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

Christy42

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/gorsuch-supreme-court-hardiman/index.html

Not gonna lie. I am not convinced Trump knows his actions have real world effects. Brings all the favourites to Washington like this is some game show.

He doesn't even seem to have fully decided. I don't know if he cares enough.

Edit: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38807783

Democrats start getting a little tough with Trump. He has shown no desire to work with them. Attempting to work with him until he is willing to work with others would just lead him to taking more and more. Cut off everything you can until he shows some desire to work with those outside his inner circle.

Then discussions can take place over how to move forward but not beforehand.

joejoe87

If he was assassinated it would be like who shot Mr. Burns! "Everybody's a suspect".

Professor Moriarty

joejoe87 wrote:

Anyone else got the feeling that Trump will be assassinated? Not only has he pissed off his own intelligence services but he's also started a war on Islam and infuriated the Mexicans. I wouldn't be surprised if an illegal immigrant who has little to lose takes a shot at him. His hotels would make an easy target too.

Interestingly, you can get him at 11/10 to be impeached or resign. Essentially the bookies reckon it's a 50% chance. Factor in that he is a stressed 70 year old male with an unhealthy lifestyle. And then there is potential assassination. I'd give him a 30% chance of finishing his first term.

Regarding assassination, in my opinion the greater threat would come from the establishment.

joejoe87

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Interestingly, you can get him at 11/10 to be impeached or resign. Essentially the bookies reckon it's a 50% chance. Factor in that he is a stressed 70 year old male with an unhealthy lifestyle. And then there is potential assassination. I'd give him a 30% chance of finishing his first term.

Regarding assassination, in my opinion the greater threat would come from the establishment.

I can picture an illegal immigrant with nothing to lose trying something or someone with a terminal illness who loses their obamacare trying something. The pissed off people list is growing longer every day.

Professor Moriarty

joejoe87 wrote:

I can picture an illegal immigrant with nothing to lose trying something or someone with a terminal illness who loses their obamacare trying something. The pissed off people list is growing longer every day.

The establishment wouldn't find it difficult to get a patsy.

Hank Scorpio

Disgusting comments above, but not unexpected from a group of people who still can't wrap their heads around the fact he won the election and is doing exactly what he said he would.

Professor Moriarty

Hank Scorpio wrote:

Disgusting comments above, but not unexpected from a group of people who still can't wrap their heads around the fact he won the election and is doing exactly what he said he would.

Which comments?

Christy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Disgusting comments above, but not unexpected from a group of people who still can't wrap their heads around the fact he won the election and is doing exactly what he said he would.

I believe him doing the terrible things he said he would is the problem. However I see no issue with the comments. None are wishing assignation on him. They are just pointing out that he has annoyed a lot of people and that there are plenty that would have motivation to kill him. That is true. I reckon most lefties would see his assassination as a bad thing even putting aside the morality of it. It would cause chaos and potentially riots from his supporters. Personally I am hoping he sticks around just long enough to convince everyone that this was a terrible idea that should never get repeated before getting impeached.

Professor Moriarty

Christy42 wrote:

I believe him doing the terrible things he said he would is the problem. However I see no issue with the comments. None are wishing assignation on him. They are just pointing out that he has annoyed a lot of people and that there are plenty that would have motivation to kill him. That is true. I reckon most lefties would see his assassination as a bad thing even putting aside the morality of it. It would cause chaos and potentially riots from his supporters. Personally I am hoping he sticks around just long enough to convince everyone that this was a terrible idea that should never get repeated before getting impeached.

He's already survived one attempt on his life.

Billy86

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Disgusting comments above, but not unexpected from a group of people who still can't wrap their heads around the fact he won the election and is doing exactly what he said he would.

I don't recall him saying he would ban Muslims from certain countries but not from those with the highest number of terror attacks/death tolls on US soil? Or that he said he would fire anyone in government who disagrees with him?

And you recently said if he goes after LGBT rights you would instantly drop support for him, but wouldn't that just be him doing exactly what he said he would also?

It seems quite a large number of people voted for him on the presumption that 'oh, he's not THAT bad!" when he spends seemingly every day doing all he can to prove that he really is.

Hank Scorpio

Billy86 wrote: »

I don't recall him saying he would ban Muslims from certain countries but not from those with the highest number of terror attacks/death tolls on US soil? Or that he said he would fire anyone in government who disagrees with him?

Here have a read.

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf

"FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions
where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people
coming into our country will be considered “extreme vetting.”

The countries being vetting are ones outlined in Obama's administration as terror prone and approved in congress. Am I wrong here? Because I'm not sure.

And you recently said if he goes after LGBT rights you would instantly drop support for him, but wouldn't that just be him doing exactly what he said he would also?

https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/826405148461195264

The White House says President Donald Trump will leave intact a 2014 executive order that protects federal workers from anti-LGBTQ discrimination.

In a statement released early Tuesday, the White House says Trump "is determined to protect the rights of all Americans, including the LGBTQ community" and that he "continues to be respectful and supportive of LGBTQ rights, just as he was throughout the election."

It seems quite a large number of people voted for him on the presumption that 'oh, he's not THAT bad!" when he spends seemingly every day doing all he can to prove that he really is.

What has he done that isn't in the 100 day promise I posted above?

recedite

Billy86 wrote: »

Or that he said he would fire anyone in government who disagrees with him?

The reason she was called the "acting" AG is because she was a leftover Obama appointee who, like a dog in a manger, was occupying the position despite not having any reason to be there.
The democrats had held up Trump's own appointee; Jeff Sessions who should have been there.

Sally Yates refused to give legal advice to the govt. which was her job. She would have been let go soon enough anyway, but she had the cheek to try to discredit Trump while heading for the exit door early. Good riddance to her.

Billy86 wrote: »

And you recently said if he goes after LGBT rights you would instantly drop support for him, but wouldn't that just be him doing exactly what he said he would also?

Can you cite any actual evidence of Trump saying he would go after LGBTs, or is that just another makey-uppy slur on him?
It seems to be "open season" on The Donald, and anything goes, it seems.

I remember him breaking ranks with the other republicans on the transgender bathroom issue. I can't remember him commenting on LGBT one way or another.

recedite

Actually one of the most effective things The Donald has done to create a better future for LGBT people in the USA is to curb immigration from those listed countries.

c montgomery

I disagree with only a few of trumps policies but I really like him.

No nonsense, doesn't give a monkeys what people think and does what he wants which is what he said he'd do.

MightyMandarin

The arguments against Betsy DeVos being appointed seem to grow by the day. Now she plagiarized quotes for her Senate questioning.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/betsy-devos-plagiarism-obama-official/index.html

"Every child deserves to attend school in a safe, supportive environment where they can learn, thrive, and grow," DeVos writes.
Gupta was credited with nearly the same quotes in a May 2016 press release on ensuring the civil rights of transgender students.
"Every child deserves to attend school in a safe, supportive environment that allows them to thrive and grow," Gupta wrote.

Absolute stinker of a person who'll be in charge of teaching America's children.

CMOTDibbler

recedite wrote: »

The reason she was called the "acting" AG is because she was a leftover Obama appointee who, like a dog in a manger, was occupying the position despite not having any reason to be there.
The democrats had held up Trump's own appointee; Jeff Sessions who should have been there.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that post can be left vacant. Hence an 'acting AG' until a new one is appointed.

Hank Scorpio

recedite wrote: »

Actually one of the most effective things The Donald has done to create a better future for LGBT people in the USA is to curb immigration from those listed countries.

He specifically said that in the vetting bill.

http://imgur.com/a/CEQ3L

CMOTDibbler

recedite wrote: »

Actually one of the most effective things The Donald has done to create a better future for LGBT people in the USA is to curb immigration from those listed countries.

That made me smile. I'm sure it was uppermost in his mind.

recedite

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that post can be left vacant. Hence an 'acting AG' until a new one is appointed.

Correct, hence Trump has now appointed another "acting" AG (Boente) who will probably only be there for a few weeks.
J. Sessions is meanwhile still delayed while the democrats continue to act the maggot.

Christy42

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

That made me smile. I'm sure it was uppermost in his mind.

If it almost as if he didn't pick Mike Pence as is VP pick!

robinph

recedite wrote: »

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that post can be left vacant. Hence an 'acting AG' until a new one is appointed.

Correct, hence Trump has now appointed another "acting" AG (Boente) who will probably only be there for a few weeks.
J. Sessions is meanwhile still delayed while the democrats continue to act the maggot.

Isn't it the same tactic that the republicans have been using for a year now in preventing a replacement judge being appointed?

Bazzo

While trump has a much softer stance to LGBT than most other issues, and has been fairly consistent in stating he has no official problem with sexual orientation itself, don't forget he has a long history of being an opponent of gay marriage. As recently as last year he said he would strongly consider trying to have the same-sex marriage decision overturned in the supreme court.

Trump Said He Would “Strongly Consider” Appointing Judges To Overturn Same-Sex Marriage Decision. Asked on Fox News Sunday “WALLACE: But -- but just to button this up very quickly, sir, are you saying that if you become president, you might try to appoint justices to overrule the decision on same-sex marriage?” TRUMP: “I would strongly consider that, yes.” [Fox News Sunday, 1/31/2016; VIDEO]

The Human Rights Campaign consider him to be an opponent of nationwide marriage equality.

He also appointed Mike Pence his VP who has a long track record of being an opponent to all LGBT rights.

I don't see how that can be considered "creating a better future for LGBT people in the USA". Maybe "not quite as bat**** alt-right as most of his other policies".

sameoldname

c montgomery wrote: »

I disagree with only a few of trumps policies but I really like him.

No nonsense, doesn't give a monkeys what people think and does what he wants which is what he said he'd do.

No nonsense? Even though 69% of his political statements analysed have been found to be mostly nonsense to complete nonsense?

recedite

robinph wrote: »

Isn't it the same tactic that the republicans have been using for a year now in preventing a replacement judge being appointed?

You can't blame Trump for that though. That is the GOP at work.
Anyway there was a good reason; now they can pick their own judge instead of having a democrat one.

Positions on the White House administration are different. The democrats are all going to be replaced anyway, so they might as well go immediately and allow their replacements to take office.

recedite

Bazzo wrote: »

The Human Rights Campaign consider him to be an opponent of nationwide marriage equality.

Your link does not seem to be entirely "neutral"
There's a long list of republicans down the side, and then you can click on any of these to see smear campaign against them all.

The first sentence on The Donald says...

Donald Trump has been a consistent opponent of marriage equality. He has embraced the nation’s most odious anti-LGBTQ law, North Carolina’s HB2

Here's what he actually said about North Carolina’s HB2...

Matt Lauer asked Trump if he had any transgender employees and he said he doesn't know but "probably" he does. Lauer asked, "So if Caitlyn Jenner were to walk into Trump Tower and want to use the bathroom, you’d be fine with her using any bathroom she chooses?”
"That is correct," Trump said. He added that there has been a "big move to create new bathrooms" for transgender people and he disagrees with any of those policies because he thinks it would be "discriminatory in a certain way" and "unbelievably expensive."
He reiterated, "Leave it the way it is."

Christy42

recedite wrote: »

You can't blame Trump for that though. That is the GOP at work.
Anyway there was a good reason; now they can pick their own judge instead of having a democrat one.

Positions on the White House administration are different. The democrats are all going to be replaced anyway, so they might as well go immediately and allow their replacements to take office.

You can certainly blame him for pissing off their voters. They expect to see action from their senators against Trump. He has ruled by decree so far and they don't like someone being fired for standing up to the president acting or not. Especially on a rushed through order.

If this is the only way to get Trump to work with the democrats and the Senate then so be it. If Trump works them then I would oppose this delaying tactic.

Billy86

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Here have a read.

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf

"FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions
where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people
coming into our country will be considered “extreme vetting.”

The countries being vetting are ones outlined in Obama's administration as terror prone and approved in congress. Am I wrong here? Because I'm not sure.

Except Trump and his supporters couldn't stop complaining about how clueless Obama's administration were on terrorism and claiming Saudi Arabia were responsible for terrorism, so their omission from the list doesn't fly at all.

"It wasn’t the Iraqis that knocked down the World Trade Center. You will find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center, because they have papers in there that are very secret. You may find it’s the Saudis, okay, but you will find out it wasn’t Iraq.”
- Donald Trump, Feb 10, 2016

Yet Iraq are on the banned list and Saudi are not. But then again Trump also said this to a member of the Saudi royal family, whose pocket he now resides in. :pac:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/675523728055410689?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

https://twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/826405148461195264

The White House says President Donald Trump will leave intact a 2014 executive order that protects federal workers from anti-LGBTQ discrimination.

In a statement released early Tuesday, the White House says Trump "is determined to protect the rights of all Americans, including the LGBTQ community" and that he "continues to be respectful and supportive of LGBTQ rights, just as he was throughout the election."

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/09/donald-trump-pledges-sign-anti-lgbtq-first-amendment-defense-act/
Trump has pledged to sign the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), if passed by congress. It was first introduced in the House on June 17, 2015 and would effectively legalize anti-LGBTQ discrimination across the board, including among employers, businesses, landlords and healthcare providers, as long as they claim to be motivated by a firmly held religious beliefs.

It would act to overturn the executive order signed in 2014 by President Obama prohibiting anti-LGBTQ discrimination among federal contractors.

The statement, added to Trump’s website on Thursday under the title “Issues Of Importance To Catholics” and the subtitle “Religious Liberty,” reads:

Religious liberty is enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is our first liberty and provides the most important protection in that it protects our right of conscience. Activist judges and executive orders issued by Presidents who have no regard for the Constitution have put these protections in jeopardy. If I am elected president and Congress passes the First Amendment Defense Act, I will sign it to protect the deeply held religious beliefs of Catholics and the beliefs of Americans of all faiths. The Little Sisters of the Poor, or any religious order for that matter, will always have their religious liberty protected on my watch and will not have to face bullying from the government because of their religious beliefs.

FADA’s text reads:

Prohibits the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that: (1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.

Defines “discriminatory action” as any federal government action to discriminate against a person with such beliefs or convictions, including a federal government action to:

alter the federal tax treatment of, cause any tax, penalty, or payment to be assessed against, or deny, delay, or revoke certain tax exemptions of any such person;
disallow a deduction of any charitable contribution made to or by such person;
withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny any federal grant, contract, subcontract, cooperative agreement, loan, license, certification, accreditation, employment, or similar position or status from or to such person; or
withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny any benefit under a federal benefit program.
Requires the federal government to consider to be accredited, licensed, or certified for purposes of federal law any person who would be accredited, licensed, or certified for such purposes but for a determination that the person believes or acts in accordance with such a religious belief or moral conviction.

Permits a person to assert an actual or threatened violation of this Act as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding and to obtain compensatory damages or other appropriate relief against the federal government.

Authorizes the Attorney General to bring an action to enforce this Act against the Government Accountability Office or an establishment in the executive branch, other than the U.S. Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, that is not an executive department, military department, or government corporation.

Defines “person” as any person regardless of religious affiliation, including corporations and other entities regardless of for-profit or nonprofit status.

Link: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/issues-of-importance-to-catholics
- September 22nd, 2016

What has he done that isn't in the 100 day promise I posted above?

Ban countries posing the biggest terror threat to the US (Saudi, Pakistan) because it would hurt his own family's pocket, and overturn LGBT rights that he campaigned on, re the FADA Act.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

The reason she was called the "acting" AG is because she was a leftover Obama appointee who, like a dog in a manger, was occupying the position despite not having any reason to be there.

That's a bizarrely skewed perspective on the role of an acting AG, even by your standards.

Her "reason to be there" was to act as the AG until one is confirmed. You can bitch about the delay in confirming him (all the while applauding the GOP's refusal to confirm a SC judge) to your heart's content, but to say she didn't have a reason to be there is nonsense.

Sally Yates refused to give legal advice to the govt. which was her job.

She wasn't asked for legal advice before this clusterf*ck of an executive order was enacted - intelligent advice is one of the many sane things this administration seems determined to eschew.

Once it was enacted, she advised that in her view it was illegal and that she wouldn't defend it in court, so she was fired. So, counter to your oh-so-predictable parroting of the Trump line, she wasn't fired for not doing her job; she was fired for doing her job, which is to uphold the Constitution.

She would have been let go soon enough anyway, but she had the cheek to try to discredit Trump while heading for the exit door early.

Trying to discredit Trump is like trying to breathe - it's not exactly a challenge.

scruffy66

c montgomery wrote: »

I disagree with only a few of trumps policies but I really like him.

No nonsense, doesn't give a monkeys what people think and does what he wants which is what he said he'd do.

There is more than just a few policies that most right or left minded
People might find abhorrent about Trump and after reading your statement
In your recently closed thread I could see you and him getting on like a
House on fire:),
But in saying that, I'm finding the hysteria and hypocrisy about Trump hard
to stomach.
If Democracy is to be seen to have any credibility ,then Trump needs
To be given a chance and the whingers need to go home and take a Valium
and get a good nights sleep.

Here's a good radio interview on the John Bachelor radio show with Larry Johnson,
On Trumps Administration's Routine.

http://podbay.fm/show/589864479/e/1485847105?autostart=1

Hank Scorpio

@Billy

You know his hands are tied with the Saudis because they're "allies" and the US rely on Saudi crude imports/Intel.

He's said the US should be energy independent repeatably. It will take time.

From what I've read, Fada is an act so people can express their religious beliefs without discrimination. It's not directly designed to impose upon LGBT rights.

You continue to ignore the terror countries outlined were named by Obama's administration and previous legislature.