Hail To The Chief (Read Mod Warning In OP)

My name is URL

Stheno wrote: »

My bad

You're supposed to blame the liberals now

PopePalpatine

Remember those rumours that Trump filed his papers for the 2020 election already? They weren't just rumours.

Billy86

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Remember those rumours that Trump filed his papers for the 2020 election already? They weren't just rumours.

Maybe I'm misremembering, it is late after all, but weren't some Trump fans trying to write those off as more conspiracy theories a few days back?

I'm calling it now - we can expect to see Putin-esque power grabs to try and strip away the democratic process starting pretty soon. And good news for Donald, he's got just the right people with the experience to help him achieve it.

RobertKK

Conspiracy theories on all sides from what I see.

Professor Moriarty

Time to remove the tinfoil hat so.

My name is URL

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Time to remove the tinfoil hat so.

Subtle

Billy86

Just like Trump giving special treatment to his friends in Saudi etc compared to other countries in the region was a conspiracy theory.

My name is URL

VinLieger wrote: »

Waiting for the trump supporters to try claiming its not that a big deal, likely cus they have no idea who the Kochs actually are and how important they are to the republican party establishment, ie all of the republicans in congress and the senate

Looks like they're just ignoring it. As is their wont

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

Just like Trump giving special treatment to his friends in Saudi etc compared to other countries in the region was a conspiracy theory.

I watched an Iranian student who studies in the US talk on CNN.

He said it is imperialist policy, that US allies are not on list, while those who are not US allies are on the list, and that is what it came down to.
Some people want to complicate the obvious.

MightyMandarin

I only just realised that there's a clause in the Order that allows exceptions to be made for people whose religion is a minority in the country they're from.

Although it doesn't mention Islam or Muslims anywhere, only a fool would think Syrian christians are the same as Syrian muslims in the eyes of this administration.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

I watched an Iranian student who studies in the US talk on CNN.

He said it is imperialist policy, that US allies are not on list, while those who are not US allies are on the list, and that is what it came down to.
Some people want to complicate the obvious.

So you're cool with the US being allies with Saudi or are you willing to speak out against Trump about this given how connections to Saudi mean someone automatically should not be president in your book?

26000 Elephants

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Remember those rumours that Trump filed his papers for the 2020 election already? They weren't just rumours.

Does that mean he can now start collecting political, er, donations? That will be handy!!

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

So you're cool with the US being allies with Saudi or are you willing to speak out against Trump about this given how connections to Saudi mean someone automatically should not be president in your book?

I never said I was cool with the US being allies with Saudi Arabia. Saying I am cool with something is your alternative facts.

I think the US allies in the Middle East going back decades are the ones who pose the terrorist risk, not the Shia Muslim countries which are not their allies and so find themselves on a list.

The US have failed to deal with Saudi Arabia in an honest way for a very long time and call them out in a meaningful way that addresses what most people in the world are saying - Saudi Arabia is a terrorist supporting nation.
No president going back have showed the courage to address it.
If you saw the Sean Hannity interview, he asked Trump about Saudi Arabia, Trump said he could not say much as it could complicate things, but then went onto to say how some unnamed countries are funding terrorism and how he hates it.
The US has failed to deal with Saudi Arabia for decades, and shows no sign of a policy change.

Saudi Arabia would be top of my list for a nation that actively supports terrorism, including ISIS.
Also close to the top of that list would be another US ally where the US have their largest military base in the ME - Qatar.

Billy86

You seem to have missed my question mark at the end of my post question marks denote a question.

But I don't get why your language is completely different now with Trump in charge (who has always had links to Saudi) when during the campaign his opponents links to Saudi was one of your fondest sticks to beat them with. Doesn't really add up.

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

You seem to have missed my question mark at the end of my post question marks denote a question.

But I don't get why your language is completely different now with Trump in charge (who has always had links to Saudi) when during the campaign his opponents links to Saudi was one of your fondest sticks to beat them with. Doesn't really add up.

Let me see, you are the guy who asks me that question when you supported Hillary, whose foundation received many millions from the Saudi government.
What doesn't add up is why it matters to you now, when it didn't when it looked like Hillary was going to win.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timdaiss/2016/11/16/no-saudi-oil-says-trump-saudi-arabia-fires-back/#188f5110708b
Waiting to see if Trump keeps this election promise on Saudi Arabia.

Grayson

The whitehouse has just released this statement.

The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States. This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.

Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration.

It is time to get serious about protecting our country. Calling for tougher vetting for individuals travelling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country.

Tonight, President Trump relieved Ms. Yates of her duties and subsequently named Dana Boente, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, to serve as Acting Attorney General until Senator Jeff Sessions is finally confirmed by the Senate, where he is being wrongly held up by Democrat senators for strictly political reasons.

“I am honored to serve President Trump in this role until Senator Sessions is confirmed. I will defend and enforce the laws of our country to ensure that our people and our nation are protected,” said Dana Boente, Acting Attorney General.

Hank Scorpio

Grayson wrote: »

The whitehouse has just released this statement.

Rightly or wrongly, between the statement and what he posted about Schumer on twitter earlier, Trump has proven he's not going to back down from anyone.

One can view that as a great asset, at least until it blows up ( his hardline supporters ), or a scary proposition ( those who oppose him ).

Frank Bullitt

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Rightly or wrongly, between the statement and what he posted about Schumer on twitter earlier, Trump has proven he's not going to back down from anyone.

One can view that as a great asset, at least until it blows up ( his hardline supporters ), or a scary proposition ( those who oppose him ).

He basically just treated her like a contestant on one of his programs.

sabat

This is hilarious; he's only in the job a week and he's gone full Nixon. I don't think he'll see the year out at this rate...

MadYaker

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Rightly or wrongly, between the statement and what he posted about Schumer on twitter earlier, Trump has proven he's not going to back down from anyone.

One can view that as a great asset, at least until it blows up ( his hardline supporters ), or a scary proposition ( those who oppose him ).

Do you think he's done more harm than good so far?

dudara

"Betrayed", "wrongly held up"

The language in that press release is extremely worrying. Anyone who speaks out will be removed

Rjd2

dudara wrote: »

"Betrayed", "wrongly held up"

The language in that press release is extremely worrying. Anyone who speaks out will be removed

She probably knew she was going to be fired. The statement tonight was a shambles and the bill is a disgrace, but not sure Trump has done much wrong in firing her. She serves at the pleasure of the president. Either do your job and if not expect the bullet, same anywhere really.

She could have resigned also, but blaze of glory etc.

Anyway

nail.meets.head.

https://twitter.com/charlescwcooke/status/826257326009151489

https://twitter.com/RadioFreeTom/status/826263857605832704

Manic Moran

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-regulations-idUSKBN15E1QU
Interesting new executive order today, and I think one we can generally get behind. From now on, whenever a department makes a new regulation, two regulations must be removed from the books. This is particularly aimed at helping small businesses, which usually can't afford to hire lawyers, but, frankly, the US Code of Federal Regulations is stupidly large, currently standing at well over 175,000 pages, plus an 1,100 page index, and usually going up between 2-5,000 regulations a year.

https://cei.org/blog/new-data-code-federal-regulations-expanding-faster-pace-under-obama

Igotadose

Manic Moran wrote: »

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-regulations-idUSKBN15E1QU
Interesting new executive order today, and I think one we can generally get behind. From now on, whenever a department makes a new regulation, two regulations must be removed from the books. This is particularly aimed at helping small businesses, which usually can't afford to hire lawyers, but, frankly, the US Code of Federal Regulations is stupidly large, currently standing at well over 175,000 pages, plus an 1,100 page index, and usually going up between 2-5,000 regulations a year.

https://cei.org/blog/new-data-code-federal-regulations-expanding-faster-pace-under-obama

C'mon already, do a little thinking. cei.org is just another Koch mouthpiece.

It really matters exactly WHICH regulations get removed. Like, "Here's a new regulation - you must have a minimum amount of thumbtacks in the workplace. Now, let's remove the one about wearing protective equipment and the other about those pesky respirators when working in chemical plants."

ChikiChiki

Stheno wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38805343

Expect an imminent sacking :pac:

She's fired. Bet Trump did the hand thing and all as if he was on the apprentice.

Christy42

Igotadose wrote: »

C'mon already, do a little thinking. cei.org is just another Koch mouthpiece.

It really matters exactly WHICH regulations get removed. Like, "Here's a new regulation - you must have a minimum amount of thumbtacks in the workplace. Now, let's remove the one about wearing protective equipment and the other about those pesky respirators when working in chemical plants."

It is a weird game show way of going about it.

I mean the smart thing to do would be to get each department to have reviews of their own regulations. Have targets about the amount to remove and they have to justify why reaching those targets is impractical. Maybe have them justify why the ones removed are getting removed as well as a safety net.

Curious if this applies to the financial sector which is where the danger is.

Igotadose

sabat wrote: »

This is hilarious; he's only in the job a week and he's gone full Nixon. I don't think he'll see the year out at this rate...

At least Nixon wasn't as stupid. Not sure who was more evil - Watergate vs. asking Russia to interfere. It's kind of a tossup.

Having lived through the Watergate investigation, my impression really was "Nixon permanently tarnished the rep of the USG" and for that he's rightfully vilified. Trump's working on being worse than Nixon in terms of worldwide reputation of the country, and nationally he's garnered way more protests and hate than Nixon did I believe. There were no shortages of protests back then though, and 1968 was a pretty nasty year, too (though those were mostly protests against Vietnam, there was no shortage of violence, Chicago-7 style crimes, the SDS and on and on.)


But, Nixon was evil. Trump's stupid, lazy and evil, so I think he'll end up even worse when the dust settles, which hopefully isn't radioactive dust. Nixon wasn't stupid - paranoid yes, and pretty hard working from all accounts (unlike Trump.)

Frankly, does anyone see Trump doing anything on the order of restoring relationships with China and ending (perhaps badly) a long-term war like Vietnam? Not me. Success isn't exactly his hallmark in his personal or professional life; as has been multiply reported, putting in $200m from daddy Fred would have resulted in his having way more money today. Without the bankruptcies and other business failures (Trump U., Trump Steaks, Trump Ties, blah blah.)

Oh, the overseas stock markets are down due to the Immigration nonsense Trump's ginned up. US markets were down but one day isn't a trend. Still, you can't stir up all this economic chaos and not expect it to have an effect - well, if you're Trump you can, but he gets his economic advice from a bunch of clowns anyway like Larry Kudlow.

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-regulations-idUSKBN15E1QU
Interesting new executive order today, and I think one we can generally get behind. From now on, whenever a department makes a new regulation, two regulations must be removed from the books. This is particularly aimed at helping small businesses, which usually can't afford to hire lawyers, but, frankly, the US Code of Federal Regulations is stupidly large, currently standing at well over 175,000 pages, plus an 1,100 page index, and usually going up between 2-5,000 regulations a year.

https://cei.org/blog/new-data-code-federal-regulations-expanding-faster-pace-under-obama

It's soundbite politics, who analysis's good and bad regulation?

It's actually another in a string of his team's attack that regulation is bad.who would have thought a wall Street property developer with ties to oil golf courses and hotels in protected areas would have thought regulation is bad.

If you can get behind that your an utter fool to begin with.



Dangerous man

Igotadose

Something I thought I would not see: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-30/trump-s-next-move-on-immigration-to-hit-closer-to-home-for-tech

If this is in fact true (you never know with the Trump WH) and the order in fact does go after H1B, I have to say I support it. H1B is widely abused by corporations to keep salaries down.

listermint

Igotadose wrote: »

Something I thought I would not see: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-30/trump-s-next-move-on-immigration-to-hit-closer-to-home-for-tech

If this is in fact true (you never know with the Trump WH) and the order in fact does go after H1B, I have to say I support it. H1B is widely abused by corporations to keep salaries down.

Salaries?

Salaries in the tech sector are high.what more nonsense is this.

He just wants to attack his biggest critics. Trump doesn't invest in tech because he doesn't understand it. He prefers bricks and oil. No attacks on those sectors.


This is idiocy