Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Brian?

26000 Elephants wrote: »

He has to be. The Senate will be left with no choice than to convict - or else they will be seen to be acting outside the constitution themselves.

They are being given every opportunity to ditch Trump: this whole Turkey/Kurds situation is a well scripted get-out-of-jail clause for Republicans who still have a shred of decency left and are not immediately implicated in this White House.

I just can't see it happening. Mainly because they don't have a shred of decency left.

duploelabs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

everlast75 wrote: »

QUICK! TALK ABOUT THE WALL... RATHER THAN MORE WHISTLEBLOWERS COMING FORWARD, THE FORMER UKRAINIAN AMBASSADOR SH1TTING ALL OVER RUDY AND TRUMP, IMPEACHMENT, THE DEFICIT, RUDY BEING THE SUBJECT OF A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION etc etc.

Eh, no need to shout, and I have been commenting on all of the above for the last week, what the hell are you on about? [\B]

But you haven't. You pop in here to drop propaganda or baseless gossip from sources that's as baseless as Trump's moral core and then when challenged, you scarper off

Overheal

duploelabs wrote: »

But you haven't. You pop in here to drop propaganda or baseless gossip from sources that's as baseless as Trump's moral core and then when challenged, you scarper off

^

everlast75

People wondered why Barr was meeting Murdoch the other night.

This could be some of the fallout from that meeting...

https://twitter.com/blakehounshell/status/1182746283305512965?s=19

Cody montana

Federal judge says Trump's use of emergency funds to build wall is unlawful.

*Wall Distraction*

Itssoeasy

everlast75 wrote: »

People wondered why Barr was meeting Murdoch the other night.

This could be some of the fallout from that meeting...

https://twitter.com/blakehounshell/status/1182746283305512965?s=19

So Chris Wallace is the lone beacon of something resembling sanity left at fox then ? I take it judge napolotano isn't long for the network then. I mean we now have the three members of Mensa in the morning and the five in the afternoon and the trio of Carlson, piro, and hanity who if you got them in a lucky bag you'd ask for another one.

TomOnBoard

everlast75 wrote: »

People wondered why Barr was meeting Murdoch the other night.

This could be some of the fallout from that meeting...

https://twitter.com/blakehounshell/status/1182746283305512965?s=19

I'm seeing this as Shep moving on by his own choice rather than a firing as a result of Barr influence..

"Recently I asked the company to allow me to leave Fox News and begin a new chapter," Smith said in a prepared statement.

everlast75

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I'm seeing this as Shep moving on by his own choice rather than a firing as a result of Barr influence..

"Recently I asked the company to allow me to leave Fox News and begin a new chapter," Smith said in a prepared statement.

Sounds like the Mourinho "mutual agreement to leave" united line - both save face.

Even if it wasn't a push to get the anchors into line, wtf was Barr doing meeting Murdoch?

Overheal

The most likely connection for the Murdoch meeting was Fox News polls that shows most Americans favor impeaching the president

But why AG Barr would have to spearhead something like that... idk. /conspiracy

aloyisious

Overheal wrote: »

The most likely connection for the Murdoch meeting was Fox News polls that shows most Americans favor impeaching the president

But why AG Barr would have to spearhead something like that... idk. /conspiracy

It wouldn't serve the purpose of the 1st amendment in the constitution well if his actions were to impede the purpose of the amendment but Don has already shown how much respect he has for the freedom of the press. The beauty of the 1st is that it also protects religious rights so neither can attack it directly without Pat Robertson, Senator Graham, the religious right and his own V/P getting upset.

Timberrrrrrrr

Seeing reports that Turkish troops have bombed American special forces (by accident apparently, not sure of casualties yet) surely any deaths/injuries are on Trumps hands.

aloyisious

The situation in the area of Syria under shelling and air fire attack from Turkey is getting nasty as it seems the shellfire had a "shooting close" incident involving US forces on the ground in Syria. With both Presidents talking at each other over the O/P's actions, things can happen inevitably. The US has two air bases in Turkey so I suppose if Erdogan decides to express his Govts annoyance at foreign expressions of worry, the bases might be embargoed as a 1st move. NATO has 24 bases in Turkey and the same might apply to them.

The US is also moving an extra 1,200 troops to Saudi Arabia thought it might be a move planned for months and just coincidental to a report from earlier today of 2 missiles coming from the direction of S/A hitting an Iranian oil tanker. Iran has withdrawn the initial missile launch area report, now saying it is not sure where the attack came from.

Overheal

Oh gosh,

So Trump lost the fight on his Border Wall Emergency. In their 33 page brief the court noted that a bill Trump signed himself on the same day he declared the emergency makes his declaration null and void - basically his emergency was to allocate funds to the wall, but because he had just signed a bill that apportioned a billion or so dollars to the wall - that Trump's Trump's Trump.

"Trump signed an appropriations bill into law which expressly forbade the diversion of funds appropriated by Congress for non-enumerated projects. Trump then tried to divert appropriated funds by way of a national emergency declaration and the court decided this was invalid based on that narrow issue alone–despite the administration’s efforts to bar the court from reviewing the NEA."

https://lawandcrime.com/immigration/federal-court-rules-border-wall-funding-through-national-emergency-illegal-due-to-bill-trump-himself-signed/?fbclid=IwAR2FcMy-gArxekhXlvoZa502bBsBiyphhoJYz6qyUkweNr7nKlMST7FpwQU

That's gotta sting!

Overheal

BTW @duploelabs he did it again

Manic Moran

Just on a topic change, four States challenged the implementation in court of the 2017 tax law which put an upper limit on how much state tax could be deducted from federal taxes, and which puts a disproportionate burden on citizens of States which have chosen to implement high levels of taxation. (Mainly blue ones, recall it was a Republican tax plan) Basically anyone with a legal background thought the case was doomed. Examples, https://thinkprogress.org/democratic-attorneys-general-file-one-of-the-stupidest-lawsuits-of-the-trump-era-ae452b6f32f7/?fbclid=IwAR0xsABrEk9ASTqULWoBHuV5BkRUWG6kiRB6WkTiNI2uLRMekzxT2gr5dI0 or https://reason.com/2018/07/19/four-blue-states-file-dubious-lawsuit-ag/


It got filed in New York, and was heard by an Obama-appointed judge. Turned out, the commentators were correct, the new tax law stands. https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-3091.pdf

In other legal news, CNN today has a little article buried away in the corner that the Feds have dropped a case against an illegal firearms dealer because the dealer made a rather novel claim that the AR15 is not subject to federal regulation at all. The judge had a look at it, decided that the defendant was correct, and wrote an interim opinion on the matter. The ATF dropped the case before the opinion became permanent.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/11/us/ar-15-guns-law-atf-invs/index.html

The problem, now that folks have stopped assuming that the standard way of doing things is correct and now are actually looking at the details, is that the basis upon which the ATF (and basically the gun world in the US as a whole) operates is not supported in the actual law. US law treats one part of the firearm as the legal firearm, the receiver. It’s the bit right in the middle, the main structural component which tends to contain the magazine well, trigger mechanism, etc. You can replace barrels, springs, hammers, whatever as you will if they wear out, but the receiver requires all the paperwork of a new gun. The definition of “receiver” is found in the US Code. The problem is that whilst the definition is fine for the vast majority of firearms, there is no part of an AR15 (or a Steyr AUG, now I think about it) which meets the legal definition. The ATF took the “closest bit” (the lower receiver) to the definition and treated it as such in practice, but a receiver is clearly defined in the law, and there is nothing which matches that definition in an AR. Basically, the ATF decided without legal authorization to declare some piece of metal to be a firearm. It makes perfect practical sense why they would do so, but the bottom line is it has no legal authority to do so.

However, if the court finalized such a ruling, it would have all but destroyed US federal firearms law, pending new firearm legislation. It will be interesting to see if any legislators from either party pick up on for submission as a bill, before a case ends up actually going to a final opinion in court.

Leroy42

Jebus, they can't even work out what a fire arm is?

Surely it should be pretty straightforward? But I guess they have tied themselves in such knots trying not to actually do anything that something like this becomes inevitable.

Wonder do they have the same issue with drugs? If it isn't exactly as prescribed in the law (50% pure heroin for eg) is it illegal?

Igotadose

Bad day for Trump yesterday. Another cabinet (acting) officer resigning. Loss of 5 different law cases, and the testimony from the ambassador.
Expecting a twitter meltdown today, esp. as it's Saturday.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/11/politics/donald-trump-court-rulings-bad-day/index.html

Bigboldworld

From reading various reports on what’s going on in Turkey it appears it’s another whopper from Donald, as one reporter put it it’s more than likely an off the cuff/no consultation decision from Trump to get out of the way to get back onside with Turkey however by doing so he’s created a whole myriad of other problems, a mess, an impulsive buffoon without the capability of forward thinking, long for the day when he is only referenced in history books.

duploelabs

Manic Moran wrote: »

Just on a topic change, four States challenged the implementation in court of the 2017 tax law which put an upper limit on how much state tax could be deducted from federal taxes, and which puts a disproportionate burden on citizens of States which have chosen to implement high levels of taxation. (Mainly blue ones, recall it was a Republican tax plan) Basically anyone with a legal background thought the case was doomed. Examples, https://thinkprogress.org/democratic-attorneys-general-file-one-of-the-stupidest-lawsuits-of-the-trump-era-ae452b6f32f7/?fbclid=IwAR0xsABrEk9ASTqULWoBHuV5BkRUWG6kiRB6WkTiNI2uLRMekzxT2gr5dI0 or https://reason.com/2018/07/19/four-blue-states-file-dubious-lawsuit-ag/


It got filed in New York, and was heard by an Obama-appointed judge. Turned out, the commentators were correct, the new tax law stands. https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-3091.pdf

In other legal news, CNN today has a little article buried away in the corner that the Feds have dropped a case against an illegal firearms dealer because the dealer made a rather novel claim that the AR15 is not subject to federal regulation at all. The judge had a look at it, decided that the defendant was correct, and wrote an interim opinion on the matter. The ATF dropped the case before the opinion became permanent.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/11/us/ar-15-guns-law-atf-invs/index.html

The problem, now that folks have stopped assuming that the standard way of doing things is correct and now are actually looking at the details, is that the basis upon which the ATF (and basically the gun world in the US as a whole) operates is not supported in the actual law. US law treats one part of the firearm as the legal firearm, the receiver. It’s the bit right in the middle, the main structural component which tends to contain the magazine well, trigger mechanism, etc. You can replace barrels, springs, hammers, whatever as you will if they wear out, but the receiver requires all the paperwork of a new gun. The definition of “receiver” is found in the US Code. The problem is that whilst the definition is fine for the vast majority of firearms, there is no part of an AR15 (or a Steyr AUG, now I think about it) which meets the legal definition. The ATF took the “closest bit” (the lower receiver) to the definition and treated it as such in practice, but a receiver is clearly defined in the law, and there is nothing which matches that definition in an AR. Basically, the ATF decided without legal authorization to declare some piece of metal to be a firearm. It makes perfect practical sense why they would do so, but the bottom line is it has no legal authority to do so.

However, if the court finalized such a ruling, it would have all but destroyed US federal firearms law, pending new firearm legislation. It will be interesting to see if any legislators from either party pick up on for submission as a bill, before a case ends up actually going to a final opinion in court.

Hey Maniac,
Being in the military. How do you feel about US troops being fired upon by the Turkish army, a move sanctioned by Trump?
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/turkey-opens-fire-on-united-states-special-forces-in-northern-syria-report/

Penn

NEW: On deployment of thousands of additional U.S. troops to Saudi Arabia, Pres. Trump says, "Are you ready: Saudi Arabia, at my request, has agreed to pay us for everything we're doing. That's a first!" https://t.co/8kdbxWyuln https://t.co/IKNVrgFblt

US Army is for hire apparently.*




*Terms and Conditions apply. Customers may be required to pay additional fees if loss of US soldiers lives occur. POTUS must be publicly praised at all times while army being rented out. Also do you have any information about the Bidens because if you do we need it because there's an election coming up.

everlast75

duploelabs wrote: »

Hey Maniac,
Being in the military. How do you feel about US troops being fired upon by the Turkish army, a move sanctioned by Trump?
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/turkey-opens-fire-on-united-states-special-forces-in-northern-syria-report/

Or about Trump's pledge to "bring troops home" yet send troops to protect Saudi Arabia, given what they have done to the US, apparently on the basis that they "pay" the U.S. for it, effectively turning the Army into mercenaries for hire by a dictator who murdered and dismembered a journalist because he criticised him and will not return his body so that he can be buried?

aloyisious

duploelabs wrote: »

Hey Maniac,
Being in the military. How do you feel about US troops being fired upon by the Turkish army, a move sanctioned by Trump?
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/turkey-opens-fire-on-united-states-special-forces-in-northern-syria-report/

According to CNN, it seems that, in line with standard procedures adapted by military forces in the field of advising the "friendly" nearby force of one's positions with map references provided to assist forward observers for artillery and air units and avoid "accidental" shooting-close incidents, the US informed the Turks of its positions.

I know from service abroad that safety measure fails when some person unilaterally decides to deliberately ignore it for the purpose of sending a signal or letting off steam. That may have been behind the reported shooting-close incident but doesn't excuse it so if Don tries to shrug it off as fake news or part of the risk military face, as CINC he cannot allowed get away with it.

Cody montana

Another dreadful week for trump.

I’m loving it.

Manic Moran

Re Kurds. No, I’m not happy, but it was going to be a lose-lose for us and them no matter which way it went once we decided we were not going to prevent Assad from winning his war. Unless you think Assad was going to be nice to the Us-aligned Kurds after he regained control of the whole country, which he is starting to do. We have already concluded we aren’t going to fight for them, so it doesn’t make any difference if it’s the Turks or Syrians who crush them. It would have been nice if we could have done a complete arms and training dump before leaving, though. “Here, have a couple hundred Javelins, Stingers, etc” to at least give them enough teeth to make folks think twice. This merely compounds an earlier error. When we make allies of people, we need to be very clear that “this is the limit, don’t be surprised if we leave” or actually back them up to the extent that the US can do so. Which means fighting, not just sending on the job trainers and then pulling out if it looks like we might take losses. If we are not willing to back up our friends, we should perhaps not be involving ourselves so much.

“The US Army is for hire”
This has always been true, at least to a point. Host nations often pay a portion of the costs of hosting US troops, which is a handy deterrent to have. Similarly, the cost to the US of fighting the 1991 war was about $61bn, foreign countries paid some $52bn of it back. That said, I don’t believe payment was a condition for US presence, but then again, I don’t know if it was for Saudi now either.

AbusesToilets

Manic Moran wrote: »

Just on a topic change, four States challenged the implementation in court of the 2017 tax law which put an upper limit on how much state tax could be deducted from federal taxes, and which puts a disproportionate burden on citizens of States which have chosen to implement high levels of taxation. (Mainly blue ones, recall it was a Republican tax plan) Basically anyone with a legal background thought the case was doomed. Examples, https://thinkprogress.org/democratic-attorneys-general-file-one-of-the-stupidest-lawsuits-of-the-trump-era-ae452b6f32f7/?fbclid=IwAR0xsABrEk9ASTqULWoBHuV5BkRUWG6kiRB6WkTiNI2uLRMekzxT2gr5dI0 or https://reason.com/2018/07/19/four-blue-states-file-dubious-lawsuit-ag/


It got filed in New York, and was heard by an Obama-appointed judge. Turned out, the commentators were correct, the new tax law stands. https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-3091.pdf

In other legal news, CNN today has a little article buried away in the corner that the Feds have dropped a case against an illegal firearms dealer because the dealer made a rather novel claim that the AR15 is not subject to federal regulation at all. The judge had a look at it, decided that the defendant was correct, and wrote an interim opinion on the matter. The ATF dropped the case before the opinion became permanent.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/11/us/ar-15-guns-law-atf-invs/index.html

The problem, now that folks have stopped assuming that the standard way of doing things is correct and now are actually looking at the details, is that the basis upon which the ATF (and basically the gun world in the US as a whole) operates is not supported in the actual law. US law treats one part of the firearm as the legal firearm, the receiver. It’s the bit right in the middle, the main structural component which tends to contain the magazine well, trigger mechanism, etc. You can replace barrels, springs, hammers, whatever as you will if they wear out, but the receiver requires all the paperwork of a new gun. The definition of “receiver” is found in the US Code. The problem is that whilst the definition is fine for the vast majority of firearms, there is no part of an AR15 (or a Steyr AUG, now I think about it) which meets the legal definition. The ATF took the “closest bit” (the lower receiver) to the definition and treated it as such in practice, but a receiver is clearly defined in the law, and there is nothing which matches that definition in an AR. Basically, the ATF decided without legal authorization to declare some piece of metal to be a firearm. It makes perfect practical sense why they would do so, but the bottom line is it has no legal authority to do so.

However, if the court finalized such a ruling, it would have all but destroyed US federal firearms law, pending new firearm legislation. It will be interesting to see if any legislators from either party pick up on for submission as a bill, before a case ends up actually going to a final opinion in court.

That would require actual debate around gun legislation, being made in good faith, not just as a means to further restrict ownership. Therefore it will never happen. Whole NFA should be updated, restrictions on suppressor and barrel length are long overdue to be looked at.

Leroy42

how can he possibly argue in one point that he promised to bring troops home and thus the Kurdish decision is simply him keeping his promise, and at the same time end more troops to SA. I thought he wanted to get out of the ME?

Like everything else that Trump does, those that come out to defend him always end up looking foolish doe to actions by Trump himself.

Take the recent Biden/Ukraine issue. He came out with the line that it was all about weeding out corruption. Yet when the Giuliani story he breaks he has nothing to say!

Itssoeasy

I see trump is cursing at his rally's now. He's also saying he doesn't know the former Ukrainian ambassador even though in the call transcript he clearly knows who she was.

everlast75

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I see trump is cursing at his rally's now. He's also saying he doesn't know the former Ukrainian ambassador even though in the call transcript he clearly knows who she was.

If trump says he knows something, it means he knows nothing about it.

If trump says he knows nothing, it means he knows something, and its always something bad

duploelabs

Manic Moran wrote: »

Re Kurds. No, I’m not happy, but it was going to be a lose-lose for us and them no matter which way it went once we decided we were not going to prevent Assad from winning his war. Unless you think Assad was going to be nice to the Us-aligned Kurds after he regained control of the whole country, which he is starting to do. We have already concluded we aren’t going to fight for them, so it doesn’t make any difference if it’s the Turks or Syrians who crush them. It would have been nice if we could have done a complete arms and training dump before leaving, though. “Here, have a couple hundred Javelins, Stingers, etc” to at least give them enough teeth to make folks think twice. This merely compounds an earlier error. When we make allies of people, we need to be very clear that “this is the limit, don’t be surprised if we leave” or actually back them up to the extent that the US can do so. Which means fighting, not just sending on the job trainers and then pulling out if it looks like we might take losses. If we are not willing to back up our friends, we should perhaps not be involving ourselves so much.

“The US Army is for hire”
This has always been true, at least to a point. Host nations often pay a portion of the costs of hosting US troops, which is a handy deterrent to have. Similarly, the cost to the US of fighting the 1991 war was about $61bn, foreign countries paid some $52bn of it back. That said, I don’t believe payment was a condition for US presence, but then again, I don’t know if it was for Saudi now either.

So you're cool with US forces getting intentionally fired upon as a result of Trump's capitulation to Turkey?

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

“The US Army is for hire”
This has always been true, at least to a point. Host nations often pay a portion of the costs of hosting US troops, which is a handy deterrent to have. Similarly, the cost to the US of fighting the 1991 war was about $61bn, foreign countries paid some $52bn of it back. That said, I don’t believe payment was a condition for US presence, but then again, I don’t know if it was for Saudi now either.

Does it further the US to farm out the army as glorified mercenaries though?

Why have a taxpayer funded $10T army (or whatever the number is, total assets and all) when PMCs could do the army for hire stuff?