on a platform of accusing Obama of playing too much golf and too many vacations is on track to take more vacations in 4 months than Obama did in 4 years and most of them will be at Mar-a-Lago for above mentioned reasons. The more time he spends at or near Mar-a-Lago, the richer he gets.

2. His ego is bruised. He hopes that a campaign-style cheering crowd will help him. He hopes he can trot out a few more slogans, mainly "MAGA!!" every 2nd sentence to wild cheers. He will then go back to DC and for weeks point to the fact "everyone loves me, they all came out to cheer me".


My own opinion is Donald is miserable in the White House. This is a man in his 70s who has spent his whole life in the Manhattan social scene, with relative anonymity to do as he pleases. Whether it's high-end escorts/hookers, late night parties, cheating on his wives, mingling with celebrities.....

He's gone from that to being followed 24/7/365 by journalists, secret service, having his every move watched and reported on. Worse, the celebrities he spent his whole life trying to seek validation from (Hollywood) have almost universally disowned him.

Howard Stern and Trump are very close and I've every reason to believe Stern was right when he said Trump never wanted to be President and simply ran to try squeeze a new deal out of NBC for The Apprentice.

I genuinely, 100%, believe Trump gives less than 2 sh1ts what happens in Ukraine, Israel or anywhere else outside New York. He's just going to sign whatever Kushner and Bannon ask him to sign and read from a teleprompter.

BabyCheeses

Water John wrote: »

Listening to John McCain today, it's clear he will not support any further the car crash, unstable security situation.
Labour Sec Nominee withdraws, good grief.

He will get in line when the time comes. Im surprised he has enough of a spine to stand up and talk.

RobertKK wrote: »

Who are these people fleeing from in Mexico?

Bad hombres. All those criminals.

Peregrinus

dudara wrote: »

I think I read last night (don't remember the where, sorry) that the EO appeal will be listened to by an "en banc" panel (i.e. 11 judges) of the Ninth Circuit court; the appeal is not going to SCOTUS at the moment.

What has happened is:

- The chief judge of the 9th Circuit has asked both sides in this case to file submission on the question of whether the recent decision of the 3-judge panel should be further reviewed by an 11-judge panel.

- He will have done this because one judge of 9th Circuit - we don't know which one, and there are 29 in all - will have asked him to.

- The 11-judge panel, should it sit, would still be considering the interim ruling, suspending the operation of the Executive Order. It wouldn't be looking at the substantial question of whether the Order is illegal/unconstitutional; just the question of whether it should remain suspended until that substantial issue gets decided.

- Both parties will by now have filed their submissions on the question of whether there should be an 11-judge review. We don't know what either of them said, but it's safe to assume that those who have been on the winning side up to now will not want a further review - why would they?. The Trump administration might have argued either way. If in fact their policy is to revoke and replace the Order with a better-crafted one they probably don't want a further review in case it leads to a judgment saying things which constrain their options still further.

- The submissions will have been circulated to all 29 judges on the 9th Circuit and at some point - I don't know when - they will vote on whether there is to be a further review by an 11-judge panel. The Chief Judge will then announce either that there will, or will not, be a further review. In neither case will reasons for the decision be stated.

Zubeneschamali

dudara wrote: »

On a serious note, have presidents in the past held rallies like this? It seems a bit, well... "love the glorious leader".

It is a campaign rally for 2020.

It seems that Trump liked the campaign much better than the actual day job of being President.

swampgas

wonderfullife wrote: »

[...]
1. Most importantly, the venue for the rally is a smidgen over 100 miles from Mar-a-Lago. This means that Trump can get another weekend vacation in Mar-a-Lago, at taxpayers expense. Mar-a-Lago also charges overnight guests $2,000 for a room. The more events he can host close to it, the better it is for his bank account.

The man who ran on a platform of accusing Obama of playing too much golf and too many vacations is on track to take more vacations in 4 months than Obama did in 4 years and most of them will be at Mar-a-Lago for above mentioned reasons. The more time he spends at or near Mar-a-Lago, the richer he gets.

Donald Trump (and family) seem to be hell-bent on monetizing the presidency for all they can, and they're not being subtle about it. There is an air of desperation about it which, combined with his refusal to show his tax returns, makes me suspect strongly that he's in financial difficulties.

Or maybe they're just that shameless about exploiting the situation.

Peregrinus

swampgas wrote: »

. . . makes me suspect strongly that he's in financial difficulties.

Or maybe they're just that shameless about exploiting the situation.

Or both. These are not inconsistent.

Quin_Dub

Trump is clearly finding the demands of the office to be far greater that he expected and due to his complete lack of previous political experience it seems he doesn't know how to get it to work for him.

He has never had to get consensus before in his entire life , he simply doesn't know how that works.

He's a trust-fund kid who went straight from College to a C-Suite role in his fathers company and then took over the whole deal.

He's spent 50 years getting his way because he's the Boss (or the Bosses son) and managing by edict. Even if he'd been CEO of a public company at least he'd have experience of getting a board of directors or key shareholders onside , but he has never had to do that.

Now he exists in a world where to get anything done he has to convince dozens if not hundreds of people to agree with him and sign-off on his every move and he's clearly struggling with that.

I don't know if he has the time, inclination or ability to learn the skills & humility necessary to be successful as President.

wonderfullife

swampgas wrote: »

There is an air of desperation about it which, combined with his refusal to show his tax returns, makes me suspect strongly that he's in financial difficulties.

Or maybe they're just that shameless about exploiting the situation.

I've long held the belief that his complex tax returns would ultimately through forensic accounting reveal a Bernie Madoff esque situation.

Best case scenario for Trump is his entire net worth (which is effectively in real estate) is leveraged by debt.

Worst case is a lot of fraud, racketeering, money laundering through complex back-channels that ultimately reveal he's up to his eyeballs in difficulties.

The Presidency allows him not only to make money (fast) it allows him to change regulations fast, so he can push through more dodgy deals both for his own company and for those he owes money to.

It's public knowledge he owes Deutsche Bank hundreds of millions. So they'll be expecting him to deliver on deregulation to allow them to make tons of money. That's just one bank. The likelihood is he owes Russian banks a fortune too.

Then there's the curious case of the casino he bankrupted, which is almost unheard of, and strong rumours for years that it was a front for funneling in dirty money and come out clean, using bankruptcy as the protection.

The likelihood of Trump being a con-man is too high to dismiss.

Professor Moriarty

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Trump is clearly finding the demands of the office to be far greater that he expected and due to his complete lack of previous political experience it seems he doesn't know how to get it to work for him.

He has never had to get consensus before in his entire life , he simply doesn't know how that works.

He's a trust-fund kid who went straight from College to a C-Suite role in his fathers company and then took over the whole deal.

He's spent 50 years getting his way because he's the Boss (or the Bosses son) and managing by edict. Even if he'd been CEO of a public company at least he'd have experience of getting a board of directors or key shareholders onside , but he has never had to do that.

Now he exists in a world where to get anything done he has to convince dozens if not hundreds of people to agree with him and sign-off on his every move and he's clearly struggling with that.

I don't know if he has the time, inclination or ability to learn the skills & humility necessary to be successful as President.

Whatever about the skills, a person with Narcissistic Personality Disorder is incapable of humility.

Professor Moriarty

wonderfullife wrote: »

I've long held the belief that his complex tax returns would ultimately through forensic accounting reveal a Bernie Madoff esque situation.

Best case scenario for Trump is his entire net worth (which is effectively in real estate) is leveraged by debt.

Worst case is a lot of fraud, racketeering, money laundering through complex back-channels that ultimately reveal he's up to his eyeballs in difficulties.

The Presidency allows him not only to make money (fast) it allows him to change regulations fast, so he can push through more dodgy deals both for his own company and for those he owes money to.

It's public knowledge he owes Deutsche Bank hundreds of millions. So they'll be expecting him to deliver on deregulation to allow them to make tons of money. That's just one bank. The likelihood is he owes Russian banks a fortune too.

Then there's the curious case of the casino he bankrupted, which is almost unheard of, and strong rumours for years that it was a front for funneling in dirty money and come out clean, using bankruptcy as the protection.

The likelihood of Trump being a con-man is too high to dismiss.

I'm thinking along these lines. Considering his blatant womanising and disrespect for women in general, I have no doubt that over the past 50 years he has been caught or filmed, knowingly or unknowingly, in compromising positions. If you add in his naivety and possible stupidity, it is extremely likely that intelligence services have a great deal of dirt on Trump.

Given his various business ties to Russia over the past thirty years, it is also very likely that Russian intelligence has dirt on him. So he is probably in thrall to US intelligence agencies and to Russian agencies, i.e. Putin.

RobertKK

Peregrinus wrote: »

What makes you think they're fleeing from someone in Mexico???

They may or may not be fleeing from persecution in Mexico; I don't see why that would be relevant. The US is a party to the Refugee Convention, and nothing in the Refugee Convention says that states can only afford protection to those fleeing persecution in immediately neighbouring states.

I thought one was suppose to take refuge in the first safe country.
That is why I questioned this as if the US was doing something wrong.

oscarBravo

RobertKK wrote: »

I thought one was suppose to take refuge in the first safe country.

You thought wrong. It's a common misconception, but it's still wrong.

demfad

wonderfullife wrote: »

......
...
It's public knowledge he owes Deutsche Bank hundreds of millions. So they'll be expecting him to deliver on deregulation to allow them to make tons of money. That's just one bank. The likelihood is he owes Russian banks a fortune too....Then there's the curious case of the casino he bankrupted, which is almost unheard of, and strong rumours for years that it was a front for funneling in dirty money and come out clean, using bankruptcy as the protection.
....

Detsche bank is being accused of money laundering of $10 billion bu Russians laundering roubles into dollars via mirror trades. The Russian customers have not been identified yet.

6 Trump casinos that went broke in Atlantic city (where every casino made a killing). With a fine of $10 million the Trump Taz mahal has the world record for a suit against a casino for money laundering law breaches.

Trump is a conman and his businesses were a front for a lot of Russian money laundering.


This is the money Laundering suit for laundering $250 million against Bayrock who were involved with the Trump Soho tower:

12.

Using artifices to defraud architected by Roberts & Holland and Duval & Stachenfeld in conspiracy with them’, Arif, Satter, Scwharz arranged for up to $250,000,000 of Bayrock’s profit as the co-developer12 of Trump SoHo to be laundered, untaxed, through a sham Delaware entity to Iceland (and reportedly then Russia), intending to evade up to $100,000,000 of U.S. taxation.

• As the case maintains. Bayrock is involved in other Trump projects: Camelback hotel condominium project in Phoenix.
• Trump International hotel condominium project in Fort Lauderdale.
• Waterpointe mixed use project in New York City.
• Trump Ocean Club hotel condominium project in Fort Lauderdale.

Trump did business with Arif on towers in Turkey and elsewhere.

4. Bayrock does conduct legitimate real estate business, but for most of its existence it was substantially and covertly mob-owned and operated. Arif, Satter, and Schwarz operated it for years through a pattern of continuous, related crimes, including mail, wire, and bank fraud; tax evasion; money laundering; conspiracy; bribery; extortion; and embezzlement.

Note: This case states that unfair to implicate Trump but Trump not doing business with Russians is the exception rather than the rule. Arif above was a former deputy in a soviet minsitry, and a crime lord in Moscow before moving to NY. Felix Satter is a son in law of Russian American crime 'boss of bosses' Semion Mogelevich. Trump had already done business a Mogelivich liutenants Jacob and David Bogatin extensively in the 90's.
Trump personally sold Alimzhan Tokhtakhounov (top 10 on FBI most wanted list) 5 condo's in Trump tower in the 90's. THis man was a VIP guest of Trump's at Miss Universe 2013 Moscow.

This is only the tip of the iceberg however or a few stars in the galaxy as this graphic depicts. The rectangular graph below it is more specific to election although neither is complete. (These are not mine)

*It is useful to take a name from the rectangular graph to see where he (always he) fits in to the larger circle/point graphic.

26000 Elephants

dudara wrote: »

On a serious note, have presidents in the past held rallies like this? It seems a bit, well... "love the glorious leader". And I also wonder how many places will be filled by people who want to protest Trump?

The most glaring precedent I can see, though not US obviously, would be this ( in the context of an already elected leader holding a rally, as opposed to a campaign event)

Nurenberg Rally

johnnyskeleton

Christy42 wrote: »

So what is happening with regards to immigration. His appeal failed last week and I have heard nothing about either a potential Supreme Court appeal or a replacement EO which was rumoured to be coming out early this week.

The appeal court's decision was not that the executive order was bad, just that they should not remove the temporary stay on its execution pending a challenge to it's constitutionality:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/06/politics/9th-circuit-court-of-appeals-trump-travel-ban/

The issue in front of the court at the moment is not whether or not Trump's travel ban is constitutional, but whether it will remain suspended for now.
It all centers on his executive order issued January 27 with little explanation or advance warning. The order bars citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries -- Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen -- from entering the US for 90 days, all refugees for 120 days and indefinitely halts refugees from Syria.
Friday, federal Judge James Robart of the US District Court for the Western District of Washington suspended key parts of the executive order nationwide.

So the same court could turn around and say "actually, the President was entitled to make the executive order after all"

johnnyskeleton

26000 Elephants wrote: »

The most glaring precedent I can see, though not US obviously, would be this ( in the context of an already elected leader holding a rally, as opposed to a campaign event)

Nurenberg Rally

Mod note:

Can we tone down the rhetoric please?