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

Billy86

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Chechens were responsible for the Boston Marathon bombing. Not seeing them on the list.

They're a little too close to home Russia.

BorneTobyWilde

You would expect some crazy terrorist in US will be pushed to far and react, there are many lone sharks there and I would expect they will emerge more frequently because of Trumps actions. How long before an attack, of course maybe he wants an attack to prove his point. But blood will be on his hands if Americans die and it turns out it's over this ban.

rgossip30

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-27/more-fake-news-media-contrived-photos-diminish-trump%E2%80%99s-inauguration-crowd

Bill Clinton's inauguration audience taken from the link above . Interesting .

Inquitus

rgossip30 wrote: »

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-27/more-fake-news-media-contrived-photos-diminish-trump%E2%80%99s-inauguration-crowd

Bill Clinton's inauguration audience taken from the link above . Interesting .

Zerohedge is Fake News, you cannot cite a report from them and expect it to be taken seriously. Are you copy pasting crap from /r/The_Donald now?

rgossip30

Inquitus wrote: »

Zerohedge is Fake News, you cannot cite a report from them and expect it to be taken seriously. Are you copy pasting crap from /r/The_Donald now?

I fail to understand why I need to defend myself ? You now sound like Trump the disbeliever when the ball is put in your court .

I merely posted a photo from Bill Clintons inauguration the article if you bothered to read it does not support Trump .

A similar image from another site .This photo was not disputed .You have an issue contact the site not me .

https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-bill-clinton-s-inauguration-day-image26277090

A google search shows similar images .

https://www.google.ie/search?q=bill+clinton%27s+inauguration+photos&rlz=1C1AOHY_enIE708IE708&biw=1280&bih=905&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiA4bOkyufRAhVGJ8AKHYteCf0Q_AUIBigB#imgrc=LPbfqdBVZMFGyM%3A

Akrasia

rgossip30 wrote: »

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-27/more-fake-news-media-contrived-photos-diminish-trump%E2%80%99s-inauguration-crowd

Bill Clinton's inauguration audience taken from the link above . Interesting .

You've missed the point. Nobody would care how many people were at the inauguration if trump hadn't lied and declared it the highest attendance ever

rgossip30

Akrasia wrote: »

You've missed the point. Nobody would care how many people were at the inauguration if trump hadn't lied and declared it the highest attendance ever

So .

recedite

The main point of the article is that the photos the media were using of Trumps crowd were taken an hour before most of them arrived. Is the photo of the full Trump crowd they have shown there a fake, or is it real?

Inquitus

Akrasia wrote: »

You've missed the point. Nobody would care how many people were at the inauguration if trump hadn't lied and declared it the highest attendance ever

Exactly, no one cares, there are many valid reasons why Trump would draw less than Obama as mentioned by me and others in this thread. DC is a Dem City, Obama was the first black president etc. etc. The story is the fact that Trump refuses to accept the reality that many fewer people turned up, and has basically obsessed about it, and he and his team tell blatant lies about it.

weisses

rgossip30 wrote: »

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-27/more-fake-news-media-contrived-photos-diminish-trump%E2%80%99s-inauguration-crowd

Bill Clinton's inauguration audience taken from the link above . Interesting .

Was Clinton whinging like a little child claiming there were more people there then with Trump ?

If not ..what is your point

weisses

Inquitus wrote: »

Exactly, no one cares, there are many valid reasons why Trump would draw less than Obama as mentioned by me and others in this thread. DC is a Dem City, Obama was the first black president etc. etc. The story is the fact that Trump refuses to accept the reality that many fewer people turned up, and has basically obsessed about it, and he and his team tell blatant lies about it.

It even rained ... enough reason for a lesser crowd .... In the end it doesn't matter

I think considering all the facts mentioned, there was a good turn out for Trump

Bazzo

Has r/the_donald starting leaking onto boards? This is ridiculous!

"The fact that Donald Trump straight up lied to the whole country in his first press conference as president, then had his press secretary do it, then had his spin doctorsenior advisor call these lies 'alternative facts' is a concering issue."

"But look how many people attended Bill Clinton's inauguration!"

Nody

recedite wrote: »

The main point of the article is that the photos the media were using of Trumps crowd were taken an hour before most of them arrived. Is the photo of the full Trump crowd they have shown there a fake, or is it real?

The photo that media uses was confirmed to have been taken at 12:01 with Trump's speech starting at 11:51 and ending at 12:12; are you complaining that they did not take the photo after he had finished speaking instead since the comparison photo was taken between 12:07 and 12:29 (Obama's inauguration started at 12:05 as a reference)?

Billy86

weisses wrote: »

Was Clinton whinging like a little child claiming there were more people there then with Trump ?

If not ..what is your point

The poster clearly doesn't understand the concept of "the cows in here are very small, but the cows out there are far, far away", hence their obsession with low lying camera angles.

It really is amazing how the Trump fans still obsessing with this do not notice silly this makes them look and the timelapse video just destroys any argument they have to make, I mean they are actually at Fr. Dougal levels of stupidity on this issue at this stage.

looksee

Can we move on from the 'big, bigger, biggest attendance' please. It is beyond tedious at this stage.

alastair

Nody wrote: »

The photo that media uses was confirmed to have been taken at 12:01 with Trump's speech starting at 11:51 and ending at 12:12; are you complaining that they did not take the photo after he had finished speaking instead since the comparison photo was taken between 12:07 and 12:29 (Obama's inauguration started at 12:05 as a reference)?

The 'afters' photos don't really help. The sparse crowds in the bleachers for the post-inauguration parade/walkabout just tell the same story.



https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AYRPs5WoMrI

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lg4YKLqtIfo

Inquitus

Inquitus wrote: »

Just an example of the sort of chaos this ill thought out ban is causing to innocent people.



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/jan/28/world-digests-donald-trumps-order-to-ban-refugees-from-muslim-countries

Just to give closure on the Iranian Glaswegian who was stuck in Costa Rica due to Trumps immigrant order and her flight home transiting via JFK. Someone set up a go fund me page last night which was funded in 33 minutes, they bought her alternate flights home and gave the excess 5k to a Glasgow refugee charity

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-38788116

Mr.Micro

Do the Americians need Congress and the Senate now that the Donald can just sign executive orders? It's seems bizarre that one man can, nay does have so much power.

Inquitus

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Do the Americians need Congress and the Senate now that the Donald can just sign executive orders? It's seems bizarre that one man can, nay does have so much power.

Executive orders only do so much, if we take the one on the Wall for instance he has signed an Executive Order to build the wall. But in order to build the wall, money needs to be supplied, some 12-15bn, and Congress will need to appropriate money for building it by passing an appropriations bill. So in the case of the wall his Executive Order does nothing really as without money nothing happens.

On the subject of the Muslim Ban however, this Executive Order needs no funding, and falls fully under the remit of his executive powers, which is why it came into force and is being enacted since 4:22PM on Friday.

Hope that helps explain a bit.

Mr.Micro

Inquitus wrote: »

Executive orders only do so much, if we take the one on the Wall for instance he has signed an Executive Order to build the wall. But in order to build the wall, money needs to be supplied, some 12-15bn, and Congress will need to appropriate money for building it by passing an appropriations bill. So in the case of the wall his Executive Order does nothing really as without money nothing happens.

On the subject of the Muslim Ban however, this Executive Order needs no funding, and falls fully under the remit of his executive powers, which is why it came into force and is being enacted since 4:22PM on Friday.

Hope that helps explain a bit.

Yes indeed, thanks for that. Executive orders without debate or any censure from Congress is not a good thing IMO, especially with an unbalanced individual going gung ho without thought or consultation.

Overheal

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Do the Americians need Congress and the Senate now that the Donald can just sign executive orders? It's seems bizarre that one man can, nay does have so much power.

Ah don't fall into that narrative yet. The Right similarly spun opinion to portray Obama as some "King" that ruled by decree, especially after he said regarding months of congressional deadlock 'I have a phone and a pen'.

The problem is more that the GOP holds majority in the congress, couple with that yes they can pass through a lot of things unopposed, including his cabinet picks who are some of the shadiest bastards to ever sit before a hearing.

BorneTobyWilde

Overheal wrote: »

Ah don't fall into that narrative yet. The Right similarly spun opinion to portray Obama as some "King" that ruled by decree, especially after he said regarding months of congressional deadlock 'I have a phone and a pen'.

The problem is more that the GOP holds majority in the congress, couple with that yes they can pass through a lot of things unopposed, including his cabinet picks who are some of the shadiest bastards to ever sit before a hearing.

SO Trump can do what he likes?
What can stop him if he violates the American Constitution over and over again. What would it take to have him impeached, it is even possible?
I was all for Trump but now I see I was very wrong. So many have voter regret.

CMOTDibbler

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

SO Trump can do what he likes?
What can stop him if he violates the American Constitution over and over again. What would it take to have him impeached, it is even possible?
I was all for Trump but now I see I was very wrong. So many have voter regret.

If he breaches the constitution or statute law, the judiciary can hold him to account. As it is, A Federal judge has ut a stay on the deportation of valid visa holders from the US.

There are checks and balances inherent in the system. However irreperable damage can be caused to individuals before those checks and balances come into play.

Edit: It's actually good to see you express regret. Perhaps this episode is what's needed to really acheive political evolution in the US.

rgossip30

weisses wrote: »

Was Clinton whinging like a little child claiming there were more people there then with Trump ?

If not ..what is your point

Not to judge someone by the size of their inauguration ceremony . Snowflakes .

CMOTDibbler

rgossip30 wrote: »

Not to judge someone by the size of their inauguration ceremony . Snowflakes .

Tell that to the snowflake in chief.

rgossip30

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Tell that to the snowflake in chief.

The guy is still a rookie give him a break .

robinph

rgossip30 wrote: »

weisses wrote: »

Was Clinton whinging like a little child claiming there were more people there then with Trump ?

If not ..what is your point

Not to judge someone by the size of their inauguration ceremony . Snowflakes .

Trump, and his press secretary, are the only ones making judgments based on the size of the attendance at the inauguration as they seem to think it's important to have a bigger one than previous presidents.

No body else gives a damn.

InTheTrees

The American system has three branches, the executive (the presidency), the legislative (congress), and the judiciary (the supreme court).
Each should be able to be a check on the other two.

If trumps executive orders go too far they will be challenged and ruled on by the supreme court. The court system is the check on unconstitutional law.

Which is why the republicans keep blabbing about "activist" judges. They don't like it when their ill thought out leglislation is deemed unconstitutional.

Inquitus

This Immigration Executive Order has turned into an absolute shambles, ill-thought out, no consultation done with the departments that are responsible for enacting the policy on how to do so and whether or not it is constitutional. Mass protests at airports across the US, people who happen to be transiting through a US airport with the wrong passport pulled from flights so they can't fly home, people with valid green cards being held in Airport detention facilities. What an absolute Clusterfúck!

Just when you think the Trump presidency can't scrape any further into the bottom of the barrel of the realms of the sublime and the ridiculous after last weeks Narcissistic obsession with Inauguration attendance numbers and "Alternative Facts" we get this mess.

Stheno

Inquitus wrote: »

Executive orders only do so much, if we take the one on the Wall for instance he has signed an Executive Order to build the wall. But in order to build the wall, money needs to be supplied, some 12-15bn, and Congress will need to appropriate money for building it by passing an appropriations bill. So in the case of the wall his Executive Order does nothing really as without money nothing happens.

On the subject of the Muslim Ban however, this Executive Order needs no funding, and falls fully under the remit of his executive powers, which is why it came into force and is being enacted since 4:22PM on Friday.

Hope that helps explain a bit.

Good explanation, thank you. So basically an executive order is Trump saying "Make it so" and unless funding is required it comes into immediate effect as in this case.

This can then be challenged in court as has been done, and the EO cancelled?