Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

dr.fuzzenstein

RobertKK wrote: »

The UK is made to look like beggars by Trump. The UK needs to have some self respect and not accept what Trump said. But Brexit has left them as beggars...needing Trump for a trade deal that maybe Congress won't agree to...

He's pissed because Theresa May did not go for the Brexit he suggested to her, which I can only presume is straight, hard, no deal Brexit and not pay the divorce bill.
Then wait until the UK is up sh*t creek and move in with a predatory trade deal which will 99% benefit the US.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1148298496140820480

Beechwoodspark

RobertKK wrote: »

The UK is made to look like beggars by Trump. The UK needs to have some self respect and not accept what Trump said. But Brexit has left them as beggars...needing Trump for a trade deal that maybe Congress won't agree to...

Wait til trump sees the clip of Boris calling him stupifyingly ignorant and stupid !

everlast75

Epstein gets arrested.

A grand jury is looking into Broidy.

And to top it all off....

https://twitter.com/MotherJones/status/1148333000410750976?s=19

"A great day for tRump"

BonnieSituation

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Wait til trump sees the clip of Boris calling him stupifyingly ignorant and stupid !

Shouldn't someone tweet it to him?

MrFresh

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

He's pissed because Theresa May did not go for the Brexit he suggested to her, which I can only presume is straight, hard, no deal Brexit and not pay the divorce bill.
Then wait until the UK is up sh*t creek and move in with a predatory trade deal which will 99% benefit the US.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1148298496140820480

Does the POTUS not meet each ambassador to give them their credentials or something?

Brian?

MrFresh wrote: »

Does the POTUS not meet each ambassador to give them their credentials or something?

Yep.

Trump is throwing a tantrum. He knows Boris will replace the ambassador now so he’s acting the hard man. It’s so childish it’s unreal.

everlast75

Brian? wrote: »

Yep.

Trump is throwing a tantrum. He knows Boris will replace the ambassador now so he’s acting the hard man. It’s so childish it’s unreal.

Something something hillary temperament...

everlast75

Brian? wrote: »

Yep.

Trump is throwing a tantrum. He knows Boris will replace the ambassador now so he’s acting the hard man. It’s so childish it’s unreal.

https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1148341377505353728?s=19

Btw - i despise the use of "gate" in the media. Makes my eyes roll back so far I nearly pass out

StringerBell

Gate is pretty darn frustrating alright and that's an obituary of a vote of confidence. Out the door as soon as Boris is in, everybody knows this.

Dohnjoe

Was reading the news this morning

"BBC New York correspondent Nick Bryant said Sir Kim was still planning to join International Trade Secretary Liam Fox for a scheduled meeting with the president's daughter, Ivanka Trump, on Tuesday."

I'll never get used to it. Imagine Merkel or May putting their children/relatives into positions of power like medieval kings or dictators. It's such a surreal circus. Once Trump leaves the WH, there is going to be a flurry of books exposing the sheer insanity, and I guarantee they'll all corroborate each other.

pixelburp

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Was reading the news this morning

"BBC New York correspondent Nick Bryant said Sir Kim was still planning to join International Trade Secretary Liam Fox for a scheduled meeting with the president's daughter, Ivanka Trump, on Tuesday."

I'll never get used to it. Imagine Merkel or May putting their children/relatives into positions of power like medieval kings or dictators. It's such a surreal circus. Once Trump leaves the WH, there is going to be a flurry of books exposing the sheer insanity, and I guarantee they'll all corroborate each other.

Plus, let's not forget that it was advised that her husband Jared Kushner, NOT be given security clearance, only for this recommendation be ignored. The same Kushner apparently the best person to sort out peace in the Middle East

More offensive still are the mental gymnastics of those who would defend this naked nepotism; Ivanka is neither qualified nor experienced in any capacity, inherited wealth to inherited wealth who kicks against the very heart of the "American Dream", yet some might applaud Ivanka for 'running' a clothing company who makes its "fast fashion" tat in China.

Dohnjoe

pixelburp wrote: »

Plus, let's not forget that it was advised that her husband Jared Kushner, NOT be given security clearance, only for this recommendation be ignored. The same Kushner apparently the best person to sort out peace in the Middle East

More offensive still are the mental gymnastics of those who would defend this naked nepotism; Ivanka is neither qualified nor experienced in any capacity, inherited wealth to inherited wealth who kicks against the very heart of the "American Dream", yet some might applaud Ivanka for 'running' a clothing company who makes its "fast fashion" tat in China.

I've been into US politics for 25 years, I have never seen anything like this. It's not even a partisan thing, a GOP v DEM thing, it's insanity.

pixelburp

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I've been into US politics for 25 years, I have never seen anything like this. It's not even a partisan thing, a GOP v DEM thing, it's insanity.

I suppose traditionally nepotism's a bit subtler than this naked ploy of Trumps; one might argueLynn Cheney or the conveyor belt of Kennedys is in the same vein as what's happening now. The difference though would be that the Cheneys / Kennedys still inserted themselves onto the political ladder at the relative bottom, posing as candidates like everyone else (albeit bankrolled in the manner that guarantees election in the US). Ivanka has no business being anywhere near the White House yet has found herself at the top of the geopolitical food-chain. I said elsewhere that she's being groomed but perhaps this impatience will cost her, not willing to start at the bottom as a Congresswoman or whatnot.

It's not even in the US, there's a fondness for dynastic political families throughout the Western world that can poison the well of the Democratic process - look no further than the Healy-Raes down in Kerry, who I'd argue are the Irish Trumps, perhaps minus the grotesque inherited wealth. That's another conversation mind.

Hurrache

RobertKK wrote: »

The UK is made to look like beggars by Trump. The UK needs to have some self respect and not accept what Trump said. But Brexit has left them as beggars...needing Trump for a trade deal that maybe Congress won't agree to...

The trade deal may be in trouble before discussions even start
https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1148528762407006209

Professor Moriarty

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Was reading the news this morning

"BBC New York correspondent Nick Bryant said Sir Kim was still planning to join International Trade Secretary Liam Fox for a scheduled meeting with the president's daughter, Ivanka Trump, on Tuesday."

I'll never get used to it. Imagine Merkel or May putting their children/relatives into positions of power like medieval kings or dictators. It's such a surreal circus. Once Trump leaves the WH, there is going to be a flurry of books exposing the sheer insanity, and I guarantee they'll all corroborate each other.

How insulting for Britain, the Ambassador and the Foreign Secretary. So much for the 'special relationship'.

serfboard

Hurrache wrote: »

The trade deal may be in trouble before discussions even start

I'm going to rephrase that tweet:

Boris Johnson rejects ... a US trade deal that would change UK food regulations. US [will not] do a ... trade deal without this. As I've been saying for some time, UK-US trade deal in trouble

US to UK: You'll sacrifice your food standards, or you'll get no trade deal.

Trump to UK: Your ambassador said mean things about me. Unfair! Tariffs to follow ...

Who's the vassal state now, Rees-Mogg?

amandstu

Can the US maintain its trajectory into isolationism? It is the only country that could do that I think but are the forces pushing it into international cooperation too strong?

It is an old question reheated for our times.

Professor Moriarty

serfboard wrote: »

I'm going to rephrase that tweet:
US to UK: You'll sacrifice your food standards, or you'll get no trade deal.

Trump to UK: Your ambassador said mean things about me. Unfair! Tariffs to follow ...

Who's the vassal state now, Rees-Mogg?

Very interesting article here on the ongoing animosity between Britain and Trump.

EltonJohn69

Trump showing Theresa May a lot of respect in his latest tweets... the most special relationship ?

everlast75

Imagine being one of the most powerful men in the world, being able to travel pretty much where ever you want, talk to whomever you want, and instead sit in watching tabloid TV looking for sycophantic praise. That, in and of itself is pretty pathetic, but then you see this?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1148563040536866821?s=20

All due respect, but who the **** is Steve Doocy in terms of academic legal scholars?

It is pathetic. Remember, in 2019, it was revealed that President Donald Trump ranked the loyalty of many reporters, on a scale of 1 to 10. Steve Doocy received a "12 out of 10".

Looking to that clown for a view on a Supreme Court Judgement, or Tucker Carlson in respect of international diplomacy... its an absolute joke of an administration.

peddlelies

Almost 70% of people want the question on the census which is a huge majority, be interesting to see what happens. I must say it's a bit mad that a country can't ask it's inhabitants whether or not they're there legally.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/451398-poll-majority-say-the-census-should-be-able-to-include-citizenship

"Sixty-seven percent of voters said the census should be able to ask whether people living in the U.S. are citizens, going against the recent Supreme Court decision on the matter, according to a new Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll.

The poll also found that the inclusion of the question was supported among members of both parties, with 88 percent of Republicans and 52 percent of Democrats supporting its inclusion.

Sixty-three percent of independents said they supported including the question on the census."

Quin_Dub

peddlelies wrote: »

Almost 70% of people want the question on the census which is a huge majority, be interesting to see what happens. I must say it's a bit mad that a country can't ask it's inhabitants whether or not they're there legally.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/451398-poll-majority-say-the-census-should-be-able-to-include-citizenship

"Sixty-seven percent of voters said the census should be able to ask whether people living in the U.S. are citizens, going against the recent Supreme Court decision on the matter, according to a new Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll.

The poll also found that the inclusion of the question was supported among members of both parties, with 88 percent of Republicans and 52 percent of Democrats supporting its inclusion.

Sixty-three percent of independents said they supported including the question on the census."

It's not the question that's really at issue though, it's the "reason" for the question.

Also, the proposed question does not ask "are you here legally?" - It was simply going to ask "Are you a citizen?" - Not , Do you have a Visa, Green-card or whatever , just "Are you a citizen"

The Trump administration have repeatedly lied as to the real reason that they want the question. It was that lying that got the supreme court to rule against them , not the principal of the question.

Trump of course let the cat out of the bag a few days ago when he said that it was needed for re-districting.

Having a citizenship question is perfectly fine if used for reason other than naked partisanship.

TomOnBoard

Quin_Dub wrote: »

It's not the question that's really at issue though, it's the "reason" for the question.

Also, the proposed question does not ask "are you here legally?" - It was simply going to ask "Are you a citizen?" - Not , Do you have a Visa, Green-card or whatever , just "Are you a citizen"

The Trump administration have repeatedly lied as to the real reason that they want the question. It was that lying that got the supreme court to rule against them , not the principal of the question.

Trump of course let the cat out of the bag a few days ago when he said that it was needed for re-districting.

Having a citizenship question is perfectly fine if used for reason other than naked partisanship.

Actually, having a citizenship question is not perfectly fine, as to have it asked of everyone would undermine the process of counting everyone. It has never been asked of everyone before; rather, when it has been asked, it was only asked of people of a particular category. Given that the role of the Census is to obtain a complete count of everyone at a point in time, any questions that would cause people not to complete it were judged in the 1950s to be acting against the core objective.

The most recent GOP attempts are all about political manoeuverings, and NOT about ensuring that everyone is counted.

This law journal article explains it very well:

https://georgetownlawjournal.org/articles/311/critical-history-of-united-states-citizenship-question

Quin_Dub

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Actually, having a citizenship question is not perfectly fine, as to have it asked of everyone would undermine the process of counting everyone. It has never been asked of everyone before; rather, when it has been asked, it was only asked of people of a particular category. Given that the role of the Census is to obtain a complete count of everyone at a point in time, any questions that would cause people not to complete it were judged in the 1950s to be acting against the core objective.

The most recent GOP attempts are all about political manoeuverings, and NOT about ensuring that everyone is counted.

This law journal article explains it very well:

https://georgetownlawjournal.org/articles/311/critical-history-of-united-states-citizenship-question

Agree with the above section completely.

The Irish Census asks a citizenship question (as I suspect lots of countries do) , but it's not used to disenfranchise people or remove their vote - It's just an interesting demographic data-point.

Having the information for statistical purposes is perfectly fine.

But - That's not what they want it for , hence all the lying about the real reasons. They want to to be able to have a data-point to allow them to twist the electoral process in their favour.

The entire electoral process is so utterly partisan in the US such that they simply cannot be trusted with information that in other countries no one really even considers.

MrFresh

peddlelies wrote: »

Almost 70% of people want the question on the census which is a huge majority, be interesting to see what happens. I must say it's a bit mad that a country can't ask it's inhabitants whether or not they're there legally.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/451398-poll-majority-say-the-census-should-be-able-to-include-citizenship

"Sixty-seven percent of voters said the census should be able to ask whether people living in the U.S. are citizens, going against the recent Supreme Court decision on the matter, according to a new Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll.

The poll also found that the inclusion of the question was supported among members of both parties, with 88 percent of Republicans and 52 percent of Democrats supporting its inclusion.

Sixty-three percent of independents said they supported including the question on the census."

They can ask, all they need is a reason. On the flip side, the current administration has no trust from non citizens so if they do ask the question they will probably get a 100% yes because everyone else won't do the census for fear of it being used against them, which makes it a pointless exercise.

pixelburp

So for anyone paying attention, Trump went on an uncommon Twitter rant about Fox News on Sunday (are they the "enemy of the people" now then?); some jokingly speculated if this was because Fox ran a segment after the US victory at the Women's World Cup, where fans started chanting "F*ck Trump" live on air.

Turns out, if sources via AP (and MSNBC contributor) are to be believed, that's precisely what happened. Funny how often the rich and powerful can have the most fragile egos.

https://apnews.com/7cd0c552a20d4a62a7efcba5699638a1

While it was not clear what Trump was specifically responding to, he was particularly annoyed by Fox correspondent Greg Palkot’s live report from a sports bar in France, where patrons erupted in a “F--- Trump” chant, according to two advisers not authorized to speak publicly about private discussions.

everlast75

pixelburp wrote: »

So for anyone paying attention, Trump went on an uncommon Twitter rant about Fox News on Sunday (are they the "enemy of the people" now then?); some jokingly speculated if this was because Fox ran a segment after the US victory at the Women's World Cup, where fans started chanting "F*ck Trump" live on air.

Turns out, if sources via AP (and MSNBC contributor) are to be believed, that's precisely what happened. Funny how often the rich and powerful can have the most fragile egos.

https://apnews.com/7cd0c552a20d4a62a7efcba5699638a1

Ironic that Trump flipped when hearing that he was called insecure by the ambassador, thus proving the ambassador utterly correct

Timberrrrrrrr

Just reading that a court has decided that Trump is not allowed to block critics of him on Twitter, he won't be impressed with that ruling!




https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-not-allowed-to-block-critics-on-twitter-court-rules-11759804

The president is forbidden from limiting access to his feed under the first amendment of the US Constitution, judges say.

robinph

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Just reading that a court has decided that Trump is not allowed to block critics of him on Twitter, he won't be impressed with that ruling!




https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-not-allowed-to-block-critics-on-twitter-court-rules-11759804

Thought they made that ruling a couple of years ago.

Leroy42

peddlelies wrote: »

Almost 70% of people want the question on the census which is a huge majority, be interesting to see what happens. I must say it's a bit mad that a country can't ask it's inhabitants whether or not they're there legally.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/451398-poll-majority-say-the-census-should-be-able-to-include-citizenship

"Sixty-seven percent of voters said the census should be able to ask whether people living in the U.S. are citizens, going against the recent Supreme Court decision on the matter, according to a new Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll.

The poll also found that the inclusion of the question was supported among members of both parties, with 88 percent of Republicans and 52 percent of Democrats supporting its inclusion.

Sixty-three percent of independents said they supported including the question on the census."

I'm confused. I thought SCOTUS made rulings based on the constitution. Is that not the case?

If so, and I think it is, then it really doesn't matter what 70% of the people want. A majority of people want gun control but the constitution rules against that.

I find it odd that people are so tied to the constitution on one issue, but so happy to ignore it on others