The Trump presidency

[Casually Red]

HTF does the Easter rising fit into this thread!!?
Genuinely like to know?

It doesn't . It's a bunch of wankers talking bollocks .

 

[purves grundy]

Seems to be some debate over the coincidence of affected countries and Trump's business empire, versus the fact that the list of countries was drawn up in the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act 2015, with Libya,Somalia and Yemen added in Feb 2016.

 

[Casually Red]

The Easter Rising was just about as suicidal and unpopular at the time. Jesus at least never shot any looters.

Neither did the 1916 insurgents . Give over with this shit .

 

[Kaka Tim]

Federal judge stays deportations under Trump Muslim country travel ban

Partial and temporary. will only effect those being held at US airports pending deportation. They will still be held in detention centres. But still - a promising sign that Trump is going to run into a lot of legal obstacles.

I'm pretty sure the cunt is itching to declare a state of emergency at the earliest opportunity though.

 

[Kaka Tim]

EXACTLY. I've been arguing this since he started signing exec orders. It's very clear he's actually very smart and knows exactly what he's doing.


.

He is not remotely smart. He is a total fuck wit. Ignorant. Deluded. Bigoted. Unstable. Emotive, Pathologically narcissistic and impulsive. All he knows is how to bully people. Idi Amin with a comb-over.

But he is very, very dangerous - a chimp with a machine gun.

 

[albionism]

Obama admin drew up the list of countries.

 

[CrabbedOne]

On Lawfare Malevolence Tempered by Incompetence: Trump’s Horrifying Executive Order on Refugees and Visas

The malevolence of President Trump’s Executive Order on visas and refugees is mitigated chiefly—and perhaps only—by the astonishing incompetence of its drafting and construction.

NBC is reporting that the document was not reviewed by DHS, the Justice Department, the State Department, or the Department of Defense, and that National Security Council lawyers were prevented from evaluating it. Moreover, the New York Times writes that Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, the agencies tasked with carrying out the policy, were only given a briefing call while Trump was actually signing the order itself. Yesterday, the Department of Justice gave a “no comment” when asked whether the Office of Legal Counsel had reviewed Trump’s executive orders—including the order at hand. (OLC normally reviews every executive order.)
...
I think we can, without drawing any kind of equivalence between this order and Jim Crow, make a similar point here: Is this document a reasonable security measure? There are many areas in which security policy affects innocent lives but within which we do not presumptively say that the fact that some group of people faces disproportionate burdens renders that policy illegitimate. But if an entire religious grouping finds itself irrationally excluded from the country for no discernible security benefit following a lengthy campaign that overtly promised precisely such discrimination and exactly this sort of exclusion, if the relevant security agencies are excluded from the policy process, and if the question is then solemnly propounded whether the reasonable pursuit of security is the purpose, I think we ought to exercise one of the sovereign prerogatives of philosophers—that of laughter.
...
So yes, the order is malevolent. But here’s the thing: Many of these malevolent objectives were certainly achievable within the president’s lawful authority. The president’s power over refugee admissions is vast. His power to restrict visa issuances and entry of aliens to the United States is almost as wide. If the National Security Council had run a process of minimal competence, it could certainly have done a lot of stuff that folks like me, who care about refugees, would have gnashed our teeth over but which would have been solidly within the President’s authority. It could have all been implemented in a fashion that didn’t create endless litigation opportunities and didn’t cause enormous diplomatic friction.

How incompetent is this order? An immigration lawyer who works for the federal government wrote me today describing the quality of the work as “look[ing] like what an intern came up with over a lunch hour. . . . My take is that it is so poorly written that it’s hard to tell the impact." One of the reasons there’s so much chaos going on right now, in fact, is that nobody really knows what the order means on important points.
...
Because the order applies to dual nationals, where a person is a citizen of one restricted country and one non-restricted country, it appears to bar entry to hundreds of thousands of citizens of the U.K. and Canada—including a British Member of Parliament and a Canadian-Iranian consultant who lives in the United States but now can no longer safely travel to her business’s headquarters in Toronto without being blocked from reentry. British Prime Minister Theresa May wasn’t showing a lot of spine today over the matter, but what happens when she starts getting political blowback at home for the not standing up to the U.S. over its treatment of her nationals?

The author is quite supportive of other controversial post-9/11 legal moves but sees this one as uniquely awful in more than one way. It's probably very harmful in term of terrorism, the relevant professionals weren't even consulted on that and is so full of legal holes there'll be an ACLU frenzy of litigation. It's already facing a stay. It's a wishy-washy attempt to make good on essentially bigoted campaign bragging that he'd ban Muslims. It's not like he wasn't warned that this was wrongheaded and now he bungles it.

Trump should publicly fire whoever was involved in drafting this. They've made him look like an incompetent, over promoted, buffoon in his first week as a Lawmaker. If this was a large multinational corporation with a contractual problem the board might well be considering replacing a CEO who let that happen on his watch.

 

[newbie]

Trump should publicly fire whoever was involved in drafting this. They've made him look like an incompetent, over promoted, buffoon in his first week as a Lawmaker.

to us, certainly, but to his heartland support, I'm not so sure. Possibly it's made him look like he trying real hard but being thwarted by the swamp?

 

[newbie]

aye. I looked so you don't have to

 

[CrabbedOne]

On TNI An Order That Will Increase Terrorism

...
Conceivably this list of seven could dilute the anti-Islam flavor of the order somewhat, given that other Muslim majority countries are not so listed. But looking closely at who was listed and who wasn’t only underscores how far divorced this matter is from counterterrorism. No one from any of the seven countries on the list has killed anyone in a terrorist attack in the United States. By contrast, the hijackers who perpetrated 9/11 came mostly from Saudi Arabia and the rest from the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Lebanon; none of these countries are on the list. To the extent any distinction is being made between Muslims the administration most wants to keep out and others to whom it will be a little more tolerant, the distinction seems to be made for unrelated reasons that some regimes get favored and others don’t. The reasons not only don’t have to do with terrorism but also don’t relate to democracy or human rights either.

And maybe there’s an additional explanation, very much in the realm of the ignoble. It has not escaped the notice of media that some for the principal countries—including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt—that legitimately could be objects of worry as exporters of terrorists but aren’t on the no-travel list are ones in which Trump in his private capacity has done business or sought to make deals. Thus this matter will be one of the first of what are likely to be many presidential decisions about which, as long as Trump flouts ethical principles and refuses to divest himself of his business interests, understandable questions will be raised about his motives.

On the same day he signed the executive order with the travel bans, Trump implicitly raised the same sort of question about another of his positions that goes against U.S. interests: his support for Brexit and his overall antipathy toward the European Union. In an appearance with visiting British Prime Minister Theresa May, the president remarked that in seeking necessary approvals for his business deals in Europe, getting approvals from individual countries was “fast, easy and efficient” but that he had a “very bad experience” with the EU, where it was “very, very tough” to get approvals. Then he put in a plug for his golf course at Turnberry.

Vindictiveness is a bit of a pattern with Trump. He had a bad experience with Mexico as a property developer as well and ever since has wanted payback. Make business easy for him and he can be as nice as pie but he can turn volcanically nasty in an instant. That may explain his fondness for Russia where a well stuffed brown envelope goes a long way.

 

[Pickman's model]

EXACTLY. I've been arguing this since he started signing exec orders. It's very clear he's actually very smart and knows exactly what he's doing.


.

If he knows exactly what he's doing how come his eos are so shitty drafted? Eh? Not expansively drafted, just drafted by people who haven't a clew how us law operates.

 

[bimble]

I think it's bannon pulling the strings, "darkness is good" remember, chaos is good.

 

[Pickman's model]

Anyone with half a brain could have told him the myriad of legal issues and fuck up that'll tie this ban up in knots. Similarly his exe order to make the US military the strongest in the world, unless he can actually get a budget together he's fucked.

Not sure ke really thought this through

 

[Pickman's model]

I think it's bannon pulling the strings, "darkness is good" remember, chaos is good.

I think it's a number of moderately clever people trying to get things done by diktat. Yes, they can in the short term. But their eos won't last for ever and will alienate the legislature, not to mention the judiciary. Not that this will end up a triumph for us democracy but that people whose interests are threatened will push back. Which senator wants to lose an election for T'rump?

 

[newbie]

If he knows exactly what he's doing how come his eos are so shitty drafted? Eh? Not expansively drafted, just drafted by people who haven't a clew how us law operates.

why so hung up on law? He's out to win, not to obey.

 

[Raheem]

It doesn't . It's a bunch of wankers talking bollocks .

Then it probably fits perfectly.

 

[Pickman's model]

why so hung up on law? He's out to win, not to obey.

Yes. In the short term he will win. But in the longer term - the years, not months, he will see this brief victory turn to ashes.

 

[Pickman's model]

why so hung up on law? He's out to win, not to obey.

Why so hung up on law? Because if you're writing a legal document it is widely recognised that knowing something of the law is useful so that if challenged in the courts your document is resilient and doesn't fall apart.

 

[TomUS]

to us, certainly, but to his heartland support, I'm not so sure. Possibly it's made him look like he trying real hard but being thwarted by the swamp?

Supporters will see liberal coastal elites and media standing in his way. The immediate hope lies in the courts and mass protests. Went to one of my US senator's town hall meetings today held in a high school cafeteria. 3,500 turned out and it became essentially an anti Trump rally. Normally this event would draw only a few hundred. The energy is there to resist but the Dem party is beaten and disorganized and will take a while to get it's shit together but will eventually.

 

[newbie]

Yes. In the short term he will win. But in the longer term - the years, not months, he will see this brief victory turn to ashes.

maybe. I hope you're correct but I'm not sure it matters that much.

The prize is remodelling society the way him and his supporters want. The swamp stands in his way.

One of the effects of this blizzard of Trumpisms is that only the most egregious are being surface scrutinised. In weeks or months time they'll turn round and discover the damage he's wrought while everyone has been busy mocking his hands, sneering at his attitude to torture, fretting about the fate of a few people on aeroplanes or whatever instant storm he chooses to stir up next. Sure, some, possibly most, of the worst eos will be overturned but he can just generate more.

Longterm political ashes for his recently adopted party? why should he care if he's overturned the swamp?

 

[Pickman's model]

maybe. I hope you're correct but I'm not sure it matters that much.

The prize is remodelling society the way him and his supporters want. The swamp stands in his way.

One of the effects of this blizzard of Trumpisms is that only the most egregious are being surface scrutinised. In weeks or months time they'll turn round and discover the damage he's wrought while everyone has been busy mocking his hands, sneering at his attitude to torture, fretting about the fate of a few people on aeroplanes or whatever instant storm he chooses to stir up next. Sure, some, possibly most, of the worst eos will be overturned but he can just generate more.

Longterm political ashes for his recently adopted party? why should he care if he's overturned the swamp?

Fuck me, your post's so poorly written it looks like you're a trumpet

What's this surface scrutinised bollocks? You must mean scan read rather than really considered pisspoor

Within 4 years all this will have turned to ashes in Trump's mouth. That long enough for you?

 

[newbie]

Why so hung up on law? Because if you're writing a legal document it is widely recognised that knowing something of the law is useful so that if challenged in the courts your document is resilient and doesn't fall apart.

one of the main characteristics I've learnt since he came to my attention (I think it was geminisnake started a thread about his golfcourse, I'd never heard of him rpior to that) is that he doesn't play by the rules. If he'd run a conventional campaign he'd have lost massively. Instead he just blames the swamp for whatever is 'widely recognised' and carries on regardless.

I detest what he's doing but in some ways it's admirable. I've spent my entire adult life wanting change, wanting someone in this country to tear up the establishment, to wreak havoc amongst our complacent rulers *. I just wish it was coming from the other direction.




* because I don't know how to, before you ask

 

[newbie]

Fuck me, your post's so poorly written it looks like you're a trumpet

What's this surface scrutinised bollocks? You must mean scan read rather than really considered pisspoor

Within 4 years all this will have turned to ashes in Trump's mouth. That long enough for you?

so you're articulate and I'm not. should I care?

 

[Pickman's model]

one of the main characteristics I've learnt since he came to my attention (I think it was geminisnake started a thread about his golfcourse, I'd never heard of him rpior to that) is that he doesn't play by the rules. If he'd run a conventional campaign he'd have lost massively. Instead he just blames the swamp for whatever is 'widely recognised' and carries on regardless.

I detest what he's doing but in some ways it's admirable. I've spent my entire adult life wanting change, wanting someone in this country to tear up the establishment, to wreak havoc amongst our complacent rulers *. I just wish it was coming from the other direction.




* because I don't know how to, before you ask

Yeh. But perhaps you should think of yer man as a modern day McCarthy. And how did that end?

 

[Pickman's model]

so you're articulate and I'm not. should I care?

I don't give a toss whether you care or not

 

[newbie]

Yeh. But perhaps you should think of yer man as a modern day McCarthy. And how did that end?

chief lieutenant Nixon (whose name should always be spelt with a swastica in the middle) became president. If he hadn't overreached at watergate the ending would have been very, very different.

 

[CrabbedOne]

On Reuters Putin and Trump agree to try to rebuild U.S.-Russia ties, cooperate in Syria

...
Trump said on Friday he was only in the early stages of considering whether to lift the sanctions, as British Prime Minister Theresa May, other foreign officials and U.S. lawmakers cautioned that such a move would be premature.

The most tangible outcome of the phone call, as the Kremlin described it, appeared to be what it said was an understanding that jointly fighting international terrorism was a priority and that the two nations should cooperate in Syria.

UKRAINE, IRAN, KOREA

"The presidents spoke in favor of setting up genuine coordination between Russian and American actions with the aim of destroying Islamic State and other terrorist groups in Syria," the Kremlin said.

That could signal a major policy change as, for now, cooperation is largely limited to coordinating to ensure that the two countries' air forces operate safely and that the risk of accidental confrontation or collision is minimized.

Moscow is one of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad's allies, while Washington, under Obama, called for him to step down and backed rebel groups fighting to topple him.

The Kremlin said Trump and Putin had agreed to establish "partner-like cooperation" when it came to other global issues such as Ukraine, Iran's nuclear program, tensions on the Korean peninsula and the Israeli-Arab conflict.

They had also agreed to stay in regular contact and had both said they wanted each other's nation to flourish, the Kremlin said.

"He (Putin) reminded (Trump) that our country has supported America for more than two centuries, was its ally in two world wars and now views the United States as its most important partner in the fight against international terrorism," the Kremlin said.

Since Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimea in 2014, Kremlin-backed media have spent much of their time criticizing the United States and accusing it of trying to undermine Moscow. Since Trump's election, it has backed away from that line .

The last administration angry fixation on the Russians in Syria was probably misguided. The Russians have yacked a lot but never been able to deliver on controlling their allies. The Americans couldn't sway theirs much either. The separate Russian peace process correctly focuses on regional actors and doesn't really need the US much involved. If I was Trump I'd pivot to sort out various regional Kurdish issues.

There's really not much to be had for the US in cooperating with Russia on terrorism in Syria. Most of what Russia is doing in Syria is an affront to Pentagon COIN doctrine and viewed as counterproductive. They've different priorities with terrorism not really being an unhealthy obsession for Putin the way it is with Team Trump. Right back to the Chechen wars it's always been a pretext for Putin pursuing more important Russian interests. The Russians fundamentally depend on the Iranians for ground forces. Trump on the other hand would like to poke Iran in the eye. The two superpowers just need to agree to stay out of each others way.

 

[Pickman's model]

chief lieutenant Nixon (whose name should always be spelt with a swastica in the middle) became president. If he hadn't overreached at watergate the ending would have been very, very different.

No, it ended with McCarthy accusing the army of being infiltrated by communists

 

[CrabbedOne]

No, it ended with McCarthy accusing the army of being infiltrated by communists

The spirit of Joe is alive and well though.

There are folk around Trump who put is about that the US government has been penetrated by The Muslim Brotherhood and the US is inches from rule by Sharia. Of course on the other side we have the mysteriously Russophile Trump as a Manchurian candidate. The US is becoming a nation of conspiracy theorists wrapped in comforting bubbles of truthiness.

I think what may bugger Trump isn't frail US checks and balances (Bush steamed past restrictions on torture for instance) but sheer incompetence. He can fall victim to series of accrued errors as he seems unable to take expert counsel or back away from mistakes. This was very visible in his campaign but didn't stop it working. Running is very different from ruling. Marketing aided by copious bullshitting is what Trump does and he's a master of it. The US government is a big complex machine of contrary forces not an obedient family business. He's already made his first big blunder with a hastily drafted series of orders.

Foreign policy, which is mainly about developing complex relationships not deals, can be particularly unforgiving of small mistakes and poor signalling. Trump is an accident waiting to happen. As with Bush II that might not stop him getting a second term. American voters often double down on bad choices. Bush voters clung to him but they began to lose the faith in what he'd done badly in his second term.

 

[newbie]

I don't give a toss whether you care or not

so why make such a song and dance about my choice of words?

No, it ended with McCarthy accusing the army of being infiltrated by communists

don't be daft, that wasn't the end, or even the end of the beginning.