This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I don't suppose I could think of a more inappropriate metaphor if I tried but still, a couple of weeks into the Presidency and he (and his scumbag team) have just discovered a little ole' something called the rule of law; that government can't be run on a whim.
I would love to have been a fly on the wall when Trump was told that his appeal against the overturning of the immigrant ban was pretty much summarily dismissed.
And what will happen when he finds that Congress won't approve the expenditure of $10 billion to build a wall? He's going to be a toddler with serious tantrum issues.
I would love to have been a fly on the wall when Trump was told that his appeal against the overturning of the immigrant ban was pretty much summarily dismissed.
And what will happen when he finds that Congress won't approve the expenditure of $10 billion to build a wall? He's going to be a toddler with serious tantrum issues.
30
3
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
The rule of law may yet approve Trump's actions, the full case has yet to be heard. Let's hope he wins.
The rule of law may yet approve Trump's actions, the full case has yet to be heard. Let's hope he wins.
4
41
In reply to Jim 1003:
Absolutely baffling. I don't suppose you could come up with some rationale? Because Trump hasn't. As the original judge said to the Govt lawyer 'How many terrorist attacks on US soil have been committed by persons from the banned countries? None.'
Absolutely baffling. I don't suppose you could come up with some rationale? Because Trump hasn't. As the original judge said to the Govt lawyer 'How many terrorist attacks on US soil have been committed by persons from the banned countries? None.'
Post edited at 12:31
21
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Hopefully once he realises he can't just get exactly what he wants all the time, he'll get bored of being the president and go back to being a playboy mogul.
Hopefully once he realises he can't just get exactly what he wants all the time, he'll get bored of being the president and go back to being a playboy mogul.
5
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I'm quite worried that this is a smokescreen for who knows what he and bannon are up to in the background
I'm quite worried that this is a smokescreen for who knows what he and bannon are up to in the background
11
1
In reply to RyanOsborne:
Or perhaps he'll rail against the judiciary, and within days a convenient "terrorist" incident facilitates the suspension of their legal oversight. Could it be a cunning plan?
Or perhaps he'll rail against the judiciary, and within days a convenient "terrorist" incident facilitates the suspension of their legal oversight. Could it be a cunning plan?
4
1
In reply to BnB:
Or perhaps he'll rail against the judiciary, and within days a convenient "terrorist" incident facilitates the suspension of their legal oversight. Could it be a cunning plan?
I'm waiting for him to peel off his skin and reveal that he is a lizard overlord.
Or perhaps he'll rail against the judiciary, and within days a convenient "terrorist" incident facilitates the suspension of their legal oversight. Could it be a cunning plan?
I'm waiting for him to peel off his skin and reveal that he is a lizard overlord.
7
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
You've not seen his response on Twitter, then...?
"The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!"
You've not seen his response on Twitter, then...?
"The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!"
In reply to BnB:
I think this is the long term plan.
If they have a terrorist attack it will be a case of "I tried to keep you safe but the judge opened the door to these people"
With enough spin he can strengthen his position and weaken those against him.
> Or perhaps he'll rail against the judiciary, and within days a convenient "terrorist" incident facilitates the suspension of their legal oversight. Could it be a cunning plan?
I think this is the long term plan.
If they have a terrorist attack it will be a case of "I tried to keep you safe but the judge opened the door to these people"
With enough spin he can strengthen his position and weaken those against him.
1
In reply to RyanOsborne:
Problem is that once he appoints a supporter to the supreme court he has a majority vote there, just. One post is vacant now, he just hasn't placed anyone yet.
They are lifetime posts, the others are not young, which means if he had chance to appoint one or two more, a trump supporting supreme court could be in place for 20 or 30 years, depending upon the lifespan of those he puts in.
> Hopefully once he realises he can't just get exactly what he wants all the time, he'll get bored of being the president and go back to being a playboy mogul.
Problem is that once he appoints a supporter to the supreme court he has a majority vote there, just. One post is vacant now, he just hasn't placed anyone yet.
They are lifetime posts, the others are not young, which means if he had chance to appoint one or two more, a trump supporting supreme court could be in place for 20 or 30 years, depending upon the lifespan of those he puts in.
1
In ply to summo:
It is worth reflecting that these are Supreme Court judges, not spin doctors, we're talking about. The clue is in the name. It's to be hoped here's a limit to their partiality no matter the support of the president.
It is worth reflecting that these are Supreme Court judges, not spin doctors, we're talking about. The clue is in the name. It's to be hoped here's a limit to their partiality no matter the support of the president.
1
In reply to BnB:
We can hope, but sometimes things are not black and white so they vote, I believe that's why there are normally nine of them.
> It is worth reflecting that these are Supreme Court judges, not spin doctors, we're talking about. The clue is in the name. It's to be hoped here's a limit to their partiality no matter the support of the president.
We can hope, but sometimes things are not black and white so they vote, I believe that's why there are normally nine of them.
2
In reply to stevieb:
Like this you mean:
https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial-balloon-for-a-coup-e024990891d5#.lf...
> I'm quite worried that this is a smokescreen for who knows what he and bannon are up to in the background
Like this you mean:
https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial-balloon-for-a-coup-e024990891d5#.lf...
4
3
In reply to aln:
Completely agree, a very scary read. I really like the States, with all its flaws, but I won't be going back. This article concentrates on home policies, though, whereas it seems obvious to me that there will be some more big provocations in Europe, the Middle East and the Far East.
Trump, though, is the picturesque fool in all this, Bannon and his cronies are the ones to watch.
Completely agree, a very scary read. I really like the States, with all its flaws, but I won't be going back. This article concentrates on home policies, though, whereas it seems obvious to me that there will be some more big provocations in Europe, the Middle East and the Far East.
Trump, though, is the picturesque fool in all this, Bannon and his cronies are the ones to watch.
5
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
It's reassuring to see some of those famed checks and balances beginning to work and being respected for now.
Congress seems likely to be a pretty weak brake on Trump's team's excesses if they want free rein to achieve their goals and to avoid his wrath given he still has a clear (and possibly the only) line of communication to a chunk of voters (whether they'll turn out for mid-terms seems unclear).
jk
It's reassuring to see some of those famed checks and balances beginning to work and being respected for now.
Congress seems likely to be a pretty weak brake on Trump's team's excesses if they want free rein to achieve their goals and to avoid his wrath given he still has a clear (and possibly the only) line of communication to a chunk of voters (whether they'll turn out for mid-terms seems unclear).
jk
3
1
In reply to Jim 1003:
"The rule of law may yet approve Trump's actions, the full case has yet to be heard. Let's hope he wins."
You are either a real wooden-spoon merchant OR
You just like putting out gratuitous nonsense-comments of the type that an immature schoolkid might make as teenage years set in
"The rule of law may yet approve Trump's actions, the full case has yet to be heard. Let's hope he wins."
You are either a real wooden-spoon merchant OR
You just like putting out gratuitous nonsense-comments of the type that an immature schoolkid might make as teenage years set in
13
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I think one or other of my "rationales" is the case
how long before his "intelligence" contacts tell him that all he has done is ensured that anyone from any affected countries who does mean trouble will acquire a fake identity and travel by any one of any number of other less monitored routes?
I think one or other of my "rationales" is the case
how long before his "intelligence" contacts tell him that all he has done is ensured that anyone from any affected countries who does mean trouble will acquire a fake identity and travel by any one of any number of other less monitored routes?
Post edited at 17:56
1
1
In reply to Jim 1003:
Why do you hope he wins? What will it achieve? What are the potential drawbacks?
It says somewhere that the meek will inherit the earth, but it appears at the present time that the nasty and stupid are a few lengths in front.
> The rule of law may yet approve Trump's actions, the full case has yet to be heard. Let's hope he wins.
Why do you hope he wins? What will it achieve? What are the potential drawbacks?
It says somewhere that the meek will inherit the earth, but it appears at the present time that the nasty and stupid are a few lengths in front.
3
1
4
1
In reply to wercat:
Hey, don't bring wooden spoon merchants down to his level.
> You are either a real wooden-spoon merchant
Hey, don't bring wooden spoon merchants down to his level.
8
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
According to the United States authorities, the perpetrators of the World Trade Centre incidents came from Saudi Arabia so why isn't Saudi Arabia on the banned list? If this ban really was about protecting US citizens Saudi Arabia would have been the first country on the banned list.
> 'How many terrorist attacks on US soil have been committed by persons from the banned countries? None.'
According to the United States authorities, the perpetrators of the World Trade Centre incidents came from Saudi Arabia so why isn't Saudi Arabia on the banned list? If this ban really was about protecting US citizens Saudi Arabia would have been the first country on the banned list.
7
1
In reply to wercat:
Your comments are the typical leftie response that only serves to strengthen Trump's position. Obviously it's not gratuitous nonsense because it is the American governments position. At the moment, the left has the wooden spoon, Corbyn....
> "The rule of law may yet approve Trump's actions, the full case has yet to be heard. Let's hope he wins."
> You are either a real wooden-spoon merchant OR
> You just like putting out gratuitous nonsense-comments of the type that an immature schoolkid might make as teenage years set in
Your comments are the typical leftie response that only serves to strengthen Trump's position. Obviously it's not gratuitous nonsense because it is the American governments position. At the moment, the left has the wooden spoon, Corbyn....
1
17
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
Without wanting to be seen as a Trump supporter (I am not a fan)..apparently Saudi , like Pakistan, are not on the list because they work closely with the Americans in trying to root out potential terrorists and share intelligence. <shrugs>
Without wanting to be seen as a Trump supporter (I am not a fan)..apparently Saudi , like Pakistan, are not on the list because they work closely with the Americans in trying to root out potential terrorists and share intelligence. <shrugs>
1
In reply to Jim 1003:
Obviously it's not gratuitous nonsense because it is the American governments position.
Where to start...
Obviously it's not gratuitous nonsense because it is the American governments position.
Where to start...
7
1
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
What an extraordinarily lucky coincidence that they happen to be countries where Trump has business interests.
And on that basis, shouldn't Ireland be included in the ban? I don't remember the US intelligence working terribly hard with the Garda to root out terrorism a few years ago.
What an extraordinarily lucky coincidence that they happen to be countries where Trump has business interests.
And on that basis, shouldn't Ireland be included in the ban? I don't remember the US intelligence working terribly hard with the Garda to root out terrorism a few years ago.
6
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I don't think Trump has any business interests in Pakistan, Oman, Kuwait or Qatar (could be wrong). More likely his ban was just an escalation of the Obama visa waiver program "countries of concern" list. The fact Trump has some business interests in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey is probably more coincidence than basis for formulating decisions in this case.
Why does the US view some countries for concern, and others not? Doubt it was decided on Trumps hotel/golf course empire, but you might be right
I don't think Trump has any business interests in Pakistan, Oman, Kuwait or Qatar (could be wrong). More likely his ban was just an escalation of the Obama visa waiver program "countries of concern" list. The fact Trump has some business interests in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey is probably more coincidence than basis for formulating decisions in this case.
Why does the US view some countries for concern, and others not? Doubt it was decided on Trumps hotel/golf course empire, but you might be right
In reply to Jim 1003:
When a head of government openly undermines an independent judiciary, and sees himself as being above or not answerable to the law, it is not a right or left wing position one adopts.
It's one of common sense - it's what differentiates the US from Zimbabwe.
When a head of government openly undermines an independent judiciary, and sees himself as being above or not answerable to the law, it is not a right or left wing position one adopts.
It's one of common sense - it's what differentiates the US from Zimbabwe.
Post edited at 14:19
20
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
As far as I can tell, the courts are fairly independent in Zimbabwe and have frequently defied Mugabe.
As far as I can tell, the courts are fairly independent in Zimbabwe and have frequently defied Mugabe.
In reply to colinakmc:
>.Trump, though, is the picturesque fool in all this, Bannon and his cronies are the ones to watch.
I don't think he's very picturesque! I think I know what you mean though - damn autocorrect!
>.Trump, though, is the picturesque fool in all this, Bannon and his cronies are the ones to watch.
I don't think he's very picturesque! I think I know what you mean though - damn autocorrect!
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Of course, the big news now is Speaker John Bercow saying he is 'strongly opposed' to Trump addressing the Houses of Parliament during a State Visit.
Of course, the big news now is Speaker John Bercow saying he is 'strongly opposed' to Trump addressing the Houses of Parliament during a State Visit.
2
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
Anyone with any genuine desire to combat Islamic terrorism would begin their policy interventions in Saudi Arabia, since that is where the extremest ideology originates from. The hypocrisy - extending of course to UK foreign policy - is staggering.
> According to the United States authorities, the perpetrators of the World Trade Centre incidents came from Saudi Arabia so why isn't Saudi Arabia on the banned list? If this ban really was about protecting US citizens Saudi Arabia would have been the first country on the banned list.
Anyone with any genuine desire to combat Islamic terrorism would begin their policy interventions in Saudi Arabia, since that is where the extremest ideology originates from. The hypocrisy - extending of course to UK foreign policy - is staggering.
4
In reply to pasbury:
Why are white supremacists always clearly not 'supreme' examples of any race. That evil cnut Bannon looks like a halibut that died 2 weeks ago.
Why are white supremacists always clearly not 'supreme' examples of any race. That evil cnut Bannon looks like a halibut that died 2 weeks ago.
5
In reply to pasbury:
I certainly wasn't admiring his physog! My point was just that he's been chosen by a far right revolutionary to grab all the attention with his bluster and tw*tting around (verb from twitter - right?) while the grown ups do the power grab. There's serious evil afoot and I don't believe Trump has the attention span to be the driving force behind it.
> >.Trump, though, is the picturesque fool.....I don't think he's very picturesque! I think I know what you mean though - damn autocorrect!
I certainly wasn't admiring his physog! My point was just that he's been chosen by a far right revolutionary to grab all the attention with his bluster and tw*tting around (verb from twitter - right?) while the grown ups do the power grab. There's serious evil afoot and I don't believe Trump has the attention span to be the driving force behind it.
Post edited at 19:58
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...