Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

Options
1…137138140142143…335

Comments

  • Options
    #4172
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,508 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    RIGOLO wrote: »
    If people are truly concerned about subverting any democratic process, they should be questioning why there was a near coup in the inteligence commuity to oust the duly elected POTUS , otherwise its just faux outrage.

    Is there an Art 25 in the constitution? I'll save you the bother and tell you there is.

    Therefore is is not only within the constitution, but within their job specs to defend the US from all enemies both foreign and domestic.

    You seem to think that rules cease to exist once you are POTUS. Thankfully, that is not the case.

    That you use the word coup shows you haven't a clue of what you are talking about.


  • Options
    #4173
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,121 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    RIGOLO wrote: »
    He won the election to be President of The United States, no subverting of the democratic process even comes into it.

    If people are truly concerned about subverting any democratic process, they should be questioning why there was a near coup in the inteligence commuity to oust the duly elected POTUS , otherwise its just faux outrage.

    Of course there is.

    He was elected President , Not Emperor.

    The Democratic Process is that if the President wants money for something , Congress must approve/authorise that money.

    By declaring a national emergency to get money for something that Congress did not approve would appear to be the very definition of "subverting the democratic process".

    The courts will ultimately decide , but win or lose in the courts , it is highly unlikely that a single additional brick or slat will be laid beyond whatever the $1.3B provides before the 2020 election.

    And even that probably won't get far as the 1st land-owner to get an eminent domain purchase order will head straight for the courts (just as they have done for every other mile of fence built to date)


  • Options
    #4174
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,115 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1097880949935800320



    Couldn't happen to a nicer bloke.

    Another thing he and his pal Manafort have in common. They both breached their bail terms and both of them will pay the price.


  • Options
    #4175
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,121 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    everlast75 wrote: »
    https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1097880949935800320



    Couldn't happen to a nicer bloke.

    Another thing he and his pal Manafort have in common. They both breached their bail terms and both of them will pay the price.

    This is a thing I just don't understand.

    Whatever else Stone or Manafort are, they are not stupid. They've been around the system for decades.

    How did they believe that their behaviour would not be discovered and sanctioned?

    Hubris and arrogance are the obvious options , but the levels of both required to over-ride basic common sense are just staggering to me.


  • Options
    #4176
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,508 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    The only thing I can think of is that Trump has promised them pardons. In a recent committee hearing, I thinkit was Barr but may have been Whitacker, they were asked if they had seen any documents regarding pardons to which they answered 'Yes'.

    Trump, and his supporters like Rigolo, think he is above the law, so it makes sense that those close to him think the same way as they feel Trump has their backs.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4177
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,115 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    This is a thing I just don't understand.

    Whatever else Stone or Manafort are, they are not stupid. They've been around the system for decades.

    How did they believe that their behaviour would not be discovered and sanctioned?

    Hubris and arrogance are the obvious options , but the levels of both required to over-ride basic common sense are just staggering to me.

    As I mentioned above, Stone could have been drumming up support for his base, to assist in his legal costs fund. He could have been goading Judge Jackson into doing something so he could claim she was biased and remove himself from her Court (he already tried to do that and failed).

    As for Manafort, pure desperation. He will be spending the rest of his life in jail and knew that was coming. Witness tampering was the last role of the dice.

    Some say he is holding out for a pardon. FYI Barr (when he was AG the last time) sat over the pardons of those involved in the Iran Contra affair.


  • Options
    #4178
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,173 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    This is a thing I just don't understand.

    Whatever else Stone or Manafort are, they are not stupid. They've been around the system for decades.

    How did they believe that their behaviour would not be discovered and sanctioned?

    Hubris and arrogance are the obvious options , but the levels of both required to over-ride basic common sense are just staggering to me.

    It's subverting the judiciary. One of the three pillars of a democracy, alongside free and fair elections and an unhindered press corp.

    Notice the trend?


  • Options
    #4179
    martingriff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,726 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    There is a further catch.

    Every now and then I like to keep my law degree fresh by diving into various legal blogs and fora.

    There are two very significant hurdles that the 16 States have to break. The first and most important is “standing”. Basically, it has to be shown that they will suffer injury from this declaration. Opinions are split on whether or not they will succeed. Remember, when they were challenging the travel ban, they were doing so on behalf of named residents and organizations in their states who were affected by the ban. It is difficult to identify who will be injured by this declaration, but there seems to be enough split opinion that there is a good chance that standing will be found on some ground or other. If it is decided they don’t have standing, then the court isn’t even going to consider the merits of the argument they put forward.

    The second is that the overwhelming opinion of the lawyers is that an argument that the National Emergency Declaration should fall because there is actually no emergency is doomed to fail. Whether there is one or not, the legislation Trump is relying upon does not set a standard of emergency, and it does not require a definition in the declaration. Congress, for better or worse, gave the President great discretion on the declaration, and courts have historically provided great deference to the President on such things.

    Now, there are plenty of other tacks which are worth noting. The first is that a declaration does not magically create much new funding out of thin air. Congress still controls the purse strings, so declaration or not, that doesn’t translate into much substantial built. There are limited funding sources which may be used as a result of this declaration. Secondly, there will be all sorts of private actions by landowners objecting to the construction on their land. This could well take so long to go through the courts that by the time it is all sorted, a new president will cancel the declaration, or maybe Congress will step in and decide too much authority was given the President in the National Emergencies Act.

    Like Penn, I think this move was mainly for the legal challenges, but not so much for the optics of the wall, as much as the optics of getting the Democrat-majority states (note which 16 of the 50 are sueing) up to the Supreme Court and embarrassing them with another loss. As one blogger observed, don’t read too much into the lower court rulings which will come first, what counts is the Supreme Court. The travel ban is a case in point, the headlines on CNN last summer were “Trump travel ban upheld by Supreme Court”. The practical net effect is pretty limited, but it’s a great talking point.

    Speaking of, SCOTUS has decided for the first time since 2010 to take up a 2nd Amendment case this year. Opinion is that New York City is highly likely to lose. More importantly, there are signifiicant circuit court splits to be resolved. Of interest, if it looked like a case was going to be lost at the Supreme Court, the States often would not appeal a loss at the Circuit level, because the “loss” would be limited only to the circuit’s jurisdiction, hence the current split. The importance of the case is not actually the case itself (New York City prohibits taking guns out of the city, gun owners want to take them out of the city. Not an earth-shattering titan of repercussion there) but the fact that SCOTUS will put out clearer guidance on the standards and interpretations the lower courts are to use and thus stop the split. I fully expect Thomas will be writing an opinion, he has not held back in his dissents to denial of cert on firearms cases in the last couple of years.

    I suppose the injury or hurt maybe the money that may be siphoned away from projects in there states.

    In relation to what constitutes an emergency can the Supreme court themselves decide what is an emergency and can whatever they decide show precedence on what is an emergency.

    I am not sure the optics can be used to show Democrat States losing if cases are still be brought but I do agree this will end 1 of 2 ways landowners will win or it will takes so long the next President will stop it.


  • Options
    #4180
    RIGOLO
    Site Banned Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭RIGOLO


    duploelabs wrote: »
    It's subverting the judiciary. One of the three pillars of a democracy, alongside free and fair elections and an unhindered press corp.

    Notice the trend?

    Some people call it Article 2 Clause 2 Section 2 of the US Constitution , Trump appointed 2 Supreme Court Justices ,

    other people call it subverting the judiciary

    I do notice a trend.


  • Options
    #4181
    martingriff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,726 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    everlast75 wrote: »
    1) He committed Campaign Finance violations as a matter of fact as found in law
    2) Russians interfered in the election as stated by his own intelligence agencies and assisted with his votes
    3) His campaign conspired with the Russians to swing the vote
    4) By the by, Hillary got 3,000,000 more votes



    The people who HE APPOINTED thought he was acting so irrational, that they considered a 25th Amendment situation. By the by, that IS constitutional. Secondly, McCabe informed the Gang of 8 and none of them objected.

    I am no fan of Donald Trump and I think that a competent run campaign could have defeated him. But to win an election you need to win by electoral votes which he did so bringing up the amount of votes got is as useful as a bikini in the Arctic


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4182
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,508 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Rigolo, do you dispute that it is both constitutionally sound and part of their remit to under take reviews of POTUS?


  • Options
    #4183
    RIGOLO
    Site Banned Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭RIGOLO


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    Of course there is.

    He was elected President , Not Emperor.

    The Democratic Process is that if the President wants money for something , Congress must approve/authorise that money.

    By declaring a national emergency to get money for something that Congress did not approve would appear to be the very definition of "subverting the democratic process".

    The courts will ultimately decide , but win or lose in the courts , it is highly unlikely that a single additional brick or slat will be laid beyond whatever the $1.3B provides before the 2020 election.

    And even that probably won't get far as the 1st land-owner to get an eminent domain purchase order will head straight for the courts (just as they have done for every other mile of fence built to date)

    Not correct.

    Read the National Emergency order... the funding is coming from DOD budget, Congress have already given him the money .. too late to get it back now.


  • Options
    #4184
    MadYaker
    Registered Users Posts: 12,169 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    RIGOLO wrote: »
    He won the election to be President of The United States, no subverting of the democratic process even comes into it.

    If people are truly concerned about subverting any democratic process, they should be questioning why there was a near coup in the inteligence commuity to oust the duly elected POTUS , otherwise its just faux outrage.

    It’s time to get real here. The wall will never be built. Trump has 2 years left, even if construction were to begin tomorrow it’ll be tied up for years in legal battles with land owners who don’t want to give up their land and then cancelled by whoever gets elected in 2020. Even if trump won in 2020 he’d need a third term to get through the legal battles. It just isn’t possible.

    Even before that he needs to get funding from congress, if you read Manics post above (who is a member of the US military) he can’t just declare a state of emergency and then instruct the military to build it. And even if that was an option the state of emergency is being challenged in the courts which is going to take months! He just doesn’t have the time or the funding or the legal standing to do it.

    If you can see a way the wall can realistically be built I’d love to hear it.


  • Options
    #4185
    MadYaker
    Registered Users Posts: 12,169 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    RIGOLO wrote: »
    Not correct.

    Read the National Emergency order... the funding is coming from DOD budget, Congress have already given him the money .. too late to get it back now.

    You need to read Manic Moran’s posts. He has a law degree and is a member of the US military, and also a republican I believe


  • Options
    #4186
    circadian
    Registered Users Posts: 6,919 ✭✭✭circadian


    Rjd2 wrote: »
    He's one of the most popular politicians in America so why the hell not?:)

    Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Bernie but it's already a crowded space. The only positive I can think of is that he'll force more of the nominees to the left to try and keep up. He already has to play catch up to Warren in relation to policy but he does have a solid foundation after his last run.


  • Options
    #4187
    eire4
    Registered Users Posts: 6,642 ✭✭✭eire4


    circadian wrote: »
    Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Bernie but it's already a crowded space. The only positive I can think of is that he'll force more of the nominees to the left to try and keep up. He already has to play catch up to Warren in relation to policy but he does have a solid foundation after his last run.

    At this early stage with his name recognition he has as much chance as the other Senators that have announced on the Democratic side that they are running. There really is no front runner at this point on the Democratic side.


  • Options
    #4188
    Rjd2
    Registered Users Posts: 12,022 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    circadian wrote: »
    Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Bernie but it's already a crowded space. The only positive I can think of is that he'll force more of the nominees to the left to try and keep up. He already has to play catch up to Warren in relation to policy but he does have a solid foundation after his last run.

    I get that:)

    But he has a bigger base than pointless hacks like Gillibrand and some of the others running. He won't have the Democrat establishment on side, so if he somehow wins, it will be an incredible achievement.

    AAlready out raised Harris comparing the days when they announced. :p
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-sanders-bests-kamala-harris-first-day-donor-total-in-four-hours


  • Options
    #4189
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,508 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    I have no issue with Sanders running. My only hope is that if he fails to get the nomination this time that he won't get into a big sulk and blame everyone else and fail to come out in support of whomever does win.

    Once the primaries are done, the task is to win back the WH, nit focus on himself. He played a very negative roll last time by humming and hawing over support for HC and many of his base simply stayed away rather than vote for HC.

    That allowed Trump, in part to get in.


  • Options
    #4190
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 7,879 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    everlast75 wrote: »
    https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1097880949935800320



    Couldn't happen to a nicer bloke.

    Another thing he and his pal Manafort have in common. They both breached their bail terms and both of them will pay the price.

    This is a thing I just don't understand.

    Whatever else Stone or Manafort are, they are not stupid. They've been around the system for decades.

    How did they believe that their behaviour would not be discovered and sanctioned?

    Hubris and arrogance are the obvious options , but the levels of both required to over-ride basic common sense are just staggering to me.
    Stone and Manafort know well Mueller has them dead to rights. Their only hope is enough outrage against their arrests and their tactics have been about drumming up sympathy with their base. In that regard Stone's post ticks a lot of boxes with Trump's base. I really think a lot of thought went into it.


  • Options
    #4191
    26000 Elephants
    Registered Users Posts: 3,152 ✭✭✭26000 Elephants


    RIGOLO wrote: »
    Read the National Emergency order...

    I'm still searching for the section "How to declare National Emergencies that are clearly not National Emergencies"


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4192
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users Posts: 39,629 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    RIGOLO wrote: »
    Not correct.

    Read the National Emergency order... the funding is coming from DOD budget, Congress have already given him the money .. too late to get it back now.

    Yes they appropriated the money for use by the DOD. That means for military projects. Not what Trump is going to use it for. Also your comment about their being a coup in the dept of justice which I'm assuming means the 25th ammendment which is a political process enshrined in the US constitution so how is it a coup ? And the money isn't given to the president.


  • Options
    #4193
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,071 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    RIGOLO wrote: »
    Some people call it Article 2 Clause 2 Section 2 of the US Constitution , Trump appointed 2 Supreme Court Justices ,

    other people call it subverting the judiciary

    I do notice a trend.

    No. Trump doesn't appoint justices. Try again. He *nominates* them and the Senate approves.

    If he appointed justices, then why did a number of his justice nominations (circuit courts, etc.) withdraw their nominations?

    I notice a trend, too. Trump hates the judiciary. Of course he does - he's fought with it all his career, how many *thousands* of lawsuits has he either been the plaintiff or defendant in? His life is always about trying to get away with things (he's not alone there.)


  • Options
    #4194
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,558 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    RIGOLO wrote: »
    Not correct.

    Read the National Emergency order... the funding is coming from DOD budget, Congress have already given him the money .. too late to get it back now.

    I'd say that if you look deeply into the funding voted into the Defence budget by Congress, they did so without the intent that the funds would be transferred by the president to build a border wall, a civil project, between the U.S and Mexico and not on national military defence needs. Remember Don said the wall is being built to stop civilians from entering the U.S with non-militarist intent, despite Don now using words like invasion to cover his misuse of the defence funds.


  • Options
    #4195
    TomOnBoard
    Registered Users Posts: 5,109 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Co equal doesn't mean they can't all override each other at times. Is Congress overriding a presidential veto and the will of the president a usurping of powers? If the court system invalidates the will of Congress by ruling "you can't do that", is this a threat to democratic government by one equal branch ignoring another?

    There are checks and balances. Trump's declaration can be checked by either the court or by Congress. Right now, he arguably is using an authority specifically vested in him by Congress in the National emergencies Act. If Congress or the courts don't like it and if they have grounds, they equally can override the will of the president. This isn't a threat to democracy, it's exactly how the US government works.

    I think this is well- stated. It is actually testament to the system that was set up by the Founding Fathers that a President can and does exercise his powers (even if one believes he is doing so on specious grounds), and Congress can vote against it (thereby probably triggering a Presidential veto with subsequent super- majority to over-ride him in due course), and/or a number of States can jointly bring legal actions through the San Francisco Federal courts, and the 9th Circuit can decide one way or the other in due course, and the USSC can make a final judgement either for or against, etc.

    Their foresight in designing-in checks and balances is being quite beautifully validated in this current process and, for that reason Trump's decision is to be welcomed rather than feared, as it once again will exercise the U.S. Constitution and will assess either its timelessness or its failure to meet 21st Century needs.

    Furthermore, it is to be welcomed that the 'fight' will take place largely in public, thereby exercising opposing political views and will force people to adopt a position one way or the other. With that positioning will hopefully come an increased level of political involvement by those sections of the citizenry who currently sit on the couch rather than casting their vote. This is how a vibrant democracy lives, with constant exercise being used to stretch its rules, thereby making that democracy stronger. In particular, the US Constitution is a written document, with centuries of opinions and decisions that have interpreted its provisions, resulting in a set of rules that can be used as touchstones every time an issue arises.

    So, I say the US should embrace this latest challenge, and only get angry about it if the processes are undermined or transacted in secret. When all the processes have completed their course, then the system will move on to the next 'crisis' and the process can start all over again.


  • Options
    #4196
    Thargor
    Registered Users Posts: 17,886 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    Imagine spending hours on the internet defending this human shaped turd...

    ddbbjbd80kh21.png


  • Options
    #4197
    Jamiekelly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,047 ✭✭✭Jamiekelly


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    I have no issue with Sanders running. My only hope is that if he fails to get the nomination this time that he won't get into a big sulk and blame everyone else and fail to come out in support of whomever does win.

    Once the primaries are done, the task is to win back the WH, nit focus on himself. He played a very negative roll last time by humming and hawing over support for HC and many of his base simply stayed away rather than vote for HC.

    That allowed Trump, in part to get in.

    I'm pretty sure it's Clintons job to get voters on side and not the defeated candidate. Plenty of Republicans like Romney and Jeb openly took potshots at Trump when he was the Republican nominee. Didn't hurt Trump at all.

    And I'm pretty sure the Russians had a bigger outcome to the election than Bernie Sanders feeling hard done by. Didn't he actually meet with Obama and back Hilary straight away? I don't know what political reality you've dreamed up.

    https://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/11/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders/index.html


  • Options
    #4198
    circadian
    Registered Users Posts: 6,919 ✭✭✭circadian


    https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/multiple-whistleblowers-raise-grave-concerns-with-white-house-efforts-to

    I don't even know where to start with this one. Only a week ago Trump met with nuclear power developers in the Whitehouse to suggest providing technology to Saudi Arabia.

    Kushner will be there next week and this is all in contravention of Atomic Power Act. It highlights the chaos and mayhem in the Whitehouse and how senior positions routinely ignore direction from their legal counsel.


  • Options
    #4199
    ECO_Mental
    Registered Users Posts: 2,485 ✭✭✭ECO_Mental


    https://www.msnbc.com/stephanie-ruhle/watch/is-robert-mueller-almost-done-with-his-investigation-1444763715951

    Word on the street that the Mueller report will come either this week or next week either way very soon. But don't expect a big massive report to be put up on the auld Interweb. Apparently this will be going to the AG first for him to review it redact sections etc and see what he will do with it. Then probably to a very select bunch of people. Ive heard this mentioned by two sources now so hopefully we are nearing the end game (or the start of the end game) Then will come all the indictments the impeachment so this could be the start of it becoming more open and more interesting. Looking to see what the GOP are going to say when they see that they have been supporting a traitor for the last 3 years practically. Will they step up and impeach him???

    6.1kWp south facing, South of Cork City



  • Options
    #4200
    TomOnBoard
    Registered Users Posts: 5,109 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    Thargor wrote: »
    Imagine spending hours on the internet defending this human shaped turd...

    ddbbjbd80kh21.png

    I'm not so sure any of us would survive objective scrutiny of what we said 5 years ago... :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4201
    Pa8301
    Closed Accounts Posts: 543 ✭✭✭Pa8301


    TomOnBoard wrote: »
    I'm not so sure any of us would survive objective scrutiny of what we said 5 years ago... :rolleyes:

    To be fair I don't think that tweet would survive objective scrutiny at any time.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement