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

Bazzo

I've seen a few highlights of his press conference now. "Unhinged" was a kind way of describing it. I seriously don't understand how in the **** anybody can defend Trump with a straight face after that, if I'd seen it in a comedy I'd have been pissing my hole laughing.

Christy42

Bazzo wrote: »

I've seen a few highlights of his press conference now. "Unhinged" was a kind way of describing it. I seriously don't understand how in the **** anybody can defend Trump with a straight face after that, if I'd seen it in a comedy I'd have been pissing my hole laughing.

No one has been doing it here at least. Closest has been talking about democrats, saying he showed the liberal media what is what (but giving no more detail) or asking what is wrong with him.

Water John

It's come pretty much to, two world views.
Many thinking the soft votes he got are trickling away. These not to be confused with the diehards that you will always hear.

Here is a link to those UK diehards, Piers Morgan et al

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/17/a-fabulous-press-conference-who-are-trumps-british-cheerleaders

El_Duderino 09

ThisRegard wrote:

Trump's new head of the EPA had previously sued the EPA 13 times. It'll be destroyed from the inside now.

That's kinds the point of trump's popularity. He's been elected to lead government because he disrespects government. He's been hired to dismantle the system - not to fix it.

It took the fall of the Soviet union to bring about he oligarchy they have today. Trump is trying to charge the same thing without having to collapse it completely. He dismantling the government piece by piece.

Manic Moran

100,000 is a decidedly unrealistic number, were such a thing to happen. By way of example, there are currently about 5,000 Guardsmen involved in counter-narcotics operations in support of law enforcement, and about 1,000 doing border patrol, generally assisting CBP. The border patrol number peaked at about 6,000 some ten years ago, but that was on the federal dime, not the States', who are funding it today. The cost of pay, and the cost to the economy of folks not doing their civilian jobs would make such a number utterly unsustainable.

There is no particular moral nor legal block on the idea, we've been doing routine support to law enforcement for almost 30 years now. If it followed 'standard' process, it would be a bit like how the Irish Naval Service used to conduct operations: They'd have to have Gardai on board to give legal authority and expertese, the NS provided the muscle. (Before the NS were given the legal authority to arrest folks). In the US, the 'leads' on the raids would be the subject matter experts, ICE etc, the Guard would provide manpower, thus allowing ICE to spread out more.The issues are economical and political: I find it unlikely that, say, Governor Brown will allow the CA National Guard to partake in operations directed against illegal immigrants. What would be interesting, though, would be if, say, a 'deputised' Missouri Guardsman was directed to conduct an operation in California.

Adding fuel to the fire is another news article today. In a similar manner to the Kate Steinle killing a couple of years ago, (SF Sheriff released an illegal immigrant who later shot her, despite ICE asking for him), a similar story from Denver. ICE asked for a man to be detained, Denver PD let him go. Man then robs and murders someone at a train station.
http://kdvr.com/2017/02/17/suspect-in-light-rail-station-murder-was-wanted-for-possible-deportation/

Zubeneschamali

Water John wrote: »

Here is a link to those UK diehards, Piers Morgan

Piers Morgan is not a die hard, he's a non-internet troll like Kevin Myers. His whole schtick is to say non-PC things and generate a fuss keeping his name in the news as a z-list celebrity.

His actual job, back when he did a real one, was running a sleazy tabloid newspaper which was closed down in disgrace for hacking everyone in sight.

Zubeneschamali

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

He dismantling the government piece by piece.

Nah, he'll keep the police and the military and the prison system - rich people love those.

But anything that gets in the way of CEO salaries, like taxes, regulations, clean water, climate change, justice for all, voting rights for poor people, freedom of the press - he'll dismantle those.

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

100,000 is a decidedly unrealistic number, were such a thing to happen. By way of example, there are currently about 5,000 Guardsmen involved in counter-narcotics operations in support of law enforcement, and about 1,000 doing border patrol, generally assisting CBP. The border patrol number peaked at about 6,000 some ten years ago, but that was on the federal dime, not the States', who are funding it today. The cost of pay, and the cost to the economy of folks not doing their civilian jobs would make such a number utterly unsustainable.

There is no particular moral nor legal block on the idea, we've been doing routine support to law enforcement for almost 30 years now. If it followed 'standard' process, it would be a bit like how the Irish Naval Service used to conduct operations: They'd have to have Gardai on board to give legal authority and expertese, the NS provided the muscle. (Before the NS were given the legal authority to arrest folks). In the US, the 'leads' on the raids would be the subject matter experts, ICE etc, the Guard would provide manpower, thus allowing ICE to spread out more.The issues are economical and political: I find it unlikely that, say, Governor Brown will allow the CA National Guard to partake in operations directed against illegal immigrants. What would be interesting, though, would be if, say, a 'deputised' Missouri Guardsman was directed to conduct an operation in California.

Adding fuel to the fire is another news article today. In a similar manner to the Kate Steinle killing a couple of years ago, (SF Sheriff released an illegal immigrant who later shot her, despite ICE asking for him), a similar story from Denver. ICE asked for a man to be detained, Denver PD let him go. Man then robs and murders someone at a train station.
http://kdvr.com/2017/02/17/suspect-in-light-rail-station-murder-was-wanted-for-possible-deportation/

Comme ci, comme ça. ?



The fact you see no moral block to such an idea is kinda disturbing tbh.


Without getting all self righteous and looking at opposition to this as all liberally PC etc.

You see nothing wrong with the reality of the Military being used to round up Millions of People, put them in camps awaiting export.

Youve not heard of this before no ?

Akrasia

listermint wrote: »

Comme ci, comme ça. ?



The fact you see no moral block to such an idea is kinda disturbing tbh.


Without getting all self righteous and looking at opposition to this as all liberally PC etc.

You see nothing wrong with the reality of the Military being used to round up Millions of People, put them in camps awaiting export.

Youve not heard of this before no ?

Obama was rightly criticised for his mass deportations, but he focused on criminals and recent arrivalsTrump wants to deport an exponentially larger number of people, most of whom have been peaceful law abiding and productive members of society for years or even decades

Sam Russell

How did the 'No migrants' day go where migrants did not work?

El_Duderino 09

Akrasia wrote:

Trump wants to deport an exponentially larger number of people, most of whom have been peaceful law abiding and productive members of society for years or even decades

This is just a distraction from the bad news of the week and... It's worked! He hasn't said he's actually going to do it. It's just a (leaked?) Homeland security document.

I imagine this is popular with his voters. They'll like the harshest side of it with 100,000 troops etc. and when he comes to actually deporting people it will be more realistic.

He wins both ways because his supporters will remember the version they like most even though it never actually happened and ultimately it set the narrative for the weekend

This was a good 'dead cat on the table' story.

recedite

Manic Moran wrote: »

I find it unlikely that, say, Governor Brown will allow the CA National Guard to partake in operations directed against illegal immigrants. What would be interesting, though, would be if, say, a 'deputised' Missouri Guardsman was directed to conduct an operation in California.

If they were under federal control at the time, I presume it would be no different than, say, members of the FBI crossing the state line.

BabyCheeses

Inquitus wrote: »

I think you missed the sarcasm there!

Only a little sarcastic. Some personal responsibility would be nice for them. They continue to vote for policies that will lead to their own harm so may as well let them harm themselves. As respiratory diseases rise they will only have themselves to blame.

Manic Moran

listermint wrote: »

Manic Moran wrote: »

100,000 is a decidedly unrealistic number, were such a thing to happen. By way of example, there are currently about 5,000 Guardsmen involved in counter-narcotics operations in support of law enforcement, and about 1,000 doing border patrol, generally assisting CBP. The border patrol number peaked at about 6,000 some ten years ago, but that was on the federal dime, not the States', who are funding it today. The cost of pay, and the cost to the economy of folks not doing their civilian jobs would make such a number utterly unsustainable.

There is no particular moral nor legal block on the idea, we've been doing routine support to law enforcement for almost 30 years now. If it followed 'standard' process, it would be a bit like how the Irish Naval Service used to conduct operations: They'd have to have Gardai on board to give legal authority and expertese, the NS provided the muscle. (Before the NS were given the legal authority to arrest folks). In the US, the 'leads' on the raids would be the subject matter experts, ICE etc, the Guard would provide manpower, thus allowing ICE to spread out more.The issues are economical and political: I find it unlikely that, say, Governor Brown will allow the CA National Guard to partake in operations directed against illegal immigrants. What would be interesting, though, would be if, say, a 'deputised' Missouri Guardsman was directed to conduct an operation in California.

Comme ci, comme ça.   ?



The fact you see no moral block to such an idea is kinda disturbing tbh.


Without getting all self righteous and looking at opposition to this as all liberally PC etc.

You see nothing wrong with the reality of the Military being used to round up Millions of People, put them in camps awaiting export.

Youve not heard of this before no ?

As long as it is done under the correct structure, as the other ongoing law enforcement operations are, no. The US Army calls it "Domestic Support to Civil Authorities". The Irish Army calls it "Aid to the Civil Power." Whatever you want to call it, it is the military carrying out operations to assist the designated civilian law enforcement authority in carrying out operations in circumstances that those authorities lack the capability to do so.

What, exactly, is the basis of your concern?

Is it that folks are being rounded up for deportation? That is exactly what the ICE folks do, and have been doing for decades. If there is a moral issue with ICE rounding up those illegally in the country and deporting them, then we may as well stop right here, as we are not going to come to an agreement.
If we have agreed that it is not morally wrong to deport illegal immigrants, then it comes down simply to the question of the authority, capacity, and effectiveness of those doing the deporting. The military is not best suited for doing the job. It cannot (and should not) take the lead in these operations, it is well outside of its area of expertise. However, the resources of ICE, just like those of CBP or counter-drug law enforcement, are finite. The best solution is to increase the size of ICE.  

So, let's say the Federal Government found the budget to train up 10,000 additional ICE officers, and they start rounding up illegal immigrants in higher volumes. Is that a moral problem?

Well, the practical realities are that the Feds don't have the capacity to do a mass recruiting like that. However, the practical realities are also that one doesn't need to have ICE training or authority to perform each and every function inherent in an operation. Investigation? Arrest? Sure. Prisoner transport? Guarding? You need to have an ICE badge for that? This is precisely how the National Guard have been, and are being, used on the border: They aren't driving around intercepting those who are crossing, only guys wearing CBP uniforms are doing that. However, the Guardsmen are manning observation stations, doing logistics runs, running communications centers, so that it frees up appointed law enforcement officers for the bit that they are needed to do.

Why should the idea of bolstering ICE with Guardsmen be any different? If the Guard performs the same auxiliary roles to ICE that they are doing for CBP (Or that non-Gardai are doing in Garda stations), and allow a greater distribution of ICE personnel, where's the moral problem?

Hank Scorpio

Live Trump rally in Florida

Professor Moriarty

Feeding a bruised ego.

weisses

So much BS already spouted ... And the good man himself isn't even close to the podium yet.


Yaysus ... Using AF1 to make his entrance .... Textbook narcissism

Call Me Jimmy

Hair freshly blow dried - check. Putin suit - check. Praise Trump

fryup

whats with all this prayer BS ??

i reckon Trump hasn't got a religious bone in his body

Hank Scorpio

Dayum, what a speech.

Water John

Hank, you can say that again. but I think we would think so for different reasons.

Hank Scorpio

Water John wrote: »

Hank, you can say that again. but I think we would think so for different reasons.

Clearly

weisses

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Dayum, what a speech.

Indeed .... He found very, very, very clean coal .... All the miners are goin back to work ... Hallelujah, whinging about the democrats, fake media, Obama, Hillary etc etc

Hank Scorpio

weisses wrote: »

Indeed .... He found very, very, very clean coal .... All the miners are goin back to work ... Hallelujah, whinging about the democrats, fake media, Obama, Hillary etc etc

High energy. What's clear is that there's a huge divide between certain mindsets, and what those mindsets represent.

Another stream continues here

Water John

Lets see Donald down the mines. Oh, that's what they did to you in Russia. Sent to the Gulag.

Dyr

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Hair freshly blow dried - check. Putin suit - check. Praise Trump

Ehh...Putin's suits fit him

BabyCheeses

Anyone got a summary of the dumb things he came out with this time? What news network was called failing this time?

Hank Scorpio

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Anyone got a summary of the dumb things he came out with this time? What news network was called failing this time?

Just a bunch of cheering and laughing at the left wing media.

BabyCheeses

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Just a bunch of cheering and laughing at the left wing media.

So everything outside of Breitbart then.

He really takes things personally.

Hank Scorpio

BabyCheeses wrote: »

So everything outside of Breitbart then.

He really takes things personally.

In time you'll learn that over the last 8 years the left wing media took over, and with Trump's election it's slowly changing.