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

CMOTDibbler

RobertKK wrote: »

Julian Assange would have wanted revenge on Hillary Clinton and he got it. She asked if he could taken out.

Really? Never heard that. That's incredibly indiscreet of her. I really would like to see that confirmed.

RobertKK

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Really? Never heard that. That's incredibly indiscreet of her. I really would like to see that confirmed.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/782906224937410562

PopePalpatine

Yep, I'm sure the USA has drones which are so precise that they can strike Assange inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London with absolutely no "collateral damage".

RobertKK

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Yep, I'm sure the USA has drones which are so precise that they can strike Assange inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London with absolutely no "collateral damage".

He was not in the Ecuadorian embassy at that stage, that is why it is reported that Hillary called him a 'soft target' who was 'walking around freely'.

CMOTDibbler

RobertKK wrote: »

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/782906224937410562

It's interesting, but not really what I thought you were referring to. There has to be more detail than that surely? I mean it's a narrative rather than an email or something else directly attributable to Clinton. It refers to 'sources' which could be another word for 'we just made it up'.

Edit: I read the linked article and it seems that much weight was given to an email sent to Hillary Clinton with a subject line reading "legal and nonlegal strategies re wikileaks". The word 'nonlegal' is being read as 'illegal' which it clearly isn't. The obvious meaning is completely ignored: i.e. a strategy that doen't require lawyers; for example discrediting Assange or wikileaks or putting pressure on the government of his country of residence at the time.

InTheTrees

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Ergo the popular vote makes no difference it is only cosmetics and a thing to shout about on the internet.

Well that's the point isnt it. It changes nothing but it explains why he's so unpopular.

MightyMandarin

Trump says he plans to remove the Johnson Amendment, supposedly to allow religious groups donate to parties.

Want to know why he's really doing it?

This isn't about religion, its just dressed up that way. This will allow ALL 501(c)(3) Non-profits to donate to political parties. Right now if a 501(c)(3) non-profit donates to a political campaign then IRS regulations would mandate the removal of their tax exempt status. So, if this goes through. You could create a non-profit, donate money into it tax free, and then have the non-profit donate that money to a political campaign. He's trying to remove the law that closed a loophole to donate unlimited amounts of tax exempt money (donations) into political parties under the guise of standing up for religious freedom.

Absolute scum of the earth this man is. It baffles me how people still support him.

RobertKK

Mexican foreign minister on Anderson Cooper says Trump never threatened to send troops into Mexico and what AP reported was false, he says Trump offered to help Mexico with the 'tough hombres' and would help Mexico out with troops if Mexico wanted the help.
Mexican president said they needed to stop illegal weapons coming from the US into Mexico by the gangs, and that both presidents agreed on this and the need to stop the drug gangs.
Mexico open to making NAFTA better.

The Mexican foreign minister said the talks with Trump were constructive.

Mr.Micro

RobertKK wrote: »

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/782906224937410562

She is some dose. She can console herself with the fact that any other democrat would have beaten Trump except her. That is how unpopular she is.

RobertKK

People from the Obama administration saying they had nothing to do with the raid in Yemen, as they did not authorise the attack.
A general on CNN says it was months in the planning, and it was mostly military involved from the beginningand it only comes tot he president at the end when all details have been refined.
The attack was based on moonlight, not who was president, there was criticism of the argument between the Obama and Trump administration, given Trump agreed to the advice he received from the military.

The problem for me is the number of civilian deaths, Sean Spicer claims a lot of lives were saved and a lot of data was retrieved to prevent further attacks, this is impossible to know, but near 2 dozen innocent people died.

Christy42

And today in the world of alternative facts Kelly Anne Conway compares the current immigration ban to the 2011 one as if they are doing the same thing which is not true. However far more blatant than that she justifies the ban on an event called the bowling green massacre which was news to everyone given it did not actually happen.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/bowling-green-massacre-fake-kellyanne-conway-immigration-donald-trump-2017-2?r=US&IR=T

Shockingly more lies from the administration to try and cover for their terrible policies.

CMOTDibbler

RobertKK wrote: »

He was not in the Ecuadorian embassy at that stage, that is why it is reported that Hillary called him a 'soft target' who was 'walking around freely'.

He was in London at the time. I can't understand how anyone could believe that the US would send a drone to London or even suggest such a thing.

alastair

recedite wrote: »

Bit of a contradiction there, even by your standards

It's not a contradiction. These are people who made asylum claims to Australia, had their refugee status approved, but were kept in an (illegal) offshore detention arrangement by the Australians. The 'failure' wasn't on the part of the refugees, but on the part of Australia, in not living up to it's legal obligations.

alastair

RobertKK wrote: »

The problem for me is the number of civilian deaths, Sean Spicer claims a lot of lives were saved and a lot of data was retrieved to prevent further attacks, this is impossible to know, but near 2 dozen innocent people died.

Sean Spicer wouldn't knowingly tell a lie, surely? #alternativefacts

alastair

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

He was in London at the time. I can't understand how anyone could believe that the US would send a drone to London or even suggest such a thing.

They don't. It's just campaign guff. Assange himself didn't believe he was under any such threat.

demfad

Mr.Micro wrote: »

She is some dose. She can console herself with the fact that any other democrat would have beaten Trump except her. That is how unpopular she is.

There is absolutely no substantiation for that. Russia and Bannon knew who the likely Dem nominee was a long way out. That is why Bannon and Rebekah Mercer set up and used the the Government accountability Institute to produce propaganda against her including 'Clinton Cash'.
In concert Russian interference in US social media started as early as 2014 (confirmed by Bannon in a Vatican interview that year). Essentially the 'crooked Hilary' narrative started in 'Clinton Cash' was amplified by fake news, Russian trolls and their alt-right troll site lackeys. The senate set up a special investigation into Benghazi with no joy. She was quite popular before this propaganda onslaught and her credentials are as good as any previous candidate.
With such a volume of fake news, disinformation and criticism it is bound to stick.
I see most of the Whitehouse inner circle are using non-whitehouse infrastructure. Trump is still using his old android device which the FSC have surely hacked. Scavino who manages @potus was using a gmail login. Spicer actually tweeted his password twice unknowingly.
Not such a big deal anymore for Republicans?

Rightwing

A surprising consequence of Trump's win will be:

Republicans will be the first party to vote in a female president, Ivanka.

demfad

Rightwing wrote: »

A surprising consequence of Trump's win will be:

Republicans will be the first party to vote in a female president, Ivanka.

No Trump family member will survive the proverbial storm thats coming their way when the FBI finish and release their FISA investigation into connections between Trump campaign and the Kremlin. You think the Nixon name is bad? This will be Nixon x 100

Rightwing

demfad wrote: »

No Trump will survive the proverbial storm thats coming their way when the FBI finish and release their FISA investigation into connections between Trump campaign and the Kremlin. You think the Nixon name is bad? This will be Nixon x 100

Trump can build the greatest dynasty in US political history, even dwarfing that of the Kennedys.

johnnyskeleton

ECO_Mental wrote: »

Two things I just wanted to point out tjat highlights what a pig of a man Trump is that happened the past two days.

Yesterday at the start of black history month he was was babbling on about how great this black dude was that he was doing great work a fantastic fellow he is and all that, problem was he's dead over a hundred years.....idiot

Then this morning at the national PRAYER breakfast in front of all these religious leaders he started going on about celebrity apprentice and how the ratings went to s**t after HE left the show, people were just looking at each other like WTF....idiot

Can't be bothered to post links he's not worth the energy

Mod Note:

Please up the standard of your posts.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Ah come on, you can't expect him to disagree with his beloved "God-Emperor". :rolleyes:

Mod note:

Let's not get personal please.

FA Hayek

alastair wrote: »

It's not a contradiction. These are people who made asylum claims to Australia, had their refugee status approved, but were kept in an (illegal) offshore detention arrangement by the Australians. The 'failure' wasn't on the part of the refugees, but on the part of Australia, in not living up to it's legal obligations.

How can they make an asylum claim to a country you never visit?
Also, its not illegal, as per Australian Law.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/high-court-finds-offshore-detention-lawful-20160202-gmk5q6.html

alastair

FA Hayek wrote: »

How can they make an asylum claim to a country you never visit?

On exactly the same basis as the Australians can send these refugees to the US.

FA Hayek wrote: »

Also, its not illegal, as per Australian Law.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/high-court-finds-offshore-detention-lawful-20160202-gmk5q6.html

The detention centre is illegal under the law of the jurisdiction they're located in.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-26/png-court-rules-asylum-seeker-detention-manus-island-illegal/7360078

Which only leaves Nauru - with about a third of the offshore Australian refugees.

MightyMandarin

Rightwing wrote: »

Trump can build the greatest dynasty in US political history, even dwarfing that of the Kennedys.

Not with his dwindling approval ratings.

Rightwing

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Not with his dwindling approval ratings.

They are completely irrelevant. He can get 8 years if he wants, and then set up Ivanka for 8.

Most people would vote for a young good looking lady. Clinton fell down in this regard on top of the 100+ other things.

FA Hayek

alastair wrote: »

On exactly the same basis as the Australians can send these refugees to the US.

So, you agree, they cannot legally claim asylum as they have never landed on Australian soil. All legal and above board.

alastair wrote: »

The detention centre is illegal under the law of the jurisdiction they're located in.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-26/png-court-rules-asylum-seeker-detention-manus-island-illegal/7360078

Which only leaves Nauru - with about a third of the offshore Australian refugees.

So, still legal under Australian Law to have off-shore detention centres. Glad you agree.

recedite

Billy86 wrote: »

I would be interested to know more about it too, but your claim that Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala are fairly peaceful and prosperous be much further from the truth, and I'm not sure how familiar with those countries you are based off your questions at the end? All three have massive issues relating to gangs, crime, corruption and drugs. The infamous (and huge, transnational) MS-13 and M18 gangs even originated from El Salvadorian and Honduran immigrants in California, apparently - MS-13 alone are estimated to have similar numbers to all of ISIS for example. Not sure of Mara 18 but if I recall they're a similar size again; both have a very large presence in all three of these countries.

Between them, Guatemala, Honduras and El Savador have have the highest, second highest and 10th highest murder rates in the entire world!

You're not wrong there.
But you're not making a great case for them to be accepted by either Australia or the USA as immigrants.

I asked earlier the question earlier; in what way are these people considered international "refugees"? Since when does a personal background of service in a drugs gang entitle you to bypass the normal immigration procedures of Australia or the USA?

alastair

FA Hayek wrote: »

So, you agree, they cannot legally claim asylum as they have never landed on Australian soil. All legal and above board.

Explain how Australia have any input into this exchange deal then? The people sought asylum in Australian territory. Australia then offloaded them outside Australian territory.

FA Hayek wrote: »

So, still legal under Australian Law to have off-shore detention centres. Glad you agree.

Australian law only applies within the sovereign territory of Australia. The detention centre is illegal.

recedite

alastair wrote: »

The detention centre is illegal under the law of the jurisdiction they're located in.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-26/png-court-rules-asylum-seeker-detention-manus-island-illegal/7360078

Take it up with the govt. of Papua New Guinea then.
From the link....

In a statement, Mr Dutton said the ruling would not alter Australia's border protection policies.

"No one who attempts to travel to Australia illegally by boat will settle in Australia," he said."Those in the Manus Island Regional Processing Centre found to be refugees are able to resettle in Papua New Guinea. Those found not to be refugees should return to their country of origin.

Any genuine refugee "fleeing a war" will find that PNG is a safe country.

alastair

recedite wrote: »

I asked earlier the question earlier; in what way are these people considered international "refugees"?

You don't have to come from a state at war to qualify as a refugee. Perhaps that's where you're getting confused?

alastair

recedite wrote: »

Take it up with the govt. of Papua New Guinea then.

No need. The centre is being closed, on account of it's being illegal.