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

A Little Pony

demfad wrote: »

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Trump is the winner. America is the loser.

You don't win if you cheat. You get impeached and if you have enlisted the help of foreign powers you get thrown in jail for treason.

Are you claiming Trump rigged the vote?

A Little Pony

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Harika wrote: »

After seeing him in action, that looks more and more like a happy accident.

I think he was planning to lose. I think he expected to lose. I don't think he will enjoy the next 4 years, and afterwards  he will be the most hated man in America. He'll make Dubya look well loved, and for a narcissist like Trump, that is going to hurt.

No one puts in such effort like he did to lose. The guy saw his destiny to be President and went for it. Obama should never have mocked him on that famous night. You don't break the blue wall while being lazy or not caring if you wanted to win. He was desperate to win, beyond belief.

WinnyThePoo

A Little Pony wrote: »

No one puts in such effort like he did to lose. The guy saw his destiny to be President and went for it. Obama should never have mocked him on that famous night. You don't break the blue wall while being lazy or not caring if you wanted to win. He was desperate to win, beyond belief.

Are you talking about Obama taking the Piss out of him over the birth conspiracy stuff?

Zubeneschamali

A Little Pony wrote: »

You don't break the blue wall while being lazy or not caring if you wanted to win.

Dubya already proved that being lazy and stupid does not stop you being made Republican president.

briany

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Dubya already proved that being lazy and stupid does not stop you being made Republican president.

Trump may be many things - a narcissist, a blowhard, ignorant about the mechanisms of government and a demagogue, but he's not lazy or stupid. He campaigned tirelessly throughout the election cycle and cunningly manipulated an undercurrent of public feeling to his own ends. People have constantly written him off, but I feel like doing so is counter-productive if you want rid of him and his ilk.

A Little Pony

briany wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Dubya already proved that being lazy and stupid does not stop you being made Republican president.

Trump may be many things - a narcissist, a blowhard, ignorant about the mechanisms of government and a demagogue, but he's not lazy or stupid. He campaigned tirelessly throughout the election cycle and cunningly manipulated an undercurrent of public feeling to his own ends. People have constantly written him off, but I feel like doing so is counter-productive if you want rid of him and his ilk.

Very smart guy, knows exactly what he is doing.

Amerika

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Just yesterday, Trump signed an executive order rescinding the EPA's Clean Water Act.

What Fake News site did you get this information from?

I know he planned on rolling back Obama’s abusive Waters of the United States rule (WOTUS), which was so detrimental that several states and industry groups challenged WOTUS and a federal court eventually issued a stay to halt its implementation. But that is nothing like rescinding the EPA's Clean Water Act.

demfad

[URL="ttps://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-once-planned-to-pay-former-british-spy-who-authored-controversial-trump-dossier/2017/02/28/896ab470-facc-11e6-9845-576c69081518_story.html?utm_term=.1753647c2cd7"]FBI once planned to pay former British spy who authored controversial Trump dossier[/URL]

Yesterdays Washington post:

The former British spy who authored a controversial dossier on behalf of Donald Trump’s political opponents alleging ties between Trump and Russia reached an agreement with the FBI a few weeks before the election for the bureau to pay him to continue his work, according to several people familiar with the arrangement.

The agreement to compensate former MI6 agent Christopher Steele came as U.S. intelligence agencies reached a consensus that the Russians had interfered in the presidential election by orchestrating hacks of Democratic Party email accounts.

While Trump has derided the dossier as “fake news” compiled by his political opponents, the FBI’s arrangement with Steele shows that the bureau considered him credible and found his information, while unproved, to be worthy of further investigation.

Also: Newt Gingrich: ‘Independent’ Investigator Needed for Trump-Russia Probe

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich wants a special investigator to review the Trump team's alleged contact with Russian officials during the campaign — one of the few prominent Republicans calling for such an examination.

Gingrich, when asked about the use of a special prosecutor Tuesday on Fox News, advised President Donald Trump to "take a lesson from the past" and assign a "very smart, independent person" to take on that investigatory role.

A huge turnaround from this Trump supporter:

Maybe the Intel leak went straight to Newt this time?

Zubeneschamali

briany wrote: »

Trump may be many things - a narcissist, a blowhard, ignorant about the mechanisms of government and a demagogue, but he's not lazy or stupid.

I have read the reports about his White House day - he resents the meetings eating into his TV time. And this is the way he ran his campaign and his business.

And yes, the stuff he says (and tweets) is lazy and stupid - obvious lies that a minutes work would check, but he stands up and broadcasts them, and when fact-checked, says "I was given that information".

People used to say the same thing about Dubya, and Reagan, and Gerald Ford: "You don't get to be President if you are lazy or stupid" but the evidence says that yes, you do about half the time, as long as you are a Republican.

demfad

A Little Pony wrote: »

Are you claiming Trump rigged the vote?

I am claiming that he colluded with Russia to have them interfere in the 2016 US presidential election. I believe there is enough evidence of this not only to have him impeached but to have him tried and convicted for treason. You can take it that I am claiming he rigged the election.

PopePalpatine

Amerika wrote: »

What Fake News site did you get this information from?

I know he planned on rolling back Obama’s abusive Waters of the United States rule (WOTUS), which was so detrimental that several states and industry groups challenged WOTUS and a federal court eventually issued a stay to halt its implementation. But that is nothing like rescinding the EPA's Clean Water Act.

Is it only "abusive" because it was Obama's administration which did it? :rolleyes:

I have to feel sorry for the people of Flint, MI, especially for those who swallowed Trump's crocodile tears because "cars are made in Mexico and you can't drink the water in Flint".

26000 Elephants

Amerika wrote: »

What Fake News site did you get this information from?

He reads Breitbart!

I know he planned on rolling back Obama’s abusive Waters of the United States rule (WOTUS), which was so detrimental that several states and industry groups challenged WOTUS and a federal court eventually issued a stay to halt its implementation. But that is nothing like rescinding the EPA's Clean Water Act.

Please, feel free to split hairs. Clean Water Act v. Clean Water Rule.

CWA still stands, but attacks on its scope have weakened it. CWR contains an updated scope and definition of what comprises WOTUS to overcome this weakness.. This is what he is trying to kill.
Which of course continues to hamstring the CWA

Professor Moriarty

Amerika wrote: »

What Fake News site did you get this information from?

I know he planned on rolling back Obama’s abusive Waters of the United States rule (WOTUS), which was so detrimental that several states and industry groups challenged WOTUS and a federal court eventually issued a stay to halt its implementation. But that is nothing like rescinding the EPA's Clean Water Act.

Is Fox fake news now? Gosh. Check out the video titled "Pres Trump signs order to revoke clean water rule".

How about Breitbart? Did they fake it? Say it ain't so. "President Donald Trump has ordered federal agencies to rewrite an Obama administration rule that would shield many wetlands and small streams from development and pollution"

Professor Moriarty

26000 Elephants wrote: »

He doesn't read Breitbart



Please, feel free to split hairs. Clean Water Act v. Clean Water Rule.

CWA still stands, but attacks on its scope have weakened it. CWR contains an updated scope and definition of what comprises WOTUS to overcome this weakness.. This is what he is trying to kill.
Which of course continues to hamstring the CWA

Well, see post above...

A Little Pony

demfad wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Are you claiming Trump rigged the vote?

I am claiming that he colluded with Russia to have them interfere in the 2016 US presidential election. I believe there is enough evidence of this not only to have him impeached but to have him tried and convicted for treason. You can take it that I am claiming he rigged the election.

Not a hope he will be impeached. She was going to lose anyway (even if it is true), The Donald had too much for her.

Frank Bullitt

Of course the speech is getting praise, he didn't write it so he couldn't go off the rails.

Normal service will resume soon.

26000 Elephants

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well, see post above...

post corrected....

johnp001

Even if there were grounds he could not be impeached until at least 2018. There wouldn't be enough votes in Congress with the current composition. Trump is very popular among Republicans at the moment so it would be a very bad move for Republican representatives to vote to impeach him while he is significantly more popular than other congressional leaders.

Hexen

A Little Pony wrote: »

Not a hope he will be impeached. She was going to lose anyway (even if it is true), The Donald had too much for her.

Ladbrookes are offering odds of 10/11 that he'll be impeached (same odds that he'll serve the full term); odds from Paddy Power are 6/4.

demfad

A Little Pony wrote: »

Not a hope he will be impeached. She was going to lose anyway (even if it is true), The Donald had too much for her.

No. She was trouncing him until the FBI investigation into Anthony Wieners laptop. She would have been trouncing him by more if the media had spent more time digging into his Russian connections and less time trawling through 10s of thousands of mundane emails. All arranged by Trumps pal's in the Kremlin. It appears the IC (who hate Trump's guts) have a truckload on him as do MI6 and Eastern European and Balkan intel.
Even Newt Gingrich calling for an Independent investigation.
When it comes out everyone will see the kind of craven lowlife he is as are many of his closest supporters.

As it stands almost anyone close enough to him in the Whitehouse who was on his campaign team has info they could blackmail him with.

He's gone, the hope is he takes the other snakes with him.

demfad

Hexen wrote: »

Ladbrookes are offering odds of 10/11 that he'll be impeached (same odds that he'll serve the full term); odds from Paddy Power are 6/4.

The leaks that have come out to date are daisy mild compared to whats out there. They will impeach him, or be made impeach him.

26000 Elephants

VOICE.

Its going to publish lists of crimes perpetrated by immigrants. as opposed to crimes committed ( equally heinous, one assumes) by god fearing Americans. Im assuming the goal here is to frame all immigrants as dangerous and to foster an irrational fear of anyone who even looks different.

Unprecedented? Have a read of this and decide

Its effective aim was information-gathering for propaganda purposes in support of anti-Semitic policy.

I have yet to see any figures that conclusively lay the blame for crime figures at the door of illegal immigrants. So what is this about?

Trump may not be aware of this history - but Bannon certainly is.

Overheal

26000 Elephants wrote: »

I have yet to see any figures that conclusively lay the blame for crime figures at the door of illegal immigrants.

Precisely why they want an agency that solely does that.

jobbridge4life

demfad wrote: »

The leaks that have come out to date are daisy mild compared to whats out there. They will impeach him, or be made impeach him.

IS this your own private conjecture about whatlies out there or is it based on something you have read from credible or mostly credible sources?

Manic Moran

Nody wrote: »

Except removing guns from the street by stricter gun control would have a whole lot more actual effect.

Three issues.

One, we've been over this before. There is no way that stricter gun control will have any noticeable effect on the crime rate. Absent a change to the Constitution, which is not going to happen, there can be no significant further restrictions on the right to own the weapons which are responsible for the overwhelming majority of crime in the US, let alone actually figuring out how to enforce such a 'removal'. The solution is going to have to lie elsewhere for purely practical reasons.

Secondly, Trump's position, which is shared by the majority of the States, is in line with the trend of the last thirty years which is to loosen restrictions on carriage of firearms. He is on record as supporting nationwide concealed carry reciprocity, for example (A bill for such was introduced into Congress last month). It is not an outlier position: 43 States now default to allowing their citizens to be armed in public, the number has only been increasing over time. And it's not just a policy position either: The last State to outright prohibit the practice (Illinois) was told in no uncertain terms by the 7th Circuit that they had to allow it to some extent a couple of years ago. That level of extent is still being debated, 26 States just submitted briefs last week to the Supreme Court (the Peruta case) that restrictions such as those currently in California and Illinois should be further relaxed. Now, though it is important to note the distinction between those lawfully armed, who are generally not causing trouble, and those unlawfully armed who usually are causing trouble, the latter is already, well, illegal. Whether or not better efforts could be made at targetting those is certainly open to question, but I suspect the 'guns off the street' laws that most such folks are advocating are those which would generally affect the first group more than the second.

Thirdly, Leroy's position on what the voters want is not wrong. You decry the voters as 'stupid', but from the position of the typical conservative and I would argue most moderates, and I would hope even many liberals, no matter what the social background, how under-priviliged or oppressed someone is, they are still capable of comprehending the non-too-subtle concepts that "murdering people is bad" and "armed robbery isn't something society approves of either." Those folks are making the conscious choice to do such things, so regardless of what other programs may exist to solve the societal problems which exist, there is nothing inherently wrong with increasing the ability of the justice system to apprehend and convict those who make such a choice.

Overheal

Some clarity on the WOTUS act

http://gizmodo.com/trump-is-rolling-back-a-key-obama-rule-protecting-us-wa-1792830389

26000 Elephants

Overheal wrote: »

Precisely why they want an agency that solely does that.

Soooo you suspect the overriding majority of crime is caused by illegal immigrants, but need an agency to confirm this?

What has led you to believe this?

KingBrian2

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is the exact opposite of what actually happened.

Throughout the campaign, the press gave Trump massive uncritical coverage as a TV celebrity and pretended he was a real candidate.

Now, after it is too late, they are starting to point out that he is a serial liar, a narcissist and a complete bluffer.

CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, New York Times, Washington Post, New York Times and a plethora of news speakers gave him no chance of being elected and that he did not represent the good honest people of America. Now we see the media heads immediately give him applause when all he did was stand in a room with his colleagues and gave a speech that was loved by Republicans and some Democrats alike. For those that did not watch the speech many household names stood up to praise him. The media seem to grow quite that these congress people would cheer for a President who is going to have mass deportations and put the Nation on lock down.

Christy42

KingBrian2 wrote: »

CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, New York Times, Washington Post, New York Times and a plethora of news speakers gave him no chance of being elected and that he did not represent the good honest people of America. Now we see the media heads immediately give him applause when all he did was stand in a room with his colleagues and gave a speech that was loved by Republicans and some Democrats alike. For those that did not watch the speech many household names stood up to praise him. The media seem to grow quite that these congress people would cheer for a President who is going to have mass deportations and put the Nation on lock down.

I notice a theme emerging amongst the posts praising him. They never refer back to what he said. The speech was well given but the content was worrying.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-speech-voice-immigrants-crimes-list-agency-donald-joint-address-congress-a7604836.html

Voice for instance is purely a measure to blame crimes on immigrants. Especially the published weekly list (racist vigilantes are going to love that). Curious as to why he is limiting it to immigrants (there does not seem to be a limitation to illegal) as opposed to including crimes committed by the good honest folk of America (who commit crimes in higher numbers http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-congress-speech-immigrants-crime-debunked-a7604906.html).

In fairness to him he did finally call out the anti semitic attacks (he was asked the question a week ago and ran away from it then).

Nice links to back up your point by the way.

Manic Moran

I guess the easiest answer is that one can deport illegal immigrants who commit crimes, and remove them from the population. You can't do that for US citizens. Or, if you prefer, we can have the crimes committed by US citizens only, or by both US citizens and immigrants. It may not be the best bang for the buck, but it's an easy fifty cents.