Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

Christy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

Manic Moran wrote: »

He can say what he likes on twitter/at rallies, the troops will follow their RoE instructions which will include the possibility for the use of lethal force, rocks or no rocks. In any case, I find it unlikely that they will be ever within rock-throwing range to begin with given their role.

That is a really odd position for you to take Manic.

The CiC, the head of the military, you are saying that he should simply be ignored by the generals and other military leaders? Can they do that on any idea he has or just the ones they don't particularly agree with?

And isn't that the military basically taking over the role from the elected POTUS? Which General gets the final say and what happens if individual soldiers don't agree with that decision or is the ability to ignore orders limited to certain levels?

The positions of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is that public statements by the President, on teeets, at rallies, etc, are not orders. This was put out publicly over a year ago. There is a process by which orders may be issued, and a public statement is not it. Orders which are sent throigh channels may then be verified for legality by JAG on route to the troops. This is not me being selective because I am deemed to like Trump, this is me observing what correct, declared protocol is.

It is also worth observing that the commentary is not as outlandish as it is being taken. There is a difference between “throwing rocks will be considered equal to a firearm” and “throwing rocks can be considered equal to a firearm”. The latter is a position taken by pretty much every force on the planet. The reason it is not a bad idea for potential protestors to believe that US agencies will shoot them when throwing rocks is because we -do- shoot people who are throwing rocks on occasion. Police in California did just that a few weeks ago.
https://abc7.com/montclair-police-shoot-assault-suspect-accused-of-throwing-rocks-at-cars/4222433/

Border patrol will also shoot people on the other side of the border who are throwing rocks, if they believe the situation calls for it. Witness the death of Jose Rodriguez in 2012. It is unlikely that the military will be involved in such a situation, but the police forces are likely to be.

[Edited to Add]
Cpt Obvious, you are referring to the presumption of lawfulness. The doctrine that an order is presumed to be lawful unless it is blatantly unlawful or a person of reasonable sense and understanding would have concluded the order to be unlawful. As a result. An order is disobeyed at the subordinate’s peril. However, since Trump public statements are not considered orders, the situation does not apply here.

To be fair Trump's public statements are said not to be ordered because the commander in chief comes out with crazy statements.

Why is he the commander in chief if he is just to be ignored (I mean ignoring him is the sensible thing to do but he should not be commander in chief).

Christy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

Manic Moran wrote: »

He can say what he likes on twitter/at rallies, the troops will follow their RoE instructions which will include the possibility for the use of lethal force, rocks or no rocks. In any case, I find it unlikely that they will be ever within rock-throwing range to begin with given their role.

That is a really odd position for you to take Manic.

The CiC, the head of the military, you are saying that he should simply be ignored by the generals and other military leaders? Can they do that on any idea he has or just the ones they don't particularly agree with?

And isn't that the military basically taking over the role from the elected POTUS? Which General gets the final say and what happens if individual soldiers don't agree with that decision or is the ability to ignore orders limited to certain levels?

The positions of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is that public statements by the President, on teeets, at rallies, etc, are not orders. This was put out publicly over a year ago. There is a process by which orders may be issued, and a public statement is not it. Orders which are sent throigh channels may then be verified for legality by JAG on route to the troops. This is not me being selective because I am deemed to like Trump, this is me observing what correct, declared protocol is.

It is also worth observing that the commentary is not as outlandish as it is being taken. There is a difference between “throwing rocks will be considered equal to a firearm” and “throwing rocks can be considered equal to a firearm”. The latter is a position taken by pretty much every force on the planet. The reason it is not a bad idea for potential protestors to believe that US agencies will shoot them when throwing rocks is because we -do- shoot people who are throwing rocks on occasion. Police in California did just that a few weeks ago.
https://abc7.com/montclair-police-shoot-assault-suspect-accused-of-throwing-rocks-at-cars/4222433/

Border patrol will also shoot people on the other side of the border who are throwing rocks, if they believe the situation calls for it. Witness the death of Jose Rodriguez in 2012. It is unlikely that the military will be involved in such a situation, but the police forces are likely to be.

[Edited to Add]
Cpt Obvious, you are referring to the presumption of lawfulness. The doctrine that an order is presumed to be lawful unless it is blatantly unlawful or a person of reasonable sense and understanding would have concluded the order to be unlawful. As a result. An order is disobeyed at the subordinate’s peril. However, since Trump public statements are not considered orders, the situation does not apply here.

To be fair Trump's public statements are said not to be ordered because the commander in chief comes out with crazy statements.

Why is he the commander in chief if he is just to be ignored (I mean ignoring him is the sensible thing to do but he should not be commander in chief).

Leroy42

Christy42 wrote: »

To be fair Trump's public statements are said not to be ordered because the commander in chief comes out with crazy statements.

Why is he the commander in chief if he is just to be ignored (I mean ignoring him is the sensible thing to do but he should not be commander in chief).

This is the point I am trying to make. Manic has stated that Trump can basically say anything as it will just be ignored. Now or course there are certain procedures so military commands from the CiC, but openly admitting that public pronouncements can simply be ignored is quite a position.

Remember, that Trump is the man to 'tell it like it is' yet here we have Manic saying that what he says can be ignored.

And as has been mentioned previously, whilst the generals may well ignore these remarks on the basis that they are not official, clearly there are many people that pay very close attention to what Trump says and that it as his position.

Surely people can see the danger and recklessness of a person in the position of POTUS making statements such as he does, once that official US ignores, is not a sustainable position.

aloyisious

amandstu wrote: »

Is it a simple case of him throwing red meat to his base in the hope that it will get the GOP over the mid terms with a majority in both Houses?

I'm divided on the issue on Don's behaviour, wondering if he has the capability to think things through at times [most or any] before reacting publicly. As for him keeping the GOP as a priority in his mind when speaking [throwing red meat] to his base, I think it more likely that he sees the base as his and not the GOP's. The way that he's been reacting to the media interest in him show's a deeper personal interest in self-defence rather than care for another party.

Water John

His simple failure to focus on the economy and instead return to prompts to excite his base for the mid terms shows his limitations. Cannot adapt.

aloyisious

StringerBell wrote: »

Still missing the point.

I don't think any troop will make a statement that challenges the statements of POTUS as it will be most probably be contrary to UCMJ in one way or another, or pentagon protocol in respect of the office of POTUS.

It's mu opinion that Don doesn't know the difference between his "make it so" utterances and written signed orders whereas the military does. IMO if Don does NOT issue what he imagines to be his orders in writing and signature, the chain of command from top to bottom can ignore them.

aloyisious

Leroy42 wrote: »

This is the point I am trying to make. Manic has stated that Trump can basically say anything as it will just be ignored. Now or course there are certain procedures so military commands from the CiC, but openly admitting that public pronouncements can simply be ignored is quite a position.

Remember, that Trump is the man to 'tell it like it is' yet here we have Manic saying that what he says can be ignored.

And as has been mentioned previously, whilst the generals may well ignore these remarks on the basis that they are not official, clearly there are many people that pay very close attention to what Trump says and that it as his position.

Surely people can see the danger and recklessness of a person in the position of POTUS making statements such as he does, once that official US ignores, is not a sustainable position.

Yes, the military do see the danger and recklessness of Don's statements. The position taken by the military in respect of Don's statements is on the basis that one can ignore public pronouncements as they are legally NOT orders. That has been the policy of the COS and other Gen Staff members for some time, an example being the transgender troop issue. While it might not seem to some to be a sustainable position, it is the only one the military can adapt as to do otherwise would amount to breaking protocol, if not sedition, where it comes to what POTUS say's [that being the operative word] he want's done.

aloyisious

Christy42 wrote: »

To be fair Trump's public statements are said not to be ordered because the commander in chief comes out with crazy statements.

Why is he the commander in chief if he is just to be ignored (I mean ignoring him is the sensible thing to do but he should not be commander in chief).

Because the system elected him POTUS when no one [even the right-minded - pun] expected that to be the result and the office of POTUS carries the cache of CIC. The loopiness of his public statements isn't the basis on which the military is ignoring them. His public statements are NOT orders as in legal orders issued by POTUS to be carried out by the military.

everlast75

Even if you don't thinkTrump is a racist, you should really check your position when this guy endorses you....



https://twitter.com/DrDavidDuke/status/1058465930651541505?s=19

circadian

The irony in that ad is the fact that he was released by Joe Arpaio for "unknown reasons" during the Bush Administration.

But let's not get facts get in the way. Is this the ad that was broadcast nationally during the Sunday Night Football? If so it's next level misinformation, I can only see this getting worse as the week progresses.

duploelabs

everlast75 wrote: »

Even if you don't thinkTrump is a racist, you should really check your position when this guy endorses you....



https://twitter.com/DrDavidDuke/status/1058465930651541505?s=19

As it's oft said, Trump may say he's not a racist. But his racist supporters believes he is

dr.fuzzenstein

circadian wrote: »

The irony in that ad is the fact that he was released by Joe Arpaio for "unknown reasons" during the Bush Administration.

But let's not get facts get in the way. Is this the ad that was broadcast nationally during the Sunday Night Football? If so it's next level misinformation, I can only see this getting worse as the week progresses.

Facts never mattered for this current administration.
This is not misinformation. Misinformation attempts to mislead people with lies and false facts and it relies on the ignorance of the target audience.
This is just propaganda, everyone knows it's false and fake. Joseph Goebbels would be proud.
It's on par with advertising, just blast a message at people incessantly to push a brand to program people to buy into that brand.
Imagine a "normal" politician trying to get his program across by giving informational speeches peppered with facts and figures and Trump holding what can only be described as the equivalent of a Monster Truck rally.
The actual content of the message is entirely irrelevant, what is important is noise, lots of flashing lights, razzle dazzle and all that non stop.
It seems Trump voters are fed up with politicians and politics. They don't want to hear some boring sh*t about foreign policy, international trade policies and certainly about equal rights for some minority they don't care about.
The only conclusion I can draw from that, is that there are vast swathes of US voters with the intellectual ability of 10 year olds and all they want is to be told "vote for me, don't ask questions, everything is going to be awesome".
These people can never be convinced by facts.

MadYaker

I haven't been paying much attention to the big orange man over the last few weeks. Mueller seems to be awful quiet lately? Normally there'd be something of note happening every couple of weeks with that investigation. Could that have something to do with the mid terms?

ECO_Mental

MadYaker wrote: »

I haven't been paying much attention to the big orange man over the last few weeks. Mueller seems to be awful quiet lately? Normally there'd be something of note happening every couple of weeks with that investigation. Could that have something to do with the mid terms?

Yep, he has been laying low as there is this unofficial (or could be official) rule where there cant be any investigations etc into a politician 8 weeks before any election. (didn't stop Comey though..:rolleyes: in 2016) But come Wednesday morning everybody is expecting Mueller to start hitting the headlines again and big time also. Exciting times ahead

duploelabs

MadYaker wrote: »

I haven't been paying much attention to the big orange man over the last few weeks. Mueller seems to be awful quiet lately? Normally there'd be something of note happening every couple of weeks with that investigation. Could that have something to do with the mid terms?

It's absolutely to do with the midterms that Mueller has been quite to maintain the bi-partisan nature of the investigation. Expect big news from him after tomorrow

everlast75

Donny Jr, Roger Stone for starters.

And if the Dems get some control of the committees.....

pixelburp

Seems like eons ago, but remember how Trump refused to say whether he'd accept the validity of the 2016 election result (were he to lose)? Coupled with the early-doors conspiracy that there were 'millions' of illegal voters for Hillary. Or indeed that botched attempt at that voter commission headed by notorious voter suppressor Kris Kobach? Fun times.

Now AFAIK there have been no rumblings from non-Democrats that suggest a repeat of this prior to the election, but my personal concern might in response to a Democrat 'victory' would be a re-emergence of this narrative, further enflaming the armed and conspiratorial among Trumps base.

everlast75

pixelburp wrote: »

Seems like eons ago, but remember how Trump refused to say whether he'd accept the validity of the 2016 election result (were he to lose)? Coupled with the early-doors conspiracy that there were 'millions' of illegal voters for Hillary. Or indeed that botched attempt at that voter commission headed by notorious voter suppressor Kris Kobach? Fun times.

Now AFAIK there have been no rumblings from non-Democrats that suggest a repeat of this prior to the election, but my personal concern might in response to a Democrat 'victory' would be a re-emergence of this narrative, further enflaming the armed and conspiratorial among Trumps base.

Excuse my unparliamentary language, but **** 'em!

You can't appease them. I mean, their guy is president and they are still mad as hell.

You can't pander to these idiots, and besides you shouldn't. They are bullies anyway. Once confronted, they'll retreat to the security of their mom's basement and make up naff memes about "owning libs"

Leroy42

It really is a very important election. One can argue that people were looking for change with Trump, and boy did they get it. And many people really believed that many of his more outlandish statements were merely political gaming. But after nearly 2 years on the job, it is clear to everyone just who and what Trump is.

So whilst in a normal election, people can and do brush aside the more unlikable things about a candidate or party on the basis that the overall is better, it is very clear the direction that Trump and the GOP are taking the US.

So anyone who votes for a GOP candidate can no longer use the excuse that they weren't deplorable or giving tacit acceptance of racism and bullying. It is fine to argue that Trump brings other things to the table (SCOTUS etc) but one cannot vote for a GOP candidate in this election without being fully aware that it is essentially a vote in support of Trump and how he is doing the job.

It is clear that Trump has no intention of trying to be POTUS for the US, he is only interested in the portion of the US that supports him. A man that has openly tried to tear down the courts, the FBI, the CIA. The political system, their allies. A man that has stood idly by when school shootings continue, when the largest domestic gun attack in US history was carried out, when he blamed the media for the recent mail bombings, when he claimed it was the Jewish peoples own fault for getting killed for not having armed security.

This is the man that people are giving their support to. Make no mistake, if the Dems do not take control of at least the house, it is giving Trump a green light to not only continue to be increase his approach.

kilns

If the Dems do not gain control of the house things will get alot worse, Trump and Reps will go into overdrive passing legislation that would take years to reverse, even things like increasing a president's term in office etc it could happen..

pixelburp

everlast75 wrote: »

Excuse my unparliamentary language, but **** 'em!

You can't appease them. I mean, their guy is president and they are still mad as hell.

You can't pander to these idiots, and besides you shouldn't. They are bullies anyway. Once confronted, they'll retreat to the security of their mom's basement and make up naff memes about "owning libs"

I'm not worried about the base, I'm worried about the political precedent and constitutional crisis that could ensue if - and obviously as I mentioned it's a big if - Trump decides to play the same tune and start contesting the validity of the election. Of equal worry would be the reaction of Ryan, McConnell and the various commentators like Hannity; effectively being asked to either kowtow to the paranoid ravings of their nominal leader and further undermine democracy, or go against the President and accept the results. Or indeed, do both and again try to leverage the likes of Kobach with some pony commission.

Rhineshark

pixelburp wrote: »

I'm not worried about the base, I'm worried about the political precedent and constitutional crisis that could ensue if - and obviously as I mentioned it's a big if - Trump decides to play the same tune and start contesting the validity of the election. Of equal worry would be the reaction of Ryan, McConnell and the various commentators like Hannity; effectively being asked to either kowtow to the paranoid ravings of their nominal leader and further undermine democracy, or go against the President and accept the results. Or indeed, do both and again try to leverage the likes of Kobach with some pony commission.

*If* the Dems win the House (and I am not confident due to the level of voter suppression and gerrymandering), Trump would be a fool to have it investigated. The red flags will be Republican ones, especially in states like Georgia, Texas, Kansas. And if the Dems actually have a voice by then, they could make it very difficult for the GOP to produce enough evidence of voter fraud while covering all of the GOP shenanigans.


If the Dems don't win the House, I suspect it might have been their last chance. If this crap works in the midterms, they will go all out even more blatantly in 2020. And the Dems will be impotent.

Rjd2

The Dems will win the house tomorrow and have a slight chance of pinching the senate. It feels a bit like the 2017 GE where The Tories blew there majority, like then pollsters to worried about the voters they missed previously cant see what they are missing now.

I have small bets on the Marsha Blackburn opponent and the Sinema lass from Arizona (backed her odds against when its a 50-50) and have laid Republican majority in the senate as I think while they probably hold it, that will be a much bigger sweat than they think, hopefully will finish a few quid up.

Might have to set up a gofundmepage if the Republicans storm everything thogh.:p

Leroy42

The polls appear to be tightening, but you then have the massive increase in early voting. I am not sure what that actually indicated though.

Is that Trump supporters energised and getting out, or, since the Dems tend to have more difficulty getting their vote out, is it a move towards the Dem?

IMO, the right wing have more to be complacent about (SCOTUS x 2, massive tax cuts, Trump bashing the left all the time), are they really going to energised to vote simply to save Trump when he says that he has nothing to answer for? But you also have the massive voting suppression and gerrymandering going on so even the early voting may not make any real difference.

If the Dems cannot make massive gains then it really points to there being an even bigger problem with them then is talked about.

BoJack Horseman

Rjd2 wrote: »

I have small bets on the Marsha Blackburn opponent and the Sinema lass from Arizona (backed her odds against when its a 50-50) and have laid Republican majority in the senate as I think while they probably hold it, that will be a much bigger sweat than they think, hopefully will finish a few quid up

You are losing money there

Phil Bredesen is toast... he was toast two weeks ago.
His last gambit was declaring that he wouldn't vote for Chucky Schumer and would have voted for Kavanaugh.... it didn't work.
Arizona is a coin flip to be fair.

The Dems have no chance of taking the Senate.
Missouri mentioned above is all but certain, as is North Dakota.
IMHO, Arizona will break very narrowly for the Republicans, as will the Florida senate race.
Montana will be close, despite the Democrat incumbent being further to the right than Trump he's performing poorly.

If the GoP have a good night they will finish 54-46, but their worst case scenario is 52-48

Paddy Power have the Democrat House total over/under at 232.... I think that is too high & the under is more likely

Rjd2

Well you're a bundle of joy BH. :P

ps. the bookies have the Dem fav in Florida, so might be worth having a bet on the Republican if you feel its a 50/50 shot (should be priced as such)

That's not me having a dig, I think the Dems get it done there, but would not be advising anyone to have the rent on it.

BoJack Horseman

Rjd2 wrote: »

ps. the bookies have the Dem fav in Florida, so might be worth having a bet on the Republican if you feel its a 50/50 shot (should be priced as such)

I did just that.

Took the GoP to have 54 Senate seats @ 7/1

Took the under of 232 Dem House seats at 5/6 as I don't see them getting past 230.

eire4

Rjd2 wrote: »

The Dems will win the house tomorrow and have a slight chance of pinching the senate. It feels a bit like the 2017 GE where The Tories blew there majority, like then pollsters to worried about the voters they missed previously cant see what they are missing now.

I have small bets on the Marsha Blackburn opponent and the Sinema lass from Arizona (backed her odds against when its a 50-50) and have laid Republican majority in the senate as I think while they probably hold it, that will be a much bigger sweat than they think, hopefully will finish a few quid up.

Might have to set up a gofundmepage if the Republicans storm everything thogh.:p

Don't see any way the Democrats win the senate. I think they will probably end up where they are right now 51-49 Republican control. Not really a surprise given that almost all the senate seats up tomorrow are already Democratic held.

Timberrrrrrrr

Is Trump running scared? Or getting his excuses in early?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1059470847751131138?s=19

Captain Obvious

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Is Trump running scared? Or getting his excuses in early?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1059470847751131138?s=19

Trump seems to be oblivious of the separation of powers. Judges decide the penalty.