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

Professor Moriarty · 04-02-2017 12:48am

rgossip30 wrote: »

This Trumphonic mass hysteria is getting tedious, on all news channels overload ! I hate the media obsession with Trump .

Turn off the telly and read a book.

FA Hayek · 04-02-2017 12:48am

Manic Moran · 04-02-2017 12:58am

MightyMandarin wrote: »

What about Steve Bannon and Kushner?

Given that he was up at the hour, and american lives were at risk in a high-risk operation, you don't think he could've put the phone away and went in there?

And done what, out of interest?

It is up to the President to authorise or not an operation. Once it starts, he has to trust in the professionals. He's not going to get on the 'phone and start giving orders. Neither is the SecDef or CJCS.

There is no requirement for him to monitor an operation. Indeed, those of us at the pointy end tend to appreciate not feeling like someone is looking over our shoulders. In Afghanistan, when I was on a battle staff, we'd routinely send a mission out, and then go to bed. If it's not our job to get involved, we're better off not even in the same room as the duty staff.

I'm not even sure the mission was a balls-up. As we say, the enemy gets a vote. And we don't assume they are incompetent. If a sailor or soldier gets killed conducting the mission, it's the price of doing business. It'll happen from time to time. This whole idea of 'clean, casualty-free' warfare is a crock.

Cartouche · 04-02-2017 1:00am

The coming clash with Iran ?

The problem with making a threat public — Iran is “on notice” — is that it makes it almost impossible for Iran, or Trump, to back away.

When Barack Obama drew his red line against Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons in Syria’s civil war, and Assad appeared to cross it, Obama discovered that Americans wanted no part of the war that his military action might bring on. President Obama backed down - in humiliation.
Neither the Ayatollah Khamenei nor Trump appears to be in a mood to back away, especially now that the president has made the threat public.

wildgreen · 04-02-2017 1:06am

14 years later this Sunday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH6wPJ4jVQo

if you plant ice, you're gonna harvest wind

Professor Moriarty · 04-02-2017 1:09am

Cartouche wrote: »

The coming clash with Iran ?

The problem with making a threat public — Iran is “on notice” — is that it makes it almost impossible for Iran, or Trump, to back away.

When Barack Obama drew his red line against Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons in Syria’s civil war, and Assad appeared to cross it, Obama discovered that Americans wanted no part of the war that his military action might bring on. President Obama backed down - in humiliation.
Neither the Ayatollah Khamenei nor Trump appears to be in a mood to back away, especially now that the president has made the threat public.

Between 'lending' troops to Mexico, sorting the Chinese out in the South China Sea and now squaring up to Iran, he's going to be a busy little bunny.

listermint · 04-02-2017 1:10am

Manic Moran wrote: »

And done what, out of interest?

It is up to the President to authorise or not an operation. Once it starts, he has to trust in the professionals. He's not going to get on the 'phone and start giving orders. Neither is the SecDef or CJCS.

There is no requirement for him to monitor an operation. Indeed, those of us at the pointy end tend to appreciate not feeling like someone is looking over our shoulders. In Afghanistan, when I was on a battle staff, we'd routinely send a mission out, and then go to bed. If it's not our job to get involved, we're better off not even in the same room as the duty staff.

I'm not even sure the mission was a balls-up. As we say, the enemy gets a vote. And we don't assume they are incompetent. If a sailor or soldier gets killed conducting the mission, it's the price of doing business. It'll happen from time to time. This whole idea of 'clean, casualty-free' warfare is a crock.

Him I gather that any normal sane person sending people into battle for this first time in his life would want to monitor it quite closely.

Buy hey I suppose that doesn't fit the profile of the self obsessed.

Would you not agree?

johnp001 · 04-02-2017 1:17am

FA Hayek wrote: »

There is a lot of Fake news being debunked right now about Trump and his SCOTUS pick.

http://www.snopes.com/trump-terror-watch-program/
http://www.snopes.com/syrian-girl-handcuffed-airport/
http://www.snopes.com/trump-renamed-black-history-month/
http://www.snopes.com/melania-trump-nyc-costs/
http://www.snopes.com/neil-gorsuchs-fascism-forever-club/
http://www.snopes.com/trump-terror-watch-program/
http://www.snopes.com/trump-sanctions-russias-intelligence-agency-present-putin/
http://www.snopes.com/neil-gorsuch-separation-of-white-and-black/
http://www.snopes.com/trump-order-popular-vote-winner/
http://www.snopes.com/trump-call-putin-disabled/
http://www.snopes.com/white-house-dress-code/

And about his foreign relations:

Paul Craig Roberts wrote:

Everywhere it is taken for granted that President Trump was rude on the telephone to Australia’s prime minister and hung up on him. The low grade morons at CNN repeat this endlessly as a fact, and even David Stockman, several levels higher than CNN in intelligence, assumes that this fake news report is true.

But the Prime Minister of Australia says “NOT CORRECT. The call ended courteously.”

Here is the prime minister in his owns voice on the BBC:
http://www.bbc.com/news/video_and_audio/headlines/38842289

LA Times wrote:

The Mexican government on Wednesday vehemently denied reports that President Trump threatened to send American soldiers into Mexico during a phone call with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto.

Such a threat “did not happen during that call,” said a government statement released on Twitter Wednesday night.
More...

DredFX · 04-02-2017 1:19am

Christ. It should be illegal for these papers and sites to paint speculation in a factual light.

Hank Scorpio · 04-02-2017 1:19am

listermint wrote: »

Would you not agree?

Are you going to apologize for insinuating I'm a member of the alt right / racist? Not gonna let that crap fly over.

Professor Moriarty · 04-02-2017 1:24am

johnp001 wrote: »

And about his foreign relations:

Yeah. Any POTUS that posts mocking and narcissistically reactive tweets or rants on various media about countries, politicians, women, other 'celebs etc. ad nauseam really doesn't have much credibility when it comes to foreign relations. Not to mention zero political experience- which is self-evident.

FA Hayek · 04-02-2017 1:26am

alastair wrote: »

It's been written into Australian law since January 22nd 1954. I think it's had ample time to register with them, if not you. :rolleyes:

http://www3.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1954/5.html

No. The reason why it's still in operation, despite it's illegality, is that the victims of the policy are (or were, in the case of PNG) unable to appeal their situation to the courts. Nauru is controlled by a tin-pot authoritarian who expelled any critics of his rule, so there's little opportunity for justice in that jurisdiction.

Yet, Australian courts have found the process legal. Funny that.

Kermit.de.frog · 04-02-2017 1:54am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8JHNsWthtE

Hank Scorpio · 04-02-2017 2:00am

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

.

More sh/te. That operation was set upon the previous administration, no fault lies with Trump or general Mattis.

https://youtu.be/QCr-WuHEECk?t=1159

Also TYT, is it getting to the time to post infowars links here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcvmSJzpwiA

Hank Scorpio · 04-02-2017 2:10am

This is related to topic of Trump suppressing people in the Government.

Mr.Micro · 04-02-2017 2:56am

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Between 'lending' troops to Mexico, sorting the Chinese out in the South China Sea and now squaring up to Iran, he's going to be a busy little bunny.

Why not just declare war on Canada? It's closer and the troops won't have to travel too far. Then again that would be too close to home and all those refugees. On second thoughts, let's pick on Iran and add to the trouble in the Middle East, thousands of miles away from the US.

Billy86 · 04-02-2017 3:37am

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

More sh/te. That operation was set upon the previous administration, no fault lies with Trump or general Mattis.

Before you go trying to merely discredit the source, you should remember they cited Reuters, who you yourself said just earlier today are "Reuters is one of the best."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-commando-idUSKBN15G5RX?il=0

Reuters wrote:

"US military officials told Reuters that Trump approved his first covert counterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations. As a result, three officials sail, the attacking SEAL team found itself dropping onto a reinforced al Qaeda base defended by landmines, snipers and a larger than expected contingent of heavily armed Islamist extremists."

...

The U.S. officials said the extremists’ base had been identified as a target before the Obama administration left office on Jan. 20, but then-President Barack Obama held off approving a raid ahead of his departure.

A White House official said the operation was thoroughly vetted by the previous administration and that the previous defense secretary had signed off on it in January. The raid was delayed for operational reasons, the White House official said.

What we're seeing is just the latest in a fast, fast growing line of examples of Trump lacking any restraint or attention to detail that was seen by Obama. Now Sean "Comical Ali v2.0" Spicer is saying they good some good information from there, and indeed it was an Al Qaeda base, in which case Obama's administration did well in figuring that out. However, where Obama's team held off and where he didn't sign it, Trump's cohort appear to have run in head first (it happened last weekend, so Trump must have had it approved within just days of taking office) and got caught with their pants down. And this is (just another) example of exactly what people who didn't want Trump in office were talking about.

alastair · 04-02-2017 3:37am

FA Hayek wrote: »

Yet, Australian courts have found the process legal. Funny that.

That's because it's not been tested in the Australian courts - since all the potential litigants are barred from Australia. Which is handy.

Billy86 · 04-02-2017 3:41am

DredFX wrote: »

Enjoying a pop tart?

I've heard people lambasting him for this, but remember that Donald is advised by generals and other military officers. They likely assured him that the raid would proceed without major consequence. This was a mess-up across several levels of authority.

(And by most presidential standards, 15 civilians and a soldier dead is a boring weekend.)

As well as the already mentioned Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner, given how much blame a certain former secretary of state got for a certain incident that happened in Libya a few years back, it's fair to say Trump would have consulted all of his top officials in the US State Department.

Except, well, you know...

FA Hayek · 04-02-2017 3:43am

Ah Cenk, used to like him back in the day, now he is the Ales Jones of the left. Does he still deny the Armenian Genocide and also, why is his show named after a fascist political group that carried out said genocide?

The guy is clueless, he had a debate with Sam Harris once where he told him, with all sincerity that the Provisional IRA would have killed all the protestants in the North once they achieved their goal of a United Ireland. Sam Harris, disagreed, obviously, telling him that there is lots of greys and nuances, where by ISIS were at the far end of the spectrum, but Cenk would have none of it, its all binary to him.

FA Hayek · 04-02-2017 3:45am

alastair wrote: »

That's because it's not been tested in the Australian courts - since all the potential litigants are barred from Australia. Which is handy.

Nope, wrong...again.

The High Court has ruled that Australia's offshore detention regime at Nauru and Manus Island is lawful, dashing the hopes of asylum seekers that detention centres would be closed and they would be settled in Australia

The full bench of the High Court on Wednesday ruled that the federal government has the power under the constitution to detain people in other countries, finding that its conduct was within the law.

The 6-1 majority decision clears the way for the government to return about 250 asylum seekers in Australia, including 37 babies, to Nauru

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

alastair · 04-02-2017 3:49am

FA Hayek wrote: »

Nope, wrong...again.

Not a case brought by a victim of the detention centres (which, once again, have been determined to be illegal).

Billy86 · 04-02-2017 3:52am

Billy86 wrote: »

What we're seeing is just the latest in a fast, fast growing line of examples of Trump lacking any restraint or attention to detail that was seen by Obama.

...

And this is (just another) example of exactly what people who didn't want Trump in office were talking about.

Huh. Only right after I posted this did I pop over to the '90 day suspension' thread and see a US federal judge has temporarily overturned it as unconstitutional.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-idUSKBN15I1CM

A federal judge in Seattle on Friday put a nationwide block on U.S. President Donald Trump's week-old executive order temporarily barring refugees and nationals from seven countries from entering the United States.

The judge's temporary restraining order represents a major challenge to Trump's action, although his administration could still appeal the ruling and have the policy upheld.

...

Robart said no attacks had been carried out on U.S. soil by individuals from the seven countries affected by the travel ban since that assault. For Trump’s order to be constitutional, Robart said, it had to be “based in fact, as opposed to fiction.”

Robart is a George W. Bush appointee, before anyone tries to revert to the response I expect some will try to fall back on anyway.

FA Hayek · 04-02-2017 4:07am

alastair wrote: »

Not a case brought by a victim of the detention centres (which, once again, have been determined to be illegal).

You said, it (the legality of these centres) was never tested in the courts, which it wrong. It was tested last year and the High Court of Australia stated these centres was lawful in both Naru and Manus Island. Are you denying these facts?

Kermit.de.frog · 04-02-2017 4:29am

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

More sh/te. That operation was set upon the previous administration, no fault lies with Trump or general Mattis.

https://youtu.be/QCr-WuHEECk?t=1159

Also TYT, is it getting to the time to post infowars links here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcvmSJzpwiA

Oh I don't know - seems to be talking a lot of what is in short supply - sense.

This better?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fM8iWOOLlls

But hey, you want to hitch your ride to this incompetent buffoon, go ahead.

alastair · 04-02-2017 4:40am

FA Hayek wrote: »

You said, it (the legality of these centres) was never tested in the courts, which it wrong. It was tested last year and the High Court of Australia stated these centres was lawful in both Naru and Manus Island. Are you denying these facts?

They're not the facts. The fact is that Manus detention centre is illegal. The Australian verdict had no determination on either detention site, as they fall outside their juristidiction - as the link you provided makes clear / they could not take account of the treatment of detainees, but only deal with the legality of transferring asylum seekers. The entire process will become moot once the Australians have no-one to buy off in any case. Nauru isn't going to have the capacity to hold many more, and Australians won't countenance shelling out another $55 million to resettle five refugees.

Kermit.de.frog · 04-02-2017 7:56am

In the not too distant future...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJeXd-N_zGE

listermint · 04-02-2017 9:02am

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Are you going to apologize for insinuating I'm a member of the alt right / racist? Not gonna let that crap fly over.

Why would I apologise for you making things up , I never said you were racist if you can show me where il swallow it I've trawled through my posts it's not like me to use the term with no substance. I did however say you posted far right sources. That's not calling you far right it's saying the sources you posted can be viewed as right side of centre.

So again why should I apologise.

listermint · 04-02-2017 9:05am

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

More sh/te. That operation was set upon the previous administration, no fault lies with Trump or general Mattis.

https://youtu.be/QCr-WuHEECk?t=1159

Also TYT, is it getting to the time to post infowars links here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcvmSJzpwiA

I mean your even quoting Dave Rubin you going to claim he is a centrist?

Bazzo · 04-02-2017 10:37am

Any trump fans in here like to offer any defence on trump's repealing of the Dodd-Frank financial regulations designed to make Wall Street protect investors and consumers from abusive practices? Or his move to delay Obama's fiduciary rule requiring investment and financial advisers to act in their clients’ best interests? Here's trump's justification:

"We expect to be cutting a lot out of Dodd-Frank because, frankly, I have so many people, friends of mine, who have nice businesses who can’t borrow money," he said, sitting near to Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase and Stephen Schwarzman of the Blackstone Group.

"They just can’t get any money because the banks just won’t let them borrow, because of the rules and regulations in Dodd-Frank."

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

Comments