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

demfad

Apologies if this is covered already but Putin critic Vladimir Kara Murza who was poisoned in 2015 has been apparently poisoned again last week.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/02/03/has-putin-poisoned-another-opponent.html?via=desktop&source=twitter

demfad

This story is a little bigger than it seems:

It concerns General Flynn receiving payments from RT (formerly Russia Today) in 2015. It is illegal for a retired general to take payments from foreign Govts:

The lawmakers suggest that the fee he received may have violated the Constitution’s emoluments clause, which prohibits top officials from receiving payments from foreign governments.

Democrat lawyers have framed it in such a way as to do maximum damage:

The letter, signed by the ranking Democrats on the House Intelligence, Oversight, Armed Services, Judiciary, Foreign Affairs and Homeland Security committees, requested any information the Pentagon had about “how much [Flynn] was paid for his dinner with Vladi­mir Putin, whether he received additional payments from Russian or other foreign sources, or whether he sought the approval of the Department of Defense or Congress to accept these payments.”

If the Pentagon investigates the bolded section it might unearth other connections to Putin which could finally force congress to call a select comittee/special prosecutor to look at Trump/Kremlin connections. That will open the non-proverbial barrel of snakes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-ask-pentagon-to-explain-russian-payment-to-flynn/2017/02/01/de5e5f0e-e816-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html?postshare=7561485973205510&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.9daabc1bb090

Manic Moran

On good news, a couple hundred million shaved off the costs of F-35.

Unclear if Trump had any involvement, but he wasn't wrong about the pricing.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/f-35-lockheed-martin-cost-reduction/

rgossip30

Democrats and Republicans were just FF and FG , all the same imagine a similar divide here .
One must point out , old Irish saying ' you can't believe everything you read in the papers'.

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

On good news, a couple hundred million shaved off the costs of F-35.

Unclear if Trump had any involvement, but he wasn't wrong about the pricing.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/f-35-lockheed-martin-cost-reduction/

Deals like that only suit the lobbyists. Toothless procurement dept's is the problem there too much power to individuals . It won't be solved long term by tweets or throwing stuff out of the pram . Better funding to oversight of procurement and removal of lobbyists in this area would save far more money that silly head line deals

Harika

Manic Moran wrote: »

On good news, a couple hundred million shaved off the costs of F-35.

Unclear if Trump had any involvement, but he wasn't wrong about the pricing.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/f-35-lockheed-martin-cost-reduction/

I remember when the Austrians ordered 24 Eurofighters for 20 Billion Euro, this was critisised and at the end they "re-negotiated" and brought the price down to 19 Billion Euro. (18 instead of 24 and used ones instead of brand new of the newest generation) I think for the F35 we need to wait for the update in contract, what the savings really include.

recedite

demfad wrote: »

Buried in this article:

Trump did not know that the NSC EO gave Bannon a permanent seat on the NSC when he signed it! He literally does not know what he is signing.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/us/politics/trump-white-house-aides-strategy.html?referer=https://t.co/4sFV11e2Jo

Also in that article...

Aides confer in the dark because they cannot figure out how to operate the light switches in the cabinet room.

Does this seem likely to you?

oscarBravo wrote: »

the phrase "so-called judge" is an attack on the separation of powers.

No, it is not.
Sacking a judge is an attack on the separation of powers.

Professor Moriarty

recedite wrote:

No, it is not. Sacking a judge is an attack on the separation of powers.

This isn't The Apprentice. When POTUS makes a personal attack on a judge then democracy is attacked.

Itssoeasy

The speaker of the House of Commons in Britain has said that Donald trump shouldn't be invited to give a speech to the House of Commons during his state visit.

Billy86

Nody wrote: »

And to once again prove that the Obama administration did not lie here's the numbers from Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, Office of Admissions - Refugee Processing Center per month:

Month Intake
Jan. 2011 1214
Feb. 2011 779
Mar. 2011 111
Apr. 2011 184
May 2011 418
Jun. 2011 298
Jul. 2011 665
Aug. 2011 1020
Sep. 2011 824
Oct. 2011 419
Nov. 2011 254
Dec. 2011 153



You can double check all the numbers as they are public and easily available here.

So can we please settle the whole "Obama did it why did you not protest" BS once and for all? Obama did not ban Iraq refugees from entering USA for 6 months. They did not ban it for 1 month because there was never, none, nada ban. And that is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Bookmarked for the 50+ times (not even a remote exaggeration, if anything an understatement) that this is claimed again.

recedite

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

This isn't The Apprentice. When POTUS makes a personal attack on a judge then democracy is attacked.

No, that is POTUS expressing an opinion about somebody else in the government. Its freedom of speech.

But when people refuse to recognise the democratically elected POTUS and react by burning cars and smashing windows, then that is an attack on democracy.

Professor Moriarty

recedite wrote:

No, that is POTUS expressing an opinion about somebody else in the government. Its freedom of speech.

recedite wrote:

But when people refuse to recognise the democratically elected POTUS and react by burning cars and smashing windows, then that is an attack on democracy.

What's any of that got to do with POTUS making a personalised attack on a judge? Genuine question: Do you not see a problem with Trump doing that?

Frank Bullitt

Well...that clears that up so.

jobbridge4life

recedite wrote: »

No, that is POTUS expressing an opinion about somebody else in the government. Its freedom of speech.

But when people refuse to recognise the democratically elected POTUS and react by burning cars and smashing windows, then that is an attack on democracy.

The POTUS did not express an opinion. Saying 'this so-called Judge' is not an opinion. It is a direct attack on the legitimacy of a member of the judiciary and by extension, the entire judiciary. That he did so in relation to a widely repudiated executive order (several judges in several cities), that even his own party have had to criticize the implementation of (McCain, Graham, Ryan, McConell) and that his regime has already had to refine since implementation is very telling.


That you and the Trumpistas feel the need to defend it is also very telling BTW.

demfad

recedite wrote: »

Aides confer in the dark because they cannot figure out how to operate the light switches in the cabinet room

Also in that article...Does this seem likely to you?

This is called a metaphor. It means that aides operating with limited information (light), can't figure out how to improve their position (operate the light switches in the cabinet room). Not to be taken literally.

listermint

What about him ripping Dodd Frank's to shreds, the whole campaign telling everyone in the south that he was taking on Wall Street.hillary was funded by wall Street wall Street is bad drain the swamp.

Then he kills Dodd Frank inviting wall Street to return to extremely poor business transactions and removing protections for the consumer . Deregulating the street.

Hillary me h....

demfad

http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/2017/02/06/china-sails-warships-near-islands-james-mattis-promised-defend-japan/

China testing Trump here.
With Bannon freshly self installed in the National Security Counsel and recently talking about war very likely with China over South China Sea....
Worryingly it may talk a major war to get these dangerous morons out.

jimmycrackcorm

Gintonious wrote: »

Well...that clears that up so.

It's almost as if Trump is trying to follow a strategy of treating being president like the apprentice show.

The only objective in being president is to win ratings? It does explain the obsession over crowd sizes.

demfad

Gintonious wrote: »

Well...that clears that up so.

Ill clear it up:

Any polls reflecting negatively on the Dear Leader are henceforth automatically deemed fake.

Any questions?

MightyMandarin

recedite wrote: »

No, that is POTUS expressing an opinion about somebody else in the government. Its freedom of speech.

But when people refuse to recognise the democratically elected POTUS and react by burning cars and smashing windows, then that is an attack on democracy.

It is not. Trump is not calling the judge fat or saying that he's dumb, he's calling him a "so-called" judge aka he's illegitimate. That is a blatant breach of his role as the head of the Executive. If you knew anything about constitutional law you'd know that this type of stuff is completely unacceptable.

Stop thinking a "constitutional crisis" or "breach of the separation of powers" is literally Trump firing judges or blowing up Congress. In reality breaches of separations of powers cases happen all the time; if you'd studied con law, you'd know.

This type of behaviour is however not normal whatsoever. I find it absolutely disgusting btw that somebody like Ted Cruz who was one of the top constitutional law scholars at Harvard hasn't condemned Trump's behaviour in this regard. For a man who prides himself on upholding the constitution at all costs, his political career has sold him out.

listermint

This is all deflection from him giving wall Street freer reigns.

It's cunning.

MightyMandarin

listermint wrote: »

This is all deflection from him giving wall Street freer reigns.

It's cunning.

Don't forget him and Putin are in bed after he pocketed a nice 10bn in shares of Rosneft. I won't.

Zubeneschamali

listermint wrote: »

This is all deflection from him giving wall Street freer reigns.

It's cunning.

We all knew he would cut taxes on the rich, cut spending on the poor, deregulate everything, run up the deficit and start a war before the next election - that's what republicans always do.

None of that is surprising, the surprising thing is that he is utterly rubbish at it. 2 weeks in and everyone hates him already. It's not cunning, it is a complete clown show.

recedite

demfad wrote: »

This is called a metaphor. It means that aides operating with limited information (light), can't figure out how to improve their position (operate the light switches in the cabinet room). Not to be taken literally.

Eh, no. It is presented as fact. Reported by anonymous "White House insiders"
Consider the next few lines, and tell me where you think the metaphor ends.

....Visitors conclude their meetings and then wander around, testing doorknobs until finding one that leads to an exit. In a darkened, mostly empty West Wing, Mr. Trump’s provocative chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, finishes another 16-hour day planning new lines of attack.Usually around 6:30 p.m., or sometimes later, Mr. Trump retires upstairs to the residence to recharge, vent and intermittently use Twitter. With his wife, Melania, and young son, Barron, staying in New York, he is almost always by himself, sometimes in the protective presence of his imposing longtime aide and former security chief, Keith Schiller. When Mr. Trump is not watching television in his bathrobe or on his phone reaching out to old campaign hands and advisers, he will sometimes set off to explore the unfamiliar surroundings of his new home....

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Stop thinking a "constitutional crisis" or "breach of the separation of powers" is literally Trump firing judges or blowing up Congress. In reality breaches of separations of powers cases happen all the time; if you'd studied con law, you'd know.

I have a diploma in constitutional law BTW, but that is not to say my opinion has any extra weight.
Anyway, I know exactly what you mean. The basic question here is whether the executive is interfering with the judiciary by referring to one judge as "a so-called judge". Its borderline, but I'm inclined to think not.

Having said that, the more you know about these things the less sure you become. For example I thought the Brexit thing would probably go in favour of the executive having a prerogative. In the event, the judiciary decided that the legislature would have to approve Brexit. But not unanimously. 8 agreed and 3 dissented. That's 3 extremely knowledgeable and experienced law lords who thought the parliament should not have to approve Brexit.
All the clowns who were firmly one side or the other all along, but who never really understood the issues, won't even have noticed that 8:3 ratio.

There are enough democrat lawyers in the USA to call for Trump to be impeached if they thought there was a winnable case for proving his unconstitutional interference with the judiciary.

Billy86

Gintonious wrote: »

Well...that clears that up so.

I actually think this is going to be one of the most likely tweets off them all to wind up in textbooks or as a general warning sign for future generations to be honest. Sums the whole lot of it up so briefly, and without even the slightest shred of irony.

Professor Moriarty

Gintonious wrote: »

Well...that clears that up so.

There's a superfluous comma after 'Sorry'.

Fr D Maugire

Did I just see a press conference on C4 news with Trump saying Islamic terrorism was widespread in Europe and the media were hiding it, or did I just imagine it or is it fake news. I was willing to give Trump a chance but a few weeks of this nonsense is more than enough.

Donal55

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Did I just see a press conference on C4 news with Trump saying Islamic terrorism was widespread in Europe and the media were hiding it, or did I just imagine it or is it fake news. I was willing to give Trump a chance but a few weeks of this nonsense is more than enough.

Well in fairness over the last number of years the only terrorism in Europe has been Islamic.

Fr D Maugire

Donal55 wrote: »

Well in fairness over the last number of years the only terrorism in Europe has been Islamic.

Hardly widespread though, he mentioned Nice and Paris and then followed up by saying it was all over Europe.

Also, are the media hiding it?

Donal55

Yes, I suppose he forgot about Brussels and Germany.