Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.

Purgatory: Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

15455575960168

Comments

  • Disagree. If it is basically war, you do whatever is required to win. There is no going "they go low, you go high". Nope, you get them on the ground and kick the living daylights out of them.

    News conferences need to ask if lock her up applies to the daughter he wanted to date. Whose qualifications for being his advisor was running a failed clothing line.

    Yes and No. But if you read @Hedgehog's post, it's a two-part process and what you are suggesting, I suspect is bad tactically.
  • I don't look for anyone on the dim side (Hillary to be sure) to be particularly interested in a public airing of the differences between the two situations.

    Look for it to go away quickly, except with the nutters.
  • News conferences need to ask if lock her up applies to the daughter he wanted to date. Whose qualifications for being his advisor was running a failed clothing line.
    A failed clothing line whose products were made in China, when her dear old dad was promising to bring back U.S. jobs to Make America Great Again*.

    *The Finns have now changed this to Make America Rake Again. :lol:


  • Golden Key wrote: »
    Re Ivanka as senior advisor:

    I don't approve of the appointment. But she's long been his advisor, long before he took office. Maybe it's better that she has at least some visibility (and hopefully accountability) so people have an inkling of what's going on?

    Presidents have long had informal advisors, to the extent that there's even a term for such a group. However, that's different than putting such advisors on the White House payroll and getting them a security clearance.
    romanlion wrote: »
    I don't look for anyone on the dim side (Hillary to be sure) to be particularly interested in a public airing of the differences between the two situations.

    The main difference between the two situations is that one involves Hillary Clinton, who drives the American right and the American press nutso for no reason other than raw sexism, and the other doesn't. No one ever really believed that e-mail management best practices was the most important issue facing America, they just liked to play pretend so they could imagine themselves brave for wanting to burn the witch lock her up.
  • romanlion wrote: »
    I don't look for anyone on the dim side (Hillary to be sure) to be particularly interested in a public airing of the differences between the two situations.

    Look for it to go away quickly, except with the nutters.

    I see where you're confused. The Nutters have already forgotten about it. In much the same way that they have forgotten about the Donald's tax returns and treatment of women.

    AFZ
  • Don't think it's going away #crookedIvanka is trending on the Twitter, and so is #LockHerUp. It's not kind, but this spawn of trumpy needs to be run ragged and look it. Make her suffer. And her "I'd like to date her" father needs to be made to be very very angry about it all. Nothing to lose. Except maybe daddy loses his temper and does something really stupid like hits someone.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Cue Jim Acosta.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Remove football before temper loss, please.
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    ... Nothing to lose. Except maybe daddy loses his temper and does something really stupid like hits someone.
    ... or hits something, like the nuclear button (does that actually exist?).

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited November 2018
    So this happened.
    The White House late Tuesday signed a memo allowing troops stationed at the border to engage in some law enforcement roles and use lethal force, if necessary — a move that legal experts have cautioned may run afoul of the Posse Comitatus Act.

    The new “Cabinet order” was signed by White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, not President Donald Trump. It allows “Department of Defense military personnel” to “perform those military protective activities that the Secretary of Defense determines are reasonably necessary” to protect border agents, including “a show or use of force (including lethal force, where necessary), crowd control, temporary detention. and cursory search.”

    A couple of points here. First, the White House Chief of Staff is nowhere within the U.S. military chain of command. Despite the fact the he's a former general John Kelly currently doesn't have the authority to issue orders to anyone outside the White House. Second, there doesn't seem to be any such thing as a "Cabinet order" and, even if there was, the White House Chief of Staff is not a member of the cabinet. Whisky Tango Foxtrot?

    Possible explanation here. The explanation, if accurate, does not look good.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited November 2018
    In all this, I seemed to have forgotten for a moment that the leader of the most powerful nation on earth (TM) appointed his daughter as a senior adviser. I tried a bit of Googling to see when that happened last in the UK, but all I could find was outrage about MPs paying relatives to run their constituency offices...

    In all fairness, JFK appointed his brother to be Attorney General. But yes, the Trump administration has nepotism at a whole other level.

    Correction--JFK nominated Robert to be the Attorney General, He had to be approved by the Senate.

    Ivanka was never approved by the Senate.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    The Kelly 'Cabinet Order'. If it is an administrative attempt to set aside the Posse Comitatus Act, and of doubtful legality, doesn't it put the military in an impossible position?

    If specific orders to use force are given by military commanders on the strength of that Cabinet order, are they legal orders?

    I don't understand US law sufficiently to be certain about this, but aren't there provisions under declarations of a state of emergency enabling the use of military forces to deal with the situation on the ground? If for example the national guard had insufficient force to deal with a violent border situation, would that justify using any provisions created by declaring a state of emergency?

  • trumpy is Saudi Arabia's accomplice after the fact of murder, or simply $audi's bitch if you agree with a congress member. And it's nice to sell the $audis bombs and stuff to kill Yemenis with because they are not buying bombs.

    It can't get worse until it does. Saudi is running America when Russia isn't.
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    The Kelly 'Cabinet Order'. If it is an administrative attempt to set aside the Posse Comitatus Act, and of doubtful legality, doesn't it put the military in an impossible position?

    If specific orders to use force are given by military commanders on the strength of that Cabinet order, are they legal orders?

    I don't understand US law sufficiently to be certain about this, but aren't there provisions under declarations of a state of emergency enabling the use of military forces to deal with the situation on the ground? If for example the national guard had insufficient force to deal with a violent border situation, would that justify using any provisions created by declaring a state of emergency?

    inquiring minds want to know. It looks dodgy as anything.

    On Ivanka, Mueller is surely looking at her as part of his inquiry into Trump businesses connected with the White House. I will enjoy seeing her bust through a media scrum on her way to the dock.
  • Hey, remember Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign advisor? When last we saw him he reached a plea agreement to cooperate with the Special Counsel's office in exchange for lenient sentencing. His sentencing was delayed at the request of the Special Counsel until yesterday, at which point Mueller's office informed a judge that in their estimation Manafort has not been adhering to the sentencing agreement. You can read the two page filing here [PDF], if you like. It mostly seems like Manafort continued to lie to the FBI and the Special Counsel after reaching his plea agreement. If true (and provable) this probably translates into most of the rest of Manafort's life being lived behind bars.

    There's all kinds of speculation about why Manafort would (allegedly) do this. The most obvious are:
    1. He's crazy
    2. He's counting on a pardon
    3. He's scared of something much worse than anything the American judicial system can dish out if he talks

    In other Manafort news (and for a guy in solitary confinement he seems to keep making headlines) the Guardian is reporting that Manafort secretly met with Julian Assange in the Ecuadoran embassy.
    Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort held secret talks with Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and visited around the time he joined Trump’s campaign, the Guardian has been told.

    Sources have said Manafort went to see Assange in 2013, 2015 and in spring 2016 – during the period when he was made a key figure in Trump’s push for the White House.

    In a statement, Manafort denied meeting Assange. He said: “I have never met Julian Assange or anyone connected to him. I have never been contacted by anyone connected to WikiLeaks, either directly or indirectly. I have never reached out to Assange or WikiLeaks on any matter.”

    It is unclear why Manafort would have wanted to see Assange and what was discussed.

    I'm guessing "unclear" is a euphemism for "we all know why but can't get a source to confirm it for us".
  • Following Paul Manafort is one of the pleasures a person can have following American Politics. Let us hope he is the amuse bouche of the Mueller Inquiry.

  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Hey, remember Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign advisor? When last we saw him he reached a plea agreement to cooperate with the Special Counsel's office in exchange for lenient sentencing. His sentencing was delayed at the request of the Special Counsel until yesterday, at which point Mueller's office informed a judge that in their estimation Manafort has not been adhering to the sentencing agreement. You can read the two page filing here [PDF], if you like. It mostly seems like Manafort continued to lie to the FBI and the Special Counsel after reaching his plea agreement. If true (and provable) this probably translates into most of the rest of Manafort's life being lived behind bars.

    There's all kinds of speculation about why Manafort would (allegedly) do this. The most obvious are:
    1. He's crazy
    2. He's counting on a pardon
    3. He's scared of something much worse than anything the American judicial system can dish out if he talks

    In other Manafort news (and for a guy in solitary confinement he seems to keep making headlines) the Guardian is reporting that Manafort secretly met with Julian Assange in the Ecuadoran embassy.
    Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort held secret talks with Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and visited around the time he joined Trump’s campaign, the Guardian has been told.

    Sources have said Manafort went to see Assange in 2013, 2015 and in spring 2016 – during the period when he was made a key figure in Trump’s push for the White House.

    In a statement, Manafort denied meeting Assange. He said: “I have never met Julian Assange or anyone connected to him. I have never been contacted by anyone connected to WikiLeaks, either directly or indirectly. I have never reached out to Assange or WikiLeaks on any matter.”

    It is unclear why Manafort would have wanted to see Assange and what was discussed.

    I'm guessing "unclear" is a euphemism for "we all know why but can't get a source to confirm it for us".

    Considering WikiLeak's denial, their remarkable record of accuracy, and the fact that everyone in the world knows Manafort had been under FISA/FBI surveillance since 2014 it's hard to take the Guardian story seriously.

    If the FBI knew of such meetings Comey would have leaked them years ago.
  • Lock him up!
  • Manafort and Assange... those bastards were made for each other.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    Why would Manafort's crimes, many though they allegedly are, add up to most of his life in prison?

    Thx.
  • He's almost dead I think.
  • Wesley JWesley J Circus Host
    The Washington Post has this headline: "(G H W) Bush’s Oval Office successors praise him as a dedicated public servant".

    The first thing that comes to mind regarding the current occupant: he is his own servant and doesn't care about the public. - I still find this not normal.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited December 2018
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Why would Manafort's crimes, many though they allegedly are, add up to most of his life in prison?

    Thx.

    If you're sixty-nine years old a ten year sentence may very well be a life sentence. It would certainly use up your best remaining years, at least in terms of physical health. And a sentence of 305 years (no, that's not a typo) is effectively a life sentence for anyone.
    Wesley J wrote: »
    The Washington Post has this headline: "(G H W) Bush’s Oval Office successors praise him as a dedicated public servant".

    The first thing that comes to mind regarding the current occupant: he is his own servant and doesn't care about the public. - I still find this not normal.

    Bush I was, in a lot of ways, a trailblazer. For example, issuing pardons to people who very well may have been his co-conspirators. I'm sure the "current occupant" finds that precedent very fascinating indeed.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    Ah, thx, I didn't realize Manafort was anywhere near that old.
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    I know a 300-year sentence sounds very impressive (it suggests he must have done something awfully bad), but I'm not sure I see the point of passing a sentence that can never be fully served.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    To make a point to punish for every single crime a person is charged with, and to make sure a person never gets out (unless there are provisions for early release and parole for good behavior).

    ISTM that's usually used for particularly violent/horrifying criminals.
  • Piglet wrote: »
    I'm not sure I see the point of passing a sentence that can never be fully served.
    Partially in this life, partially in the next?
  • It would be fun to find out which C17 miscreants might have been let out today, had they lived.
  • Piglet wrote: »
    I know a 300-year sentence sounds very impressive (it suggests he must have done something awfully bad), but I'm not sure I see the point of passing a sentence that can never be fully served.

    Partly because eligibility for parole is based on mathematics based on the initial sentence length. It creates a de facto "without possibility of parole".
  • tangent/
    mousethief wrote: »
    "without possibility of parole".

    A sentence which over 400,000 people around the world are currently serving, not including "three strikes and out" type sentences. If you pride yourself in not living in a death penalty country/state, think about that for a while.

    /tangent
  • I didn't realise that Mousethief. It turns out there is method in the madness.

    Eutychus can you please clarify. I think you mean that life imprisonment is just as bad or almost as bad as the death penalty? I don't want to argue about that in this thread but I'm interested. I think you work with prisoners.
  • Aside from the punitive aspect, the thing about life sentences is containment. If this person is a risk to harm other people in the world at large, throwing them in jail and throwing away the key removes that risk.
  • BoogieBoogie Heaven Host
    Now TRump is witness tampering a common tactic in organised crime cases.
    “Having prosecuted mob bosses,” tweeted Daniel Goldman, a former assistant US attorney in the southern district of New York, “it’s unfair to compare them to Trump. Mob bosses are far smarter and way more savvy and discrete than Trump.”

    You couldn’t make it up! :lol:
  • I'm surprised nobody has linked him to the mob directly yet. The NSW cops did in the mid-80's, enough to put it on paper and deliver it up to cabinet (preventing its release for 30 years). Do people have any ideas on why that might be?
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    From what I've heard, there's a good chance T was involved with them: they're embedded in the real estate market in NYC, and so was/is he.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I'm surprised nobody has linked him to the mob directly yet.

    Well, there's the question of omertà. He couldn't keep silence if the devil himself cut out his tongue. What Mafia family would have him?
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    From what I've heard, there's a good chance T was involved with them: they're embedded in the real estate market in NYC, and so was/is he.

    An Atlantic City casino owner having connections with organized crime? Say it ain't so!
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited December 2018
    romanlion wrote:

    Considering WikiLeak's denial, their remarkable record of accuracy, and the fact that everyone in the world knows Manafort had been under FISA/FBI surveillance since 2014 it's hard to take the Guardian story seriously.


    re: wikileaks accuracy...

    Insofar as they confine themselves to just posting leaked documents on the internet, it's hard to get excited about their "remarkable record of accuracy". Someone sends them a document written by others, they post it. That might be useful journalism, but it's not rocket-science, and the concept of "accuracy vs. non-accuracy" doesn't really apply.

    And when they do go beyond simple verbatim posts, the results are sometimes a little questionable.For example, this headline...

    Hillary Clinton on North Korea in private paid speech to Goldman Sachs

    ...seems constructed to give the impression that Hillary Clinton was stating her own views on North Korea(eg. the US secretly favours a divided peninsula, which would be somewhat scandalous, if true). However, it omits the question to which she was replying, which explicitly asked what she thought CHINA'S position was.

  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    Crœsos wrote: »
    An Atlantic City casino owner having connections with organized crime? Say it ain't so!
    If even half of that article is true, how in hell could anyone even consider him as a suitable candidate for the White House? The words "bent" and "nine-bob note" spring to mind.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited December 2018
    Piglet wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    An Atlantic City casino owner having connections with organized crime? Say it ain't so!
    If even half of that article is true, how in hell could anyone even consider him as a suitable candidate for the White House? The words "bent" and "nine-bob note" spring to mind.

    Say what you will about mob-connected casino owners, at least none of the alleged offenses involved e-mail server management practices!!! :scream: Heck, Trump doesn't even use e-mail, and what more could you want from an American president*?
  • I can't understand the Republicans. How did they get away with it? (rhetorical question)
  • She's a nasty woman.

    Yes, I can understand the confusion. Given the choice, a lying racist misogynist ableist grifter with an extensive record of civil offences and bankruptcies is apparently a better choice than a nasty woman with a womanizing husband who was a Senator and Secretary of State for a critical number of voters in a few critical states. That's it. Clinton won the popular vote nationally by over 3,000,000 votes but several thousand mouth-breathing troglodytes gave it to Trump instead.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    edited December 2018
    Eutychus wrote: »
    tangent/
    mousethief wrote: »
    "without possibility of parole".

    A sentence which over 400,000 people around the world are currently serving, not including "three strikes and out" type sentences. If you pride yourself in not living in a death penalty country/state, think about that for a while.

    /tangent

    Let's pretend I'm stupid and I don't get what you're on about here, and why you're playing "nyah nyah nyah" with me. A little explanation please.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I can't understand the Republicans. How did they get away with it? (rhetorical question)

    A not-so-rhetorical answer-in-part is that the media fell down on the job. Or at least a lot of them did. You'll note that the date on the Politico article I linked to earlier is May 2016. It's not as if no one was checking out Trump, but there weren't a lot of resources or airtime devoted to him. This is graphically illustrated by that famous word cloud. Some of this is the somewhat inexplicable severe hate-on most of the American media has had for Hillary Clinton for the past quarter century (remember when the big 1992 Hillary Clinton scandal was that she supposedly didn't bake cookies?) and are trying to justify this obsession with the journalistic equivalent of the sunk cost fallacy, but a lot of it is the way Republicans have learned to "work the refs" of the American media by crying "liberal bias!" every time there's any coverage that's remotely critical of them.
  • I still do not understand people's dislike for Hilary Clinton.
  • The funeral of George HW Bush is proceeding. With Donald "Tiny Hands" Trump in attendance, one of the speakers commented:
    "President Bush spoke with those big strong hands, making fists to underscore points," presidential historian Jon Meacham said in his tribute.
    :grin:
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    We were watching the funeral on CNN, and D. noticed that when one of the speakers (I think it was Mr. Mulroney) mentioned Russia (in the course of an anecdote), the camera panned on to Trump, having avoided him for a good bit of the rest of the time. :innocent:
  • Mr. Mulroney is also the one who praised Bush for his leadership in negotiating NAFTA and the environmentally conscious 1990 Clean Air Act....in front of the current holder of the office who was caustic toward NAFTA and who has worked hard to get rid of regulations protecting the environment.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    It's not as if no one was checking out Trump, but there weren't a lot of resources or airtime devoted to him.

    >choke< >cough< >splutter<

    OK, I'll give you the dearth of authentic media resources, at least in terms of investigative reporting, but AIRTIME? Maybe my memory's slipped some cogs here in my 70s, but as I look back I seem to recall WALL-to-WALL TRUMP throughout the campaign.

  • I think Ohher's gloss on Croesos' description of media failure is right.

    But I do remember thinking, 'oh that's it he's gone now' repeatedly in 2016 as I watched the campaign coverage. I really do have a bad memory, but I think I recall people who had done books on Trump being interviewed and shows about the awful past history he has, as well as the big scandals like Pussygate (that name alone relativises it, huh. Like, oh just another scandal with the -gate suffix).

    My feeling is that most people who voted for Trump cannot have done so without knowing his background, and they didn't care about it. That leads me to conclude tentatively that many people who voted for Trump do not share my values when it comes to the public sector. They don't care that Trump is corrupt, and not just a little bit, but corrupt to his core. They don't want good government or responsible government. They want Trump to reshape the Federal Government and US foreign policy in his white male 'my interests are my country's interests' image.
Sign In or Register to comment.