The DnD Sanctuary

Will President Trump have all his Cabinet picks settled, & ready for work on Day 1 ?

How many hours will it take President Trump to undo all of Former President Obama's Unconstitutional Executive Actions & Orders, effectively eliminating 98% of all Obama's dubious accomplishments?

With Majorities in both the House & Senate, how will the new Trump Administration tackle the disemboweling of Obamacare?

          ☀  What provisions might they keep, if anything?
          ☀  How will they migrate in the replacement provisions ..... & over what time schedules?


Who will President Trump nominate to replace Antonin Scalia?      When?

When will President Trump start building the "Wall", & who will pay for it? 

          ☀  Will he actually force Mexico to pay for it?
          ☀  How?

Will President Trump give his AG an unfettered pathway to pursue the prosecution of "Crooked/Lyin' Hillary"?

First I'd like to comment upon the inauguration itself: Once again -even before he becomes president- he's creating jobs (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/17/ads-two-dozen-cities-offer-protesters-2500-agitate/)! :)

As for Trump's cabinet nominations, I don't see any that will fail… (He hasn't nominated Barack Obama for anything, has he? :) )

The Democrats are doing what they've always done: Crying "foul" when they lose. And, of course, it's always someone else's fault! Hubris is what it is…

TRUMP'S MEGATHREAD
All posts containing the "T" word will be automatically moved to this thread.
Just kidding.

Just kidding.

Damn you for getting my hopes up!  :mad:

Place your bets: Will there be a second term or not.

What the heck!

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lxS46h9sls[/video]

USR? United States of Russia?
It looks like Russian hackers did hack the fireworks.  :no:

I was hoping for more than regurgitated campaign rhetoric out of an inaugural speech.  (Not expecting)

"Rioting In The Capital" - That's gonna make a great clickbait headline. 

"Rioting In The Capital" - That's gonna make a great clickbait headline.

American Maidan?

Senate confirms Mattis as Secretary of Defense. Democrat "protestors" turn violent… So: No news, really.

Democrat "protestors" turn violent...

Quick thought- Delete your internet.

Quick thought- Delete your internet.

Nah! Not necessary: it was only a small number who "turned violent" (…you know, setting fire to a vehicle and breaking store windows in DC — we'll find out if Seattle, L.A., S.F. and N.Y. follow suit… Chicago will, regardless, report an outrageous number of homicides. Oh, well.). CNN has likely given "the world" a different picture! :) (Do they use CG to create their video?)
I'll keep my internet connection, thank you. And my ability to discern real news from fake news…

(BTW: I thought Trump's "speech" was terrible… And, yes, I believe he wrote it himself — except for that one good line!)

As is traditional (yeah, who would know that? :) ), an immediate freeze on administrative orders has been issued…

The year of the fire monkey will soon have done its damage. Let the year of the fire chicken begin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u97lqfXjvEc

Oops! European (and others) denigration of the U.S. might have "unintended consequences"…  (You know: Like a cruel tweet!)

But I'd ask European (and others) to consider who has become our SecDef, who is about to become our DCI… And -silly peoples!- who is our CIC.

I don't say Putin is shakin' in his boots. But he is certainly perplexed…
There may be a way for the U.S. and Russia to get along. We should (as should they…) try to make that happen.

Myself, I'm not involved; no one asks my opinion, and that's a good thing. I'd as soon let Syria become nuclear slag, from which Russia could build a secure warm-water port.
(I'd have Saudi Arabia suffer the same useful fate… Glass. Not a warm-water port… :) )

Was I the only one to watch to a B-series sci-fi bad movie about when aliens dominates America and a puppet president waves to empty streets?

(The robotic first lady seems to be slightly out of control... her software needs some tuning, the hardware's not bad.)

 :alien:

Nah, I decided to skip the reboot of The Twilight Zone, although I hear it's surprisingly well executed.

Oops! European (and others) denigration of the U.S. might have "unintended consequences"…  (You know: Like a cruel tweet!)

But I'd ask European (and others) to consider who has become our SecDef, who is about to become our DCI… And -silly peoples!- who is our CIC.

I don't say Putin is shakin' in his boots. But he is certainly perplexed…
There may be a way for the U.S. and Russia to get along. We should (as should they…) try to make that happen.

You can expect a lot of studious politeness, that's the modus operandi for thin-skinned dictators everywhere. Flattery is cheap.

Putin is primarily a problem for Russia and Russia's neighbours. Unfortunately Russia got a lot of neighbours (here in Sweden Russia is a neighbour, in Norway Russia was a neighbour, in China Russia was a neighbour, only in the Czech Republic there would be one (Poland) or two buffer countries in between).

That you're not in charge is indeed a good thing. If you, Trump, or anyone else would start using nuclear weapons to settle scores I hope and believe that the rest of the world would realise that such a rouge state would be a threat to everyone, be they Asian, European, African or American. That would set in motion a regime change, and the president, his family, and everyone in position of power would likely never see the light of day again, and America would be under administration as long as Germany was.

There are a good number of things I am sure that Trump wouldn't do (and I don't think you would do either, if you actually was in that position), these are among them. 

That you're not in charge is indeed a good thing. If you, Trump, or anyone else would start using nuclear weapons to settle scores I hope and believe that the rest of the world would realise that such a rouge state would be a threat to everyone, be they Asian, European, African or American. That would set in motion a regime change, and the president, his family, and everyone in position of power would likely never see the light of day again, and America would be under administration as long as Germany was.

I suppose that just listening the man speeching as president must have already set in motion a regime change.

No. We're not Africans or Europeans, Bel. First, we don't have "regimes"… Hm. I guess I can stop there: You have no way of understanding anything I might say beyond that.

But do keep playing "Dumbest European E-vah!" I'm  voting for you!

On a more important note: The out-going administration (…you know: the folks who've had jobs for a while…) has gone into over-drive (https://origin-nyi.thehill.com/regulation/315199-agencies-rush-to-publish-rules-before-trump-takes-office)!
Apparently, it really sucks to lose an election… How did anyone ever survive such a calamity before? :)

I look forward to the many executive orders being rescinded: A phone and a pen aren't really that useful.

First, we don't have "regimes"...

It seems a bit early to shoot down Trump quite like that. You may have a system of government still. *pat, pat* :lol:

The world was blind... the empty streets were totally full of people, the biggest attendance ever, so it was told by the new White House speaker. Journalist's questions were not allowed.

They Live is turning true. Distribute sunglasses. First pair can go to Oakdale.
------------------------

Meanwhile, a strange interview by a German minister stating that German and France are the main and leading countries for the European defense system. France providing the weaponery and German the finance.

The Pope adverts against the "saviors" that builds walls...

This is really turning interesting.

I'd as soon let Syria become nuclear slag, ...

You probably nuked already half of the world several times during booze caused semiconsciousness. :D

Putin is primarily a problem for Russia ...

Not even Stoltenberg could have told it better. :)   But joking aside, the vast majority of Russians would barely share your oppinion...

I suppose that just listening the man speeching as president must have already set in motion a regime change.

Where? :)

Cat gets scared by Trump :)

(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fforgifs.com%2Fgallery%2Fd%2F276959-2%2FDonald-Trump-scares-cat.gif&hash=e2562ad9261a0e18346e92adea6c6814" rel="cached" data-hash="e2562ad9261a0e18346e92adea6c6814" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://forgifs.com/gallery/d/276959-2/Donald-Trump-scares-cat.gif)

It appears that Trump is to be sued Jan 23 over potential violations of the Emoluments Clause (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/22/us/politics/trump-foreign-payments-constitution-lawsuit.html?_r=0).

You have to love the liberal left in the U.S.: They're retarded, but still sorta want to be nice! They can't, because they hate everyone who disagrees with them, about anything… (That's pretty much why the Democrats are -I've used the phrase before, and I'll use it again if it's warranted- "eating their young".)

What do you think of David Brock? :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELD2AwFN9Nc

Bahahaha! :lol:

(I lost my shit somewhere between "we have all the best words" & "You can grab 'em by the pony".)

Cat gets scared by Trump

He scares me, too.

That was hilarious, jax! (I'd bet Trump himself would think so, too… Anyone think I should send him the link? :) )

Pompeo was confirmed as Director of CIA today. Progress is slow, when it's opposed by "progressives"…

At 13s he said: "neuk jullie allemaal de moeder" (fuck you all the mother). The translation, "I will screw you big time," seems a bit bowdlerized.

I liked grab 'em by the pony. :)

The childish gramatical is great. Just like the miniscule brain.
When even Hollanders makes fun, the guy has to be totally ridiculous. Holland first, America second.

Nikki Haley confirmed as U.S. Ambassador to UN… (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/nikki-haley-confirmed-as-new-us-envoy-to-un/articleshow/56770465.cms)
Of course, she'll hew to a different course than Obama's Ambassador, Samantha Power. (Oh! The horror! BHO's legacy is supposed to be holy writ… :) )

Keystone XL and Dakota pipelines are back on track, too.

BTW: How many here think Madonna could blow up the White House? And did anyone take her up on her offer to give a blow-job to any guy who voted for Hillary? :) Democrats are so fun!

Another fun fact: The Park Service used to estimate the size of crowds on the National Mall. But then there was that "Million Man March" which wasn't… Farrakahn wasn't happy with their estimate of 400,000 and threatened to sue! Poof. No more estimates.
That's how some people roll. ("Reality be damned, nigga! I got a living to make! It ain't like that Mother Ship gonna keep me like the hoe I am… No! I need your money!" —I've taken the liberty of freely translating the leader of the Nation of Islam's remarks into semi-grammatical English.)

Will anyone come to the defense of the Just Judd? :)

Looks like a Dutch PvdA (Labor) minister is joining in on the fun.

The Dutch Government is planning to launch an international fund to finance access to birth control and abortion in developing countries, in order to fill the gap left after the Trump administration announced it would no longer fund any overseas aid organisations which discussed abortion.

“Banning abortions does not result in fewer abortions,” Dutch Trade and Development Minister Lilianne Ploumen said in a statement.

Actual government press release:
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/ministeries/ministerie-van-buitenlandse-zaken/nieuws/2017/01/24/ploumen-wil-internationaal-fonds-veilige-abortus

Of course just because she wants something doesn't mean it'll get through. Her position on pregnancy prevention is nothing controversial nor should it be, but the idea of spending money on it elsewhere (a typical Labor thing, so to speak) may not count on quite the same level of support.

interesting speech .

we give it back to you .. the people


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dI3MARgU0s8

This makes the inauguration almost worth watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gneBUA39mnI

You have to love the liberal left in the U.S.: They're retarded, but still sorta want to be nice! They can't, because they hate everyone who disagrees with them, about anything… (That's pretty much why the Democrats are -I've used the phrase before, and I'll use it again if it's warranted- "eating their young".)

What do you think of David Brock? :)

The "liberal left" are haters and are retarded when you folks can't discuss the contents of the lawsuit and immediately go into troll mode. You'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Trump silences government scientists with gag orders (http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/24/14372940/trump-gag-order-epa-environmental-protection-agency-health-agriculture)

Less than a week after the inauguration, the Trump administration has already gagged employees at two federal agencies. Memos obtained by various media outlets show that scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Agriculture are now blocked from communicating with the public and the press.

At the EPA, whose grants and contract budget have also been frozen, employees are not allowed to talk about this change to reporters or on social media. The EPA is responsible for passing and upholding regulations on issues such as clean air and water and the carbon emissions responsible for global warming. The nominee for EPA head, Scott Pruitt, has made a career out of suing the EPA and trying to weaken its environmental regulations.

VOX is, of course, a very reliable source — of progressive bullshit! :) Sang, your best bet is to hibernate… (You might get lucky: It might only be four years! :) )

BTW: BHO's administration fired scientists who didn't toe the line, and jailed journalists who -oops!- reported stuff the administration didn't like. (But a SecState who actually violated the Espionage Act -and, as old as it is as the law of the land, no administration prosecuted more people than BHO's for "violations"- was given a free pass: The Attorney General of the U.S. met with SecState's  spouse in secret; the secret got out. So, SecState couldn't be prosecuted without implicating POTUS. Then the AG -knowing that she was compromised, said simply that she'd follow the "advice" of the FBI Director… Corruption that knows no bounds, I'd say. Or, harking back to an earlier time: Clinton SOP.
And you must know that the President at the time was also compromised: Barack Obama deserves the obscurity he's going to get…)
Still, you'll continue to repeat stuff you'll never understand, because you don't want to? Nah! It's because you can't.
It's pretty simple, Sang: Hillary lost, and the Republicans control most of the reins of power. The progressives are butt-hurt.
Why don't you do something constructive, like start a fund to buy your fellow liberals enough Preparation-H to get them through the next four (eight!) years?

Whew! Glad I got that off my chest!

Now, Sang, if you have an actual problem with the Trump administration, please feel free to express it. But don't cite liberal (progressive, Clinton-era) sites as sources: David Brock is your speed. But his training wheels came off a long time ago…
If your "actual problems with the Trump administration" amount to "BHO isn't president anymore, and his policies are being replaced…" Well, as someone famous once said: "Elections have consequences."

How deep is your Democrat bench, BTW? :)

I admit, I should have responded to this earlier… But Sang has such a short attention span (read: Conservatives and Republicans Bad! pretty much absorbs him) that I didn't notice he'd been talking to himself again. :)

The "liberal left" are haters and are retarded when you folks can't discuss the contents of the lawsuit and immediately go into troll mode. You'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.

But I'll take the opportunity to post this link to a 2005 article by our most-likely next Supreme Court Justice: Liberals 'N' Lawsuits (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/213590/liberalsnlawsuits-joseph-6).

Suck it up, boy-o: Your "side" has lost for a generation.

Oh: And filing a lawsuit is one of the easiest things to do in most states. Winning one is -shall we say- less likely? But there are already two!? :) Have they been filed by folks who've won cases?

Get back to me, in 2020… :) In the meantime, twist your panties!

There's a good consensus all over the world about Trump's character. And I don't really see you disagreeing, Oakdale. The only line you have there is "Hillary lost. Suck it up." Such a line hardly does anything positive to recommend Trump.

Ah more trolling and "alternative truth" , as usual. Jailing journalists that were critical? Give me a fucking break. A few for leaking confidential information, which is a crime. I read a complaint about Jeremy Hammond, who was arrested for hacking, not for "whistle blowing." He committed a crime and went to jail. Get it?  It's not hard to understand.

There's a good consensus all over the world about Trump's character.

Now the world cares about character? :) Your comedians are welcome to continue doing what they do… I'm sure they make you feel safe, and oh so superior!

Such a line hardly does anything positive to recommend Trump.

You'll ignore Trump, except to deride him. Okay. But do keep in mind, he's not your president; he is ours…

It's not hard to understand.

I agree it's not hard to understand: When a Democrat does it, it's justified. When a Republican does it, it's fascist! :)

Foggy Bottom is being cleansed of it's political appointees. The partisan head of the Border Patrol has been fired. Trump seems to be doing what he promised… That's what really rankles, isn't it, Sang? :)

Quote from: ersi on 2017-01-26, 00:46:29

There's a good consensus all over the world about Trump's character.

Now the world cares about character? :)

Do you even think what you are saying or have you totally modelled yourself after Trump now?

But do keep in mind, he's not your president; he is ours…

Did you watch the inauguration speech? He thanked "the people of the world" in the first sentence. It most likely means nothing (like everything else he says), it's just that it's yet another point where you contradict him (and he himself).

Grasshopper, watch what he does… :) (You could also watch what the so-called mainstream media does; but you won't.)

I well remember Reagan's reception, by the doyen ( :) ). The chattering class is getting its comeuppance, again. Of course, you don't like it!

I well remember Reagan's reception, by the doyen ( :) ). The chattering class is getting its comeuppance, again.

Okay, Reagan's reception. You are saying it was like Trump's reception now? And you are under the impression that he was viewed as a Great President after a while? What gave you that impression? The bubble you live in?

Of course, you don't like it!

Like has nothing to do with it, but you of course understand nothing but likes.

You are saying it was like Trump's reception now?

Nope. The reasons are somewhat different… But the impulse is the same: Trump, too, is a transformational figure. That is, he isn't one of the liberal elite or a go-along-to-get-along "conservatives". He said what he was going to do during the campaign, and now he's doing it.

And you are under the impression that he [Ronald Reagan] was viewed as a Great President after a while? What gave you that impression? The bubble you live in?

I lived in Massachusetts, Colorado and California during the Reagan administration, and traveled through much of the country; my impressions are the result of actual experience — while yours are the result of "news media" (…and, of course, propaganda! :) ).
I know that revisionist history is still all the rage on the Continent. But chances are pretty good that, without Reagan, you'd still be a Soviet citizen, and your country still a satrap…

Mind you: I think it was a bad idea to expand NATO to Russia's borders. (Not that I have anything against the Baltic states; certainly not against Estonia.) But as anyone with a grain of sense should have known, Russia would see such as a provocation; which it was… But note who did it.)

Your "like has nothing to do with it" comments are like the "I was just following orders…" comments at some little town in Germany many decades ago.
Again, I ask you -assuming you will act as a rational person- to see what President Trump does. But if you'd prefer to read tweets and watch comedians, sobeit! You know what that says about you…
——————————————————————————————
Just heard on the radio that the chief of the Border Patrol has "resigned"… That's Demo-speak for "was fired!" :)

He said what he was going to do during the campaign, and now he's doing it.

:insane:

That is, he isn't one of the liberal elite or a go-along-to-get-along "conservatives". He said what he was going to do during the campaign, and now he's doing it.

Such as jail Hillary? Such as build the wall and make Mexico pay for it? Ah, I get it: Everything he said during the campaign was off the cuff. So what's left for him to do? Something random and totally unrelated to his campaign, but in perfect harmony with his character, I'd say.

Mind you: I think it was a bad idea to expand NATO to Russia's borders. (Not that I have anything against the Baltic states; certainly not against Estonia.) But as anyone with a grain of sense should have known, Russia would see such as a provocation; which it was… But note who did it.)

Who did it, according to you?

Again, I ask you -assuming you will act as a rational person- to see what President Trump does. But if you'd prefer to read tweets...

Well, it so happens that Trump does tweets. Are you saying he has done nothing yet? The 70 yo dude has no history?

If you haven't noticed, Trump is as anti-Reagan as can be. Reagan was whole-heartedly pro-NATO, in favour of arms races and such, while Trump has already announced that he is dropping all international commitments - he said so first about military commitments of NATO. Nah, of course you never noticed or, if you did, you don't see any contradiction.

Like the rest of the world I didn't watch the inauguration. Then again I didn't watch Obama's inauguration either, or any previous president. There are some things you have to be American to care about. Obviously there will be a point where the old government (or administration as it is called over there) will be replaced by a new, and there will be a ceremony. Sure, there will also be dismay and gnashing of teeth, but that would be for coming days when the new government uses or abuses their newfound power. 

That was until the president of the United States had a protracted breakdown over the inadequacies of his adulating crowd. 

Being so beaten by the Women's March must have galled the new president. The scale and extent was impressive  (even one here in Stockholm, and a cross-country skiing march at the resort town at Åre, exercise with a cause...), but marches on their own don't do much except in this case hurt fragile egos. It was tried in Russia (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/womens-march-protest-trump-russia/514064/), didn't work, and doesn't change the face of power. Voting would have been a more cost-effective approach.

I find it interesting as a warm-up to a scientists' march (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/thanks-to-trump-scientists-are-planning-to-run-for-office/514229/), and while they won't have the numbers, the intriguing question is if scientists should be more active in society and in battling pseudo-science (or more practically, if they actually will). 

I think it was a bad idea to expand NATO to Russia's borders.

Hear, hear, that's something new from you. ;)   At least something I can agree with.

Not that I have anything against the Baltic states

It wasn't the merit of NATO that those Baltic states became independent in the first place.
Through the expansion of NATO to Russia's borders, the USA pursues only a geostrategic advantage in case of a military showdown or even in case of a first srike against Russia.
However in such a scenario those states would be at risk to be wiped out first and forever...
That would be the price they'd pay for the 'generous protection'.

But as anyone with a grain of sense should have known, Russia would see such as a provocation

"Provocation" is an understatement. It's a latent threat for Russia which could turn into an existential one.
Imagine how the USA would feel about Russian or Chinese military bases around its borders. Wonder if you can?

It was tried in Russia (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/womens-march-protest-trump-russia/514064/), didn't work, and doesn't change the face of power. Voting would have been a more cost-effective approach.

Cost-effective? Maybe effective in the sense as involving no cost, but not effective in any other sense. Voting in Russia has less effect than in USA.

How did the USSR collapse? By voting or did the people marching on the streets have a role?

Imagine how the USA would feel about Russian or Chinese military bases around his borders. Wonder if you can?

American imagination gets easily excited. They have felt threatened by the fall of Vietnam, by weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and Iran, by a landing strip in Grenada... Oh, and North Korea is the axis of evil.

Being so beaten by the Women's March must have galled the new president. The scale and extent was impressive  (even one here in Stockholm, and a cross-country skiing march at the resort town at Åre, exercise with a cause...), but marches on their own don't do much except in this case hurt fragile egos. It was tried in Russia (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/01/womens-march-protest-trump-russia/514064/),...

Wonder if the main actors behind the scenes weren't the same? ;)

Imagine how the USA would feel about [...] around its borders. Wonder if you can?

That's what walls are for.

Cost-effective? Maybe effective in the sense as involving no cost, but not effective in any other sense. Voting in Russia has less effect than in USA.

How did the USSR collapse? By voting or did the people marching on the streets have a role?

I meant in the context of the US election. In the case of Russia, there has never been a democratic regime change, so that would probably be harder.

The USSR collapsed from within. The coup attempt was amateurish, though it might have had greater chance of success without the people's mobilisation in Moscow. The same goes for the recent coup in Turkey. Soldiers don't like to shoot on their own people. But demonstrations on their own rarely achieve much. The demonstrations at Tiananmen square, though they only mobilised one million people, led to disappearances and a more hard-line regime, otherwise not much. The Iranian protests in 2009 had a similar story. The Arab Spring was a sequence of similar stories. The only regime permanently changed was the "nicest" one, in Tunis.

The more benevolent function of political demonstrations, to make politicians change their minds, is rarely achieved as well. Unless the opposition is unusually fierce, and pose a greater risk to re-election, politicians would only change their minds if they wanted to do so in the first place. Now, this display of women's power was unexpectedly huge, and the greatest I can think of in the West in modern times, but it was not in a position where it would be likely to make an impact (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-long-march-ahead-for-democrats/) on state or federal level.

It wasn't the merit of NATO that those Baltic states became independent in the first place.
Through the expansion of NATO to Russia's borders, the USA pursues only a geostrategic advantage in case of a military showdown or even in case of a first srike against Russia.
However in such a scenario those states would be at risk to be wiped out first and forever...
That would be the price they'd pay for the 'generous protection'.

No, but it is EU/NATO which is their security guarantee. That allows the countries to develop in relative safety and with relatively little outside interference (of course they are now a part of Team EU with all that this entails), without it they would have to continuously prove to Russia that they are of use to them, as any Russian government would have the capacity for gross interference up to and including invasion, as they have done with the other former USSR republics.

Like the rest of the world I didn't watch the inauguration. Then again I didn't watch Obama's inauguration either, or any previous president.

I think "watch the inauguration" pretty much just means "on in the background" anyway, except at the beginning. I did watch Obama's inauguration for a little while, not so much because he was Obama (as in policy or personality-wise) but because I was focused on improving my English as well as my knowledge of American culture, and I perceived him as one of the great American orators.

I think "watch the inauguration" pretty much just means "on in the background" anyway, except at the beginning.

Often one hears so much commentary on it (I do due to work) that the content of it is known even without having watched it. This time the impressions were so confused that I was regretfully forced to verify the content directly.

any Russian government would have the capacity for gross interference up to and including invasion, as they have done with the other former USSR republics.

(https://1.f.ix.de/scale/geometry/700/q75/tp/imgs/89/2/1/3/0/5/0/4/army3-97b050fc0d16a274.jpg)
Poland - US tank in awaiting of the Soviet invasion. :D

Let's hope that the thing doesn't rust quickly.
However we might have already paid for it so it doesn't really matter.

"Provocation" is an understatement. It's a latent threat for Russia which could turn into an existential one.
Imagine how the USA would feel about Russian […] military bases around its borders. Wonder if you can?

I remember the Cuban Missile Crisis… (In fact, years later I was a member of the only Air Force Reserve unit to be activated then.) What a lot of people my age or younger don't know is that the Soviet basing of nuclear missiles in Cuba followed the U.S. basing of nuclear missiles in Turkey… The naval blockade of Cuba (…a blockade is always an act of war) didn't cause the Soviets to dismantle their installations there; our agreement to dismantle our installations in Turkey did. The Cold War was a very dangerous game.
Of course, the Soviets always felt that defense against them was an offensive act! Hence Reagan's withdrawal from the ABM treaty helped push them to their ultimate dissolution. An arms race is expensive…

Americans are going to pay 20% more for what they import from Mexico... America always first...  :lol:

Ooops, it seems it was just "an idea"....


This American clown will make the entire world to laugh day after day...

Meanwhile the White House speaker idiotic robot swallows 35 chewuing gums everyday, so he says...  :eyes:

What a lot of people my age or younger don't know is that the Soviet basing of nuclear missiles in Cuba followed the U.S. basing of nuclear missiles in Turkey… The naval blockade of Cuba (…a blockade is always an act of war) didn't cause the Soviets to dismantle their installations there; our agreement to dismantle our installations in Turkey did.

Dismantling my ass. Whatever your agreement was, the USA still operates nuclear weapons in Turkey.
Because of  worsening relations since the failed military coup, the USA is considering now moving them to Romania.
So those nukes 'will protect now Romania instead'.... :whistle:

Americans are going to pay 20% more for what they import from Mexico... America always first...   :lol:

It's not that funny from this side of the Atlantic, though. Create inflation in the economy to pay for the wall. That's right, this is to make "Mexico" pay for the wall. No, it's making the American consumer pay for it.  By saying that, he seems to have forgotten that he already said he was add a 35% tax on Mexican imports. That is unless he plans on adding the two ideas together for a total of 55%.                 

You'all can calm down: Tariffs and taxes are Congress' purview. :) The president can only propose…

You'all can calm down: Tariffs and taxes are Congress' purview. :) The president can only propose…

False :)

This is really happening: "It is the policy of the executive branch to: (a) secure the southern border of the United States through the immediate construction of a physical wall on the southern border, monitored and supported by adequate personnel..."

"Definitions... "Wall" shall mean a contiguous, physical wall or other similarly secure, contiguous, and impassable physical barrier."

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/25/executive-order-border-security-and-immigration-enforcement-improvements

The guy knows how to mess up relations, break treaties, and prevent anything economic taking place. The good thing - he is not excusing himself being "off the cuff" the way Oakdale excuses him.

The bad thing - White House website is now intolerable in graphical browsers. There are splashes with Trump on it all over the place. And they ask your email. Anyway, turning off Javascript should work. Executive orders will hopefully appear here https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/executive-orders The guy will evidently rule by decree (i.e. like a dictator, as predicted), bypassing even the favourable Congress he has right now.

White House website is now intolerable in graphical browsers. There are splashes ...

It depends on which browser you are using.
Different browsers may give you different results
No transition splash using Firefox with scripting enabled.
However I get the transition splash (and a local storage entry) using Opera Presto with scripting enabled.

You'all can calm down: Tariffs and taxes are Congress' purview.

The fiscal conservatives might combine with liberals to shoot this down. The problem is Trump himself. It's like he doesn't even know what he said previously. Of course, if he does manage to get either of his tariffs pushed through (or the nightmarish combination of both of them), and gets the tariffs on Chinese good pushed through on top of that, we're looking at double digit inflation. In short, his policies would be ruinous to the very people to claims to be trying to help.

Shouldn't you be quoting Krugman? :)

Awww, can't answer the basic economic arguments can you?

But you wanted a quote? Okay, how about the liberal media source Foxnews (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/01/for-americans-trumps-tariffs-on-imports-could-be-costly.html) , instead.

WASHINGTON –  American consumers and businesses would pay — literally — if President-elect Donald Trump followed through on his campaign pledge to slap big taxes on imports from China and Mexico.

Trump said during the campaign that he'd impose tariffs of 35 percent on Mexican imports and 45 percent on Chinese imports to protect American jobs from unfair foreign competition. Companies that import those goods would pay the tax at the border.

Many of those firms would likely try to heap as much of the cost as possible on their customers. The result is that American consumers could end up paying more for foreign-made clothing, tablet computers and other electronics.

A 45 percent tariff on Chinese-made goods could drive up U.S. retail prices on those goods by an average of about 10 percent, Capital Economics has calculated. Consumers would find it hard to escape the price squeeze.

"There are few alternative sources for the main products the U.S. buys from China," says Mark Williams, Capital Economics' chief Asia economist. He notes, for example, that China supplies about 70 percent of the world's network equipment, cellphones, laptops and tablet computer

The article doesn't address foods that simply can't be grown in the US year around. Do you still not get it? This isn't even a liberal vs conservative issue anymore. This is about 45's "policies", if enacted, have great potential to trash the American economy. That is to the extent that he even knows what his own policies even are, because he still acts like he doesn't :p

Trump as president is constrained by Congress and the constitution. But he'll likely continue to tweet, to the twits.
I understand why you and your fellow Democrats consider POTUS a king. Guess what, Sang, that's gone…
Trump's not a half-black man; so, he gets no "special" privileges!
Has he done anything yet that really gets your panties in a twist? I mean, other than being Trump? :)

His cabinet will soon be fully in place. And the Democrats still have the shallowest bench in generations… Remember: Trump beat 16 other  Republicans for the nomination; that's mostly Hillary's fault. But they're all still viable candidates.

Elizabeth "Fauxcohontis" Warren is the most visible. But when people look at her they see her…

When Trump talks about what he'd like to do you think that's how government works: the King proposes and the aristocracy implements, the plebes just follow along. Again, let me remind you: It isn't.(You won't believe me; you won't understand. But it's your own damned fault for not voting more often for Hillary! :) ) He "spit-balls" stuff… Get used to it, boy-o!
The technique is new, given the internet; the purpose and implementation are age-old. (Trial balloons…)

Are you, Sang, still hoping to "elect" Hillary Clinton in 2016?

Why must all these conversations devolve into the "liberal" hoping to install Hillary? Usually someone says idiocy like "Trump won snowflake!" We know this. It's more about how horrible the policy offerings from Trump are.

I notice you not defending the tariffs and noting congress can stop them. I already agreed. But do the Republicans in congress have the balls to do so? How many of them represent people that want the tariffs, not understanding the effects it will have on the economy. This includes probably costing more jobs then they create, in addition to the inflation. Mercantilism is a failed, outdated economic policy that has caused many depressions. Further, protectionism on the part of the US and Europe worsened the Great Depression. Then 45 talks idiocy about 20% tariff to build the wall, the most expensive and least effective means to preventing illegal immigration.

Or maybe he's bluffing the whole time. It's hard to tell with this guy.

It's hard to tell with you, too, Sang... Relax a little! Remember: Obama was going to close Gitmo as soon as he took office. What happened? Political reality!
You're right, that I don't defend tariffs. Why should I? I don't consider Trump the messiah like the Dems did Obama, Bad policy is bad policy. But I don't share your pessimism.
Congress doesn't have to stop Trump from instituting tariffs -- he can't. Only Congress can. (Did you never take a civics course?)

Granted, we got a thin-skinned businessman/reality TV star for president. That's as much on your "team" as on mine... :) For you, it seems, everything is an emergency!

Has he done anything yet that really gets your panties in a twist? I mean, other than being Trump? :)

:insane: :yikes:

I don't consider Trump the messiah like the Dems did Obama,

You understand that was mostly a myth, right? I never thought Obama was a messiah

he can't. Only Congress can. (Did you never take a civics course?)

Technically you're correct. Yes, I took civics and got an "A" in it. Scroll up a little and you'll note I said that fiscal conservatives and liberals might team up to prevent the tariffs. But you know as well as I do that president can form alliances with members of congress to attempt to push through proposal that are outside the president's constitutionally defined powers. For instance in 2002, Bush had a 30% tariff imposed on Chinese steel which cost more jobs than it saved. In 2009, Obama had a tariff put on Chinese made tire so the tires were simply sourced from other countries. What the constitution says a president can do and what politically he can get done are entirely different things.

[…] in 2002, Bush had a 30% tariff imposed on Chinese steel which cost more jobs than it saved. In 2009, Obama had a tariff put on Chinese made tire so the tires were simply sourced from other countries. What the constitution says a president can do and what politically he can get done are entirely different things.

Ah! You're finally appreciating Obama's quip "elections have consequences"…
(There's more to the tariffs question, of course. Funny, I don't remember you objecting to the Chinese tires case; but I'm willing to believe you objected to W.'s steel tariff… He was ostensibly a Republican! :) )

[…] you know as well as I do that [a] president can form alliances with members of congress to attempt to push through proposals that are outside the president's constitutionally defined powers

Ah! And you've finally realized what politics is!
What do you think of the "I have a pen and a phone" justification of presidential prerogatives, now? :)
You're making progress. (Unfortunately for you, it isn't supportive of progressivism at this time… :) )

Obama's slogan was - "Yes We Can"
An appropriate slogan for Trump would be - "Yes We Do"

:D

Speaking of things not adding up:

Apparently The White House has a YouTube channel now - Err, or they are using it now?
https://www.youtube.com/user/whitehouse/about (https://www.youtube.com/user/whitehouse/about)

The about page says they/it...

Joined Jan 21, 2006

 ???

As Jerry Pournelle said recently:

[…] I do not think the civil service is ever eager to declare any job redundant; certainly their union never has. It is also certain that it will take the cooperation of Congress to drain the swamp. But note that the Republican Establishment, having said that having both Houses of Congress were insufficient to let them do anything, now is seeking common cause with the Democrats on the grounds that they need a more popular President. One suspects that if they bet that, they’ll have other reasons for leaving the Establishment alone.

If the Executive has no power to hire and fire the government officers, just who is responsible to the people? Anyone? Why is that better than a king? As Parkinson observes, kings can waste money on favorites and mistresses, but there is a limit on how many they want, or indeed can endure; but of psychologists, sociologists, experts in voodoo sciences, there is absolutely no limit. Ever.

I ask "savants" like Sang to respond… Knowing that they won't. :)
Jerry remembers (after being reminded…) that the civil service wasn't allowed to unionize until JFK's EO: He mentions that what one president can enact by fiat another can rescind.

As I've said before, it's going to be an interesting time — for at least four years.

Of course, everyone is really interested in Trump's recent emigration edict. See anywhere, to get a broader perspective. But don't look at what a U.S. visa actually is… It'll break your poor little heart! :)

Dilbert's author Scott Adams is pro-Trump. Who knew?

I've been following his blog for a while. The pro-Trumpness is evident in quips like,

I made the mistake of turning on CNN yesterday and saw all the hypnotized pundits trying to work the secret persuasion word “chaos” into every comment about President Trump. That’s your tell that none of the pundits are offering independent opinions. They are part of the hive mind led by some uncredited persuader on their side. Someone told them to say “chaos” a lot, and so they do.

Now, the above quote makes no sense at all (particularly when you are used to the way the Dilbert comic strip provides adequate commentary-through-irony on modern urban work environment, it makes me ask: Is this really the same author?), but there are occasionally more elaborated attempts to reason to his conclusion,

Does it make sense to compare President Trump’s performance to past presidents who got a lot done in the first week? Well, maybe, if such a person existed. No one has ever tried moving at Trump’s speed before. We expect the slow-moving traditional leader to create less “chaos” than the entrepreneurial and disruptive leader. But don’t you have to include the benefits in this comparison? The whole point of Trump’s flurry of activity is that he’s trying to create good outcomes. We don’t know if the good outcomes will pan out. All we know is that it was a bit messy at the start.

Is being a bit messy a sign of a problem?

Not if you’re the entrepreneurial, disruptive, candidate of change who just got elected.

So, Scott Adams has the idea that Trump is a businessman and it's good (or at least okay) to behave like a (good) businessman busy with "change".
 
I of course disagree. First, Trump's business record is not good, not even okay. He is a controversial businessman, to put it mildly. Now he is politically disruptive for no other purpose than displaying his arrogance. That may be change compared to politics as it used to be, but is it a change worth having?

An earlier blog post says,

You’re probably seeing the best persuasion you will ever see from a new president. Instead of dribbling out one headline at a time, so the vultures and critics can focus their fire, Trump has flooded the playing field. You don’t know where to aim your outrage. He’s creating so many opportunities for disagreement that it’s mentally exhausting. Literally. He’s wearing down the critics, replacing their specific complaints with entire encyclopedias of complaints. And when Trump has created a hundred reasons to complain, do you know what impression will be left with the public?

The question that I have is: What are we supposed to be persuaded of here? Is it persuasive merely by virtue of being upsetting? What if I am upset only as much as I am upset at any other clown I hear in the news? You realise that Trump is nothing but a clown in a very powerful position, don't you? So what am I supposedly being persuaded of?

And another,

Yeah, it's science... People are irrational and their decisions are based on emotion, influence, and random variables. Reason is mostly an illusion.

Which of the many candidates for president this season is familiar with the SCIENCE of persuasion? Only Trump, until recently. He saved time and money by ignoring the stuff that doesn’t matter (facts) while putting all of his energy into the stuff that does. And it is working.

What is being said here? People are manipulable, therefore it's okay to manipulate? Is that supposed to be good politics or good business? Both?

The thing that is being forgotten on Scott Adams blog throughout: Trump's job is not just to entertain (or persuade, as Adams thinks) American public. Trump is playing on the world arena. And, from this angle, he is playing very badly. Not only is he making enemies at every turn, but he is also making everything to unite those enemies against himself. Quite an achievement for just a week in office.

Trump is not just bad for (international) politics with his outrageous example. He is unambiguously bad for (international) business. He has no redemptive quality.

I wonder what's the world waiting for Americans not be allowed to enter any country.
That's the only action Trump understands. He will understand the meaning of "America first".

The first to not enter will be himself as the one million people English petition already demands...  :lol:

I wonder what's the world waiting for Americans not be allowed to enter any country.

…how they're going to replace the money American tourists bring! :)
The old expression is "cutting off your nose to spite your face".

The simplest reason (why do so many Europeans ignore the simplest reasons? :) ) for the Queen Mum to see Trump during his first year as president is her age; she's past 90, and might enjoy the company of a rascally youth from America!

You realise that Trump is nothing but a clown in a very powerful position, don't you?

Starting by his haircut.

Now, the above quote makes no sense at all (particularly when you are used to the way the Dilbert comic strip provides adequate commentary-through-irony on modern urban work environment, it makes me ask: Is this really the same author?), but there are occasionally more elaborated attempts to reason to his conclusion,

Adams was already posting similar nonsense a decade ago and probably before then. He claims it's some kind of Socratic prodding. Oh yeah, and half a decade ago there was that sockpuppet scandal (http://web.archive.org/web/20111101040337/http://gawker.com/5792583/dilbert-creator-pretends-to-be-his-own-biggest-fan-on-message-boards).

Hmmm... lunatics belong together.

That's one of the problems with people who can't read plain English… :) They think that their preconceptions are the sum of reality.

You can have a world without the U.S., you know! Just be willing to pay for it…

You have a problem with the Trump administration, deal with it. Or not. You can become "isolationists" too! :) After all, you're the real Powers, aren't you?! But if you can't survive four or eight years of a Trump administration, what are you, really?

@ersi: When you ignore the "echo chamber" effect of our main-stream media (…your first quote from and response to Adams) you display your propagandist roots: You know no one will believe you; but you hope to repeat it often enough that people will accept it, without evidence.
BTW: If Allah didn't say it, it ain't true! Right?! Well, if Mohammad said it…

Trump administration is a thing to be survived!
(It wasn't me who said this...) :whistle:

Everything is a thing to be survived… Or not. Your choice.

Wrong. Only dangerous things are to be survived. The others you just get along. No need to survive.

So speaks the voice of ignorance… How do you know what is dangerous?

Simple. If you have to survive it, then it's surely dangerous.

P.S.: Don't take it too seriously. I'm just kidding with your words. I don't need your help to make Trump a joker. He does it by himself.
But I just couldn't help. :jester:

He's stupidly dangerous. Dangerously stupid also fits.
The last thing the world needs, starting by the USA.

I don't need your help to make Trump a joker. He does it by himself.
But I just couldn't help.  :jester:

You do know the derivation of the term "banana republic," right? :)

The last thing the world needs

When did the Portuguese determine "what the world needs"? :) Hell, you can hardly determine what Portugal needs — other than alms from the EU.

When abolishing slavery one hundred years before you did?

Ah! But how long did you have it? :)

You do know the derivation of the term "banana republic," right? :)

No. I found this (http://www.bananarepublic.com). Does it relate to Trump, somehow?

You do know the derivation of the term "banana republic," right? :)

South and Central America's past and USA's future?

How to Culture Jam a Populist in Four Easy Steps (https://www.caracaschronicles.com/2017/01/20/culturejam/)

The whole world’s eyes are on Washington today, and not in a good way. As Venezuelans, we’re looking North with more trepidation than most today, even though — in fairness — the panic over Trump-as-northern-Chávez is premature. A politician is to be judged by what it does in office, not by what he says before he gets there. Beating Chávez historic economic demolition of the richest oil country in the world, during the biggest oil bonanza ever, leaving behind an inflation-ridden, bullet-stricken, hungry, ailing country — is quite an ask. But let’s see what happens.

Because in one way, Trump and Chávez are identical: they are masters of Populism. [...]

For all those who listen, Populism is built on the irresistible allure of simplicity. The narcotic of the simple answer to an intractable question. The problem is now made simple. The problem is you.

How do I know? Because I grew up as the ‘you’ Trump is about to turn you into. I was cast in the role of the enemy in the political struggle that followed the arrival of Chávez, and watched in frustration year after year as the Opposition tried and failed to do anything about the catastrophe unfolding all around. Only later did I realize this failure was, in a significant way, self-inflicted.

And so, some advice:

1. Don’t forget who the enemy is.
2. Show no contempt.
3. Don’t try to force him out.
4. Find a counter-argument. (No, not the one you think.)


[details in linked post]

Betsy DeVos confirmed as EdSec, for the first time having the president of the Senate casting the deciding vote on a cabinet position…

This thread will turn worst than the The American 2016 Presidential Elections & blá blá blá.

Like President Trump, I suggest citizens of the USA not to be allowed to enter. Let's turn decency great again.  :)

South and Central America's past and USA's future?

How to Culture Jam a Populist in Four Easy Steps (https://www.caracaschronicles.com/2017/01/20/culturejam/)

From the link:

But we failed. Because we lost sight that a hissy-fit is not a strategy. The people on the other side, and crucially Independents, will rebel against you if you look like you’re losing your mind. Worst of all, you will have proved yourself to be the very thing you’re claiming to be fighting against: an enemy of democracy

But listening to the people and responding to their concerns is a strategy. The Democrats need to reconnect to the people in the middle states, to get Trump out in four years. Why did people in Ohio and Wisconsin vote for Trump? Did they actually believe Trump would bring their factories back, or something else? The only way to know is to talk to them.

Why did people in Ohio and Wisconsin vote for Trump? Did they actually believe Trump would bring their factories back, or something else? The only way to know is to talk to them.

Didn't the popular vote actually go to Hillary? When will you grow up and understand that votes don't matter? At least they don't in the way you think.

Jeff Sessions confirmed as AG, despite Faux-cohontis's naked grab for fundraising sound bites… :) (Eliz. Warren, the least distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has a long history of silliness.)

@ersi: It's not that the votes don't count; it's that -like in baseball- hits don't determine who wins the game, runs do. We've never had a "hits" election; it's always been "runs"… The Electoral College is what sensible candidates campaign to.
Losers campaign to the popular vote.
Hillary -for reasons even I don't understand- neglected to campaign in some crucial states… Over-confidence? Sure.
I'd might even say hubris! I mean: How could she lose Wisconsin? By getting less votes than her opponent! Oops.

On the Ivanka Trump/Nordstroms kerfluffle:
I just heard the president's spokesman say that it was a "political" decision by Nordstroms… So? That's not against the law. Ivanka's dad can tweet support for her; that's fine, too.
But this has nothing to do with the presidency.

Nothing-burger.

That's a new offering from McDonalds, isn't it?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a9/Mcdonalds-90s-logo.svg/220px-Mcdonalds-90s-logo.svg.png)

Price confirmed as HHS Secretary…

I just heard the president's spokesman say that it was a "political" decision by Nordstroms... So? That's not against the law.

I don't think it was a political decision. The Mercury News (http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/10/photos-what-ivanka-trump-fashion-looks-like/) has a slideshow on her products. Some of the jewelry looks okay most of the clothes are ugly and it does seem probable they didn't sell very well. The coat in slide four looks okay, but there's nothing to distinguish it from other lines.

I'm more than a little surprised, Sang, that this is what you comment about… (But, of course, gay men have always designed women's fashions…) To use the phrase of another: To distinguish Sang's comments from other progressives — well, there's nothing.

Have you an opinion on the 9th Circuit court's opinion? (About Trump's Executive Order regarding immigration and our refugee programs?
I think what the panel did was political, in the sense that they went way beyond their remit: Their only question was standing… (About which I think they were correct, for the wrong reasons…) But they then "argued" the case for the litigants. (It's the 9th Circus, after all!)
I disagree with their opinion. But that's just a disagreement: Courts make these decisions all the time.
(If only I were King… Do you remember -or did you ever see- the wonderful movie: If I Were King (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_I_Were_King)? Basil was actually a marvelous actor. And -just because a story was first proposed as a musical- it might still be worthwhile!

So: Anyone have political arguments we should discuss here? :)

I guess you missed the sales figures for Ivanka's line. Down 35 percent for the year and 70 percent for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th week of October. Of course the brand was dropped with such poor performance.

Mnuchin confirmed as Secretary of the Treasury…
Shulkin confirmed as Secretary of the VA…

And Flynn resigned...

As he should have: A National Security Advisor to the President cannot lie to the Vice President, nor fudge his "recollection"…

I think Flynn would have been good at his job, had he understood it… Kudos to the Trump team for doing the right thing.

The luxury escort first Lady loves gardening.... wau.
 :lol:

This is incredible.

Pruitt confirmed as head of EPA…

As he should have: A National Security Advisor to the President cannot lie to the Vice President, nor fudge his "recollection"...

Don't confuse cannot with shouldn't.

Did Trump make up a terrorist attack "last night in Sweden"? You decide.


The guy is a media junkie and media darling at the same time. Fact indigestion, zero source criticism and vanity in a self-reinforcing mixture at constant open display for the population who unthinkingly swallow everything. Not a good combination. But who am I to judge.

Not related to Trump but to Sweden (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-20/meanwhile-rioting-breaks-out-sweden).

But to connect it back to Trump, what exactly happened in Rinkeby "last night" i.e. last Friday? Yes, there was a riot *yesterday*. Is that what Trump was referring to before it happened? He seems to have fearsome truth-making powers, but it still doesn't qualify as a terrorist attack, more like a dispersal of a violent demonstration by the police, totally unlike the attacks in France.

Well, we can expect one soon, I guess. Trump is always right.

The full quote from the guy currently serving as US President:

You look at what's happening in Germany, you look at what's happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this. Sweden. They took in large numbers. They're having problems like they never thought possible. You look at what's happening in Brussels. You look at what's happening all over the world. Take a look at Nice. Take a look at Paris. We've allowed thousands and thousands of people into our country and there was no way to vet those people. There was no documentation. There was no nothing. So we're going to keep our country safe.

("last night" highlighted) We know, and he has admitted, that this was all based on a program on Fox. Actually a more charitable interpretation would have been that he just made up an attack in Sweden to spice up the speech. This run of event has been revealing for how he processes information, and fits a pattern from both before and after he was elected president. I have discounted the rumour he is suffering from dementia as the same kind of rumour as that Obama is a Muslim, but it is clear he is stupid. Stupid, angry, narcissistic and vindictive. That is a horrible combination for a US president. 

From an Anchor’s Lips to Trump’s Ears to Sweden’s Disbelief (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/world/europe/trump-pursues-his-attack-on-sweden-with-scant-evidence.html?_r=1)



(https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/world/europe/trump-pursues-his-attack-on-sweden-with-scant-evidence.html?_r=1)As for Rinkeby, it isn't that far from here. It's an example of a 1960's suburb, and since 1980's used as the example of an immigrant suburb. It has some things going for it, it is improving, and other things going against it, like the hoodlums yesterday. Immigrants are not making trouble, but their children may be, and that's the case here (presumably). 

What makes this even better (read: worse), at the very same event he said to be speaking "without the filter of the fake news". That's a quote. He's right (and everybody else is wrong and left), because he is like Jefferson, Jackson, and Lincoln who called out the media oftentimes on their lies. That's another quote.

There's a descriptive term for what Trump is doing: Executive Disorder.

He's right (and everybody else is wrong and left), because he is like Jefferson, Jackson, and Lincoln who called out the media oftentimes on their lies. That's another quote.

"People are amazed or disgusted, or both, at today’s “power of the media.” The punch is in that plural, “media”—the twenty-four-hour flow of intermingled news and opinion not only from print but also from TV channels, radio stations, Twitter, e-mails, and other electronic “feeds.” This storm of information from many sources may make us underestimate the power of the press in the nineteenth century when it had just one medium—the newspaper. That also came at people from many directions—in multiple editions from multiple papers in every big city, from “extras” hawked constantly in the streets, from telegraphed reprints in other papers, from articles put out as pamphlets.

Every bit of that information was blatantly biased in ways that would make today’s Fox News blush. Editors ran their own candidates—in fact they ran for office themselves, and often continued in their post at the paper while holding office. Politicians, knowing this, cultivated their own party’s papers, both the owners and the editors, shared staff with them, released news to them early or exclusively to keep them loyal, rewarded them with state or federal appointments when they won.

It was a dirty game by later standards, and no one played it better than Abraham Lincoln. He developed new stratagems as he rose from citizen to candidate to officeholder. Without abandoning his old methods, he developed new ones, more effective if no more scrupulous, as he got better himself (and better situated), for controlling what was written about him, his policies, and his adversaries. Harold Holzer, who has been a press advocate for candidates (Bella Abzug, Mario Cuomo) and institutions (the Metropolitan Museum of Art and various Lincoln organizations), knows the publicity game from the inside, and he is awed by Lincoln’s skills as a self-publicist, that necessary trait of his time. Holzer is also a respected and influential Lincoln scholar who does not come to bury Lincoln with this new information but to wonder how a man could swim so well through the sewer and come out (relatively) clean."
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/11/06/how-lincoln-played-press/ (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/11/06/how-lincoln-played-press/)

Very interesting little article there, Mr. Tennessee. It has a cute print version, folds nicely into pdf and made for an entertaining read in my e-reader on the train.

Trump bashed the "dishonest" media for lies and made-up sources. This just might have prompted some journalists to scan his speech for factuality. And the Sweden detail is what they found. This could simply have been Trump playing the media, yet again, because when doesn't he bash media, reason or none? So they found one error of fact. Who cares. Certainly not the Trump crowd. The net result is that Trump got more publicity, which was his plan.

The real deal would be for opinion piece writers to go after his "agenda" assertions. Because to accuse the media for systemic corruption means only one thing. It's subverting the legitimacy of the power (because media feedback is an accountability check) and, since we have a prominent corrupt system darling doing the accusation here, it means he's conjuring up an imaginary enemy for no reason, demonstrating the lack of restraint in his rule. Therefore going after the "agenda" assertions to reveal his twisted ideology would have been the better journalistic choice.

But as it is, Trump wins. We lose. Oakdale giggles.

But as it is, Trump wins. We lose. Oakdale giggles.

Giggling and losing aren't exclusive. ;)

because media feedback is an accountability check

That function of the media got lost long time ago before most people around the world ever heard of Trump.
And it's not only about 'established' US media. The same applies to the so called 'established' German media.
Basically the pattern of how media feedback is an accountability check didn't change much since during the past century...
So far the article provided by Jim still has its valid points for our days.

Trump bashed the "dishonest" media for lies and made-up sources. This just might have prompted some journalists to scan his speech for factuality.

Funny. So it was just because some 'honest' journalists felt offended?
However it would explain the reason why neither Obama's nor his predecessors' speaches were never checked for factuality by the same 'honest' journalists...

Funny. So it was just because some 'honest' journalists felt offended?

Not because they are honest, but because they are people. The media may be playing its role badly, but without it things would be worse. Just like Trump is playing his role badly, very badly, but without him America would be like a headless chicken and you don't want that in your back yard, do you?

without him America would be like a headless chicken and you don't want that in your back yard, do you?

No, I have no predilection for headless chickens but wait a moment - America in my backyard?
Is Germany great again? I must have missed that.  :no:

Quote from: ersi on 2017-02-22, 21:01:14

without him America would be like a headless chicken and you don't want that in your back yard, do you?

No, I have no predilection for headless chickens but wait a moment - America in my backyard?
Is Germany great again? I must have missed that.  :no:

I was using "backyard" as loosely as I was using "headless chicken". Trump doesn't really qualify as a head and America is no chicken.

Nobody's better than Trump (according to Trump)

I didn't hate his State of the Union. An interesting shift in demeanor if not so much words. Dems response was annoying to me.

Kinda sad I feel like I need to fact check every number the President says but I don't have to crunch the numbers to know he did a bit of reaching. Lots to pay for, but hey - the money is rolling in. :rolleyes:

I didn't hate his State of the Union. An interesting shift in demeanor if not so much words.

Shift in presidential demeanor, compared to past presidents, right? Because there's no shift between Trump back then, whatever point in time, and Trump now.

Well, he didn't mention The Wall_tm or how great he is at winning. So small steps.

Good that Drumpf is going on ahead and sacrificing his minions early on, rather than dragging it out. First Mattis, then Sessions, who will be the next to resign?

Are we going to have another Nixon on our hands?

I want to protest against this thread that discrimantes the poor sad lady besides the super-super-trump-trump-yooo.
I think the first 100 days in office of the woman have been great. Surely beter than her husband. Well, assuming that "husband" is the right term.

sacrificing his minions early on, rather than dragging it out. First Mattis, then Sessions, who will be the next to resign?

What have you been smoking? :)
Neither Mattis nor Sessions have any reason to resign…

Quote from: Colonel Rebel on 2017-03-02, 09:19:38

sacrificing his minions early on, rather than dragging it out. First Mattis, then Sessions, who will be the next to resign?

What have you been smoking? :)
Neither Mattis nor Sessions have any reason to resign…

Never heard of perjury?  Oh now it turns out Pence used his personal AOL account as governor and it was hacked. Yes, those emails contained senstive government information. This is getting more than a little surreal. But at least we ought to be able roast marshmellows on the bonfire of the Trump regime.

Quote from: Colonel Rebel on 2017-03-02, 09:19:38

sacrificing his minions early on, rather than dragging it out. First Mattis, then Sessions, who will be the next to resign?

What have you been smoking? :)
Neither Mattis nor Sessions have any reason to resign…

60-70 hour work weeks, for your information sir. :)

Obviously, I meant to type Flynn, not Mad Dog. Beauregard will be forced to resign.

No, he won't; and there's no reason he should...

On what basis besides blind defense of the Trump regime? It's a known fact he failed to disclose his contact with the Russian ambassador during his confirmation hearings when asked. This alone is more than enough reason. Now we need to find what the contact was. If it was part of his job as he says, there would have been no reason to lie. I'll ask you to keep in mind this is a bipartisan issue.

I'll ask you to keep in mind this is a bipartisan issue.

You can ask even very nicely and make a whole lotta sense, but it's futile with Oakdale. His answer will be, once again something like, "On your planet, Hillary won."

- The hypocritical dissent against Trump -
Only now (many) Americans are realizing criminal aspects of their government.
Many of the protests are justified. So far so good. Trump is not a presentable character. Maybe only Hillary could have been worse but that's not the point.
Where have been the protesters in the past when it was about Chile and Nicaragua? Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib?
Missiles exports were fine under progressist and liberal Clinton & Obama in contrast to a populist and xenophobic Trump.
Where were the protesters during the imperialistic aggressions against Iraq and Libya?
Where were the protesters we are witnessing now? Proof of stupidity or rather the proof of bad faith?
The right answer is apparently another.
Americans oppose Trump but not the imperialistic militaristic and neo-colonial policy of their government. Simply as that.
So it's all about one person called Trump. It shows the amazing power of the guided 'free' media.
'Ethic' bombings praised as humanitarian interventions, Herodes-massacres of children who get bombed in the name of progress are perfectly right - at least as long as they aren't carried out by a sexist homophobe and populist Trump.

At least this time there's a (kind of) unanimity.

At least this time there's a (kind of) unanimity.

Be careful with rashly assumptions. :)

46 US Attys let go… :)

It’s only natural that a president will want his power wielded by his own appointees, whom he trusts to carry out his policy program.

In March 1993, Janet Reno began her tenure as President Bill Clinton’s attorney general by summarily firing United States attorneys for 93 of the 94 federal districts (one, Michael Chertoff, was retained in New Jersey, at the request of Democratic Senator Bill Bradley). That is more than twice as many as Trump attorney general Jeff Sessions fired on Friday.

Indeed, there were only 46 Obama-appointed U.S. attorneys left for Sessions to relieve because Obama appointees fully understood that this is the way things work. Many of them had already moved on, in the expectation that the president elected in November would replace them — an expectation that became a virtual certainty once it was clear that this change of administrations would be a change of parties, and visions.
(read the rest (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445696/jeff-sessions-us-attorneys-firing-isnt-scandalous))

Is anyone suffering "the vapors"? :)

Now Roger Stone admits to talkings to DNC hacker(s) Guccifer 2.0, although he claims the conversation was so banal and meaningless that he had forgotten about it. How many more appointees does Trump have before the impeachment trials begin? At the rate we're going, the chant will be "lock HIM up." I wonder what for, how severe the chargers will be? Treason, anyone?

Keep dreaming, Sang! :) (link (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/323477-top-trump-adviser-admits-to-contacting-dnc-hackers-report) to story…)

Actually in his early days in the White House had an interest in Nixon as it happens. Anyway the present situation in nutjobland political circles over there is frankly head shaking. All those cretins running about - for example cumfy students in California going bananas in the streets, causing damage and all these protests all over the place.  May I remind you lot over there that maybe you should stop sticking chests out yakking about how democratic you are and try growing up.  You had an election and the Democrats lost so maybe someone should explain that is part of democracy. One side loses and they go ape!

Last week on the Net I came across a notice board on a London street outside a pub. The inscription to customers intimated that Americans were welcome if they had an adult with them. kind of sums up the political process. Whether liked or not one side won and the other lost and with all those large numbers voting for that Trump man what does that say?!

Keep dreaming, Sang! :) (link (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/323477-top-trump-adviser-admits-to-contacting-dnc-hackers-report) to story…)

you know that link doesn't help, right? So WTF are Trump advisors doing talking to cyber-criminals? You gotta admit this looks really bad? Did the evidents leading to Nixon's resignation move this quickly?

You gotta admit this looks really bad?

Yes, it does: Die-hard Dems grasping at any straw…
A "deep cover" Twitter exchange! OMG! :) (How long will it be before they revert to Project Majestic type remote viewing and mind reading? :) But, of course, when there's no evidence…some think the "seriousness of the charge" is what necessitates an investigation! —Myself, I doubt the seriousness of such shoddy reasoning, if it can be called that… I'm sticking with my description: wishful thinking.)

Did the evidents leading to Nixon's resignation move this quickly?

What -pray tell!- is the underlying crime? :)

You understand it isn't even just Dems, right? If you really don't know the underlaying crime, you don't what happened. Has it ever been legal to hack State Dept emails?  Hacking the DNC is the modern version of breaking into the DNC HQ in a certain Washington DC hotel... Then there's the issue of Sessions perjury in his confirmation hearings. Perjury itself is a crime. But if he's innocent, why lie? Now Stone had been talking to Guccifer 2.0, WTF for?  But I also read that many who went down for Watergate did so because  their coverups were worse than their original crimes. The Trump people keep lying about who they met and talked to. You know, the same behavior that ultimately brought down Nixon.














 

If you really don't know the underlaying crime, you don't what happened.

It's true: I don't really know what happened — but I have my suspicions! :) (You have your "hopes and dreams".)

Has it ever been legal to hack State Dept emails?

What State Dept emails were hacked?

Hacking the DNC is the modern version of breaking into the DNC HQ in a certain Washington DC hotel...

But whistle-blowing is protected behavior… What evidence (you know, not hearsay) has surfaced, after many months of "investigation" by the FBI? Nada.
The Gucifer 2.0 is an interesting story, for conspiracy theorists. But it's disputed. Where's the evidence?

Then there's the issue of Sessions perjury in his confirmation hearings

I've heard Sen. Franken's question and Sen. Sessions' answer more times than I wanted to… Perjury? :) (Can we charge Franken with buffoonery? Nah. He's not really a senator; he just plays one on TV…)
Wait! Hold the presses! Sen. Sessions and the Russian ambassador to the U.S. may have exchanged Christmas cards! (Ask RJ to substantiate the Vatican's nefarious influence!)
Which reminds me, shouldn't Sen. McCain, who reportedly flew to GB to obtain the "dossier" on Trump's supposed vulnerabilities to Russian blackmail -from an agent of a foreign power, BTW; a former MI (is it 5 or 6?) employee who now specializes in "opposition research" upon which he was working for the Democrats, and "reluctantly" gave it to FBI Director Comey — shouldn't he be charged with treason? Or "whistle-blowing"? Or sour grapes? :)

But I also read that many who went down for Watergate did so because  their coverups were worse than their original crimes.

No, Sang. As usual, you miss the point: The media made this an important story.
It wasn't. The regular police should have handled the break-in; and the FBI should have handled the "bugging"…
The Nixon-led administration had already committed egregious abuses of power, for which impeachment was an appropriate remedy.
(Look at who resigned from the cabinet, and -importantly- why! Nixon tried to use every arm of the federal government for his own political advantage.)

What you really mean is still the same old story: You can't believe and won't accept that Donald Trump won the election…
Your hopes and dreams are what drive your analysis. But you're a lotus eater, in this regard: You can't stop taking the drug.

if you say so. But these aides and former aides of Trump have a lot of explaining to do. You really don't see a problem with Stone being caught messaging the DNC hacker? What if the RNC got hacked? Do you even comprehend that these hacks were criminal acts? Oh yeah, the Watergate burglaries would have illegal regardless of what Nixon did before. (see breaki g and entering are illegal.... ) The main thing you don't understand is this isn't even a partisan issue. There are plenty of. Republicans calling for an investigation.

What you really mean is still the same old story: You can't believe and won't accept that Donald Trump won the election…

Nixon also won the election. But Trump wins over Nixon in ridiculousness, so Trump wins in more ways. You can keep trying to be more ridiculous than Trump, but he is really in a league of his own.

Trump is fake news and this is a fake thread.

Trump is the president of the United States. You may not like that; but your "vote" doesn't matter. (Likewise, Putin leads Russia…)
Do you have anything to say about your country? :) Specially from your expertise…

My vote doesn't matter and my like doesn't matter either. Which is why I don't do voting and liking.

As usual, you miss the point. Trump is an egomaniacal attention whore. His every tweet is idiotic whining accusation against everybody else for his situation - the situation he got himself into for setting up his candidacy for the post he has no competence for. The fact that the post has been granted to him does not change his ridiculous incompetence.

Yes, you have a self-puffing whino for president. Good for you! You deserve him!

Ersi, you left out that he's delusional. Thst includes the rest of his adminstration. Trump falsely accuses Obama of wiretapping him, while being unable to provide evidence of any surveillance. Kellyanne Conway makes that micriwave ovens transform into cameras. This is nuts at this point. Oakdale thinks it's about not being able to "accept" the results of the election (whatever that's actually supposed to mean) while ignoring possible criminal activity by Trump's advisors and delusional statements by Trump himself. If Trump does get impeached, it would still be good for Oakdale in that Pence would still be a Republican and at least would be mentally stable. So why does he insist on defending the most the lunatic Trump.

Trump is the president of the United States.

:lol: (Again?...)

Of course he needs to remind everybody of this repeatedly. The way Trump acts, he can easily be confused for the president of patients in the asylum. He fliptlops so much, it might actually be symptom of dementia instead of lies. It's a little when one's crazy uncle tells elobrate stories from his childhood then tells a story the next day that makes the first story impossible. Or when the crazy uncle demands to be driven to a store, claiming it's his favorite - despite claiming to hate the place the day before. Trump needs to be relegated back to being America"s crazy uncle instead of president.

Funny how govt was evil for Oakdale. He still inertly says so from time to time. But everything that Trump does is good, nevermind that he is the govt now.

Bemoaning and discrediting the outré fantasies of disgruntled Democrats is not quite the same as approving everything Trump does…

BTW, ersi, your idea that Trump is now "the government" shows how little you understand our system. Your own apathy and impotence is a good thing!

Too much government is evil; as is too little… :) Of course, not everyone agrees with that sentiment — until they lose an election.

What has Trump done, to deserve the Democrats' (and the plutocrats' of the Baltics :) ) enmity? Someone please name the crime…
If it's merely policy differences, my response is too obvious to repeat. (Although -for some- it still hasn't sunk in.) If it's personal animosity, that's a private matter, best discussed with a psychiatrist (…I'd prefer you patronize a Freudian practitioner: focus on your "potty training".) If it's fear of losing your swamp, good!

The "resistance" is -like ersi- impotent; their apathy will become evident soon, I think.

The Snoop Doggy Dogg, with his backing chorus line of Leftards, seems to have the answer to losing (blowing) the 2016 Election so, so very badly (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/snapoutofit.gif)  ....its this:



What say you?  (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/imthinkin6.gif)

Bemoaning and discrediting the outré fantasies of disgruntled Democrats is not quite the same as approving everything Trump does?

The way you do it, it is. Your answer to all his flaws is "Hillary lost. Trump won."

BTW, ersi, your idea that Trump is now "the government" shows how little you understand our system.

It shows how little you understand your system. Actually, it shows that you personally don't even have a system.

Too much government is evil; as is too little? :)

A little while ago govt was evil for you without any qualifications. Your ideal is anarcho-capitalism, unrestricted tyranny of the corporations. Corporate power good, govt evil.

The "resistance" is -like ersi- impotent; their apathy will become evident soon, I think.

You can call it "resistance" only if you have no idea what you're talking about. And when you call it "apathy" it only shows you don't hear or see the world around you.

What has Trump done, to deserve the Democrats' (and the plutocrats' of the Baltics :) ) enmity?

Yup, neither seeing or hearing. And not caring to.

Trump falsely accuses Obama of wiretapping him, while being unable to provide evidence of any surveillance.

Judge Napolitano: Obama Wiretapped Trump Without A Warrant (http://yournewswire.com/napolitano-obama-wiretapped-trump/)

Former President Obama had the power to order the NSA to wiretap anyone at any time,

Democrat Congressman Admits ‘Obama Wiretapped Everyone, Even Me’ (http://yournewswire.com/democrat-congressman-obama-wiretapped/)

FISA, created in 1978. So, Nixon had to resign in 1974 only because that thing had not been created yet. Interesting.

This, yet again, means that Trump has no reason to whine:

- There's a statute for unlimited wiretapping, so if it occurred, it was legal.
- In the modern digital world, it's really more like overhearing, not wiretapping.
- Trump is the prez now so he can retaliate in kind.
- There were plenty of reasons to wiretap Trump's circle in the first place, such as his Russian ties and fishy tax and bankruptcy issues.

But Trump whines because he is like that.

Last week on the Net I came across a notice board on a London street outside a pub. The inscription to customers intimated that Americans were welcome if they had an adult with them. kind of sums up the political process. Whether liked or not one side won and the other lost and with all those large numbers voting for that Trump man what does that say?!

It says to me that your lot's pubs will carry on closing at an alarming rate.

I blame Labour and their smoking ban, but also the Tories for upping taxes on various beers.
Granted, 50p beer from Tesco wasn't amazing, but it never ceases to cause amusement over here when I relay stories from my time over there and the amazing prices y'all had on things......now since passed of course, as the Pig Fornicating former PM saw to that, the twat.

I'm chuckling: Sanguinemoon's most oft repeated complaint against the government was that local jurisdictions dictated when and when he couldn't buy beer and booze…
Hence, the whole intellectual support of the so-called libertarian movement: Ya'll just want to do what you want to do. In terms that we no longer use: Hedonism.

Anyone still willing to argue that position?

A little while ago govt was evil for you without any qualifications

ersi, I can't help how inept your reading of my posts are…
But it's not a lack of understanding of English; you're quite proficient. It's the old Soviet mind-set: You can't leave it behind! :)

Since you've decided to tell others that you are not engaged in your own country's politics, what reason is there for anyone to take your opinions about others seriously?
You're a troll!

Since you've decided to tell others that you are not engaged in your own country's politics, what reason is there for anyone to take your opinions about others seriously?

I am informed in my non-voting. You vote uninformedly, based on likes or simply to belong. That's the difference.

You're a troll!

And you're drunk. Start making sense and someone might take you seriously again.

And you're drunk

Ah! Your go-to (what does RJ call it?) swerve… :)
So: What, in your "serious" analysis, has President Trump done to earn your enmity? Don't be shy! Speak up.

Passing smile at your comments Southern laddie and when it comes to twats your country does well with the numbers in desperation, jails, wars created and the real fun of boasting that it is the greatest place to live! Nice try.  :faint:

the real fun of boasting that it is the greatest place to live!

I agree with RJ: Let's shut down immigration! Let these wise and worthy folk go to better places… (Glasgow comes to mind. Howie seems lonely of late… :) ))

The district court of Hawaii determined (by Ouija board, I presume…) that Trump's EO calling into effect a pause in visas and refugee applications -as authorized by the Congress in black-letter law- is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution!
(Something similar happened in another state…) Both judges were Obama appointees. The judge in Hawaii was actually a classmate of Obama's at Harvard… :) (I guess we know why Obama never released his transcripts, eh? I wonder: Was the whole class of such meager mental mettle?)

Surely, everyone here knows that the Establishment Clause has no effect on countries other than the U.S.; that the protections of our constitution apply only to U.S. citizens and legal residents?
Obama appointed at least two judges, one well-known to him, that don't…

But that is precisely what Gorsuch wrote about in his 2005 National Review article: The difference between the U.S. left and right, about "judicial philosophy".
The right sees judging as a dispassionate task.
The left sees it as just another form of politics…

[I've not forgot that I asked you a question, ersi. But there's no hurry…]

I wonder who actually thinks the travel ban from those countries will accomplish anything? All ISIL as to do is send somebody from a different country :p Also note the lack of terrorist attacks from those countries in the US. If any country should be banned, why not Saudi Arabia? Oh, that's right. We need oil from there.

I wonder who actually thinks the travel ban from those countries will accomplish anything?

Perhaps almost every Obama administration national security official… :) Your memory is much like your reading ability: Deficient.
Why should district court judges be given national security responsibilities?

It's in the constitution, isn't it? Nah!

BTW: If the Establishment Clause applies outside the U.S., we should take over Iran, Saudi Arabia — and who knows how many other countries!

You wanna pay for that, Sang? :)

[I've not forgot that I asked you a question, ersi. But there's no hurry…]

You mean this one: "What, in your "serious" analysis, has President Trump done to earn your enmity?"

Malformed question and answered already. I have no enmity with Trump. No feelings whatsoever. None. As to what has he done? Provided an intense fireworks of farce where it's unbecoming. Clowns used to be sidekicks, but right now one is stealing the main show. Details in previous pages.

Perhaps almost every Obama administration national security official...  :)  Your memory is much like your reading ability: Deficient.

That's not quite the same. You could compare it to circumcision and tonsillectomy. The latter is basically the Dutch form of circumcision. I too don't have my tonsils. But! Even though tonsillectomy rates should be way lower, tonsillectomies still only occur in response to an actual swelling, an actual medical problem of some sort as opposed to just cutting them off on the minute chance that someone might later develop a problem with their tonsils. No matter how small they might be in a proper sterile environment, the additional risks of surgery-related complications are ridiculously high. You just don't do surgery unless there's an extremely good reason to. Anyway, in the worst case scenario you're arguing for, Obama's ban is still like Dutch tonsillectomy, an overreaction to an actual issue, whereas Trump's ban is more like American circumcision.

Whew! That's quite a lot of hyperbole to pack into one extended analogy… But, since it fails to capture the essence via comparison, it sheds no light; other than to say you don't like the Executive Order, and -somehow- you think it dangerous.
You're certainly entitled to that opinion.

But extra-legal hoops the judges who stayed the EO are telling, no? :) You're familiar with the term black-letter law?

I fail to see how comparing unnecessary and stupid but mostly harmless medical procedures to potentially destroying people's lives falls under the category of hyperbole, but okay. The point is quite simply that on the one hand you've got a response to actual issue. In the worst case scenario it's the wrong response. On the other hand you've got a completely random action in response to nothing at all. In the best case scenario it won't have any negative consequences.

I would imagine this difference matters in your black-letter law, too. Does it establish the right to implement such measures in response to a concrete fact, or does it establish the right to implement such measures at a whim? And if it is the latter then whatever's in the black-letter law is just plain stupid, because that would mean a would-be *insert your negative leader model of choice* wouldn't even need a pretext.

"potentially destroying people's lives"? Come now, that's hyperbole… There's an absolute right to immigrate to the U.S. or even to visit the U.S.? Or are you arguing that the U.S. should be the World's policeman? And welfare agency? :)

[…] section 212(f) of the INA, which provides in relevant part:  "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."  8 U.S.C. 1182(f).
(source (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states))

(The link is to the March 6 EO in its entirety.)
If you dislike the law, take it up with Congress. They wrote it…

"potentially destroying people's lives"? Come now, that's hyperbole... There's an absolute right to immigrate to the U.S. or even to visit the U.S.? Or are you arguing that the U.S. should be the World's policeman? And welfare agency?  :)

If I, as a white citizen of one of America's closest allies, feel unwelcome in America, it doesn't take a whole lot of empathy to figure out how someone from a less privileged country might feel.^[1] But the hyperbole is not mine. Have you already forgotten this (http://www.vox.com/2017/1/28/14425150/green-card-ban-muslim-trump)?

Trump's immigration ban initially applied to up to 500,000 green card holders
But the Trump administration now says they may return to America from abroad if they pass security checks

Hyperbole shmyperbole. :P

If you dislike the law, take it up with Congress. They wrote it...

"And if it is the latter then whatever's in the black-letter law is just plain stupid." But it's actually not quite that stupid: https://www.cato.org/blog/governments-bad-arguments-defense-discriminating-against-immigrants-based-nationality

but perhaps I'm not Russian enough...

Not Russian enough?
At what degree are you Russian already?  :P

My primary known ancestry is lower French nobility (Huguenots who fled religious persecution), south-German middle class (Ulm region) and namesake Zeelandic (farmers, a preacher, that kind of thing). So I suppose that realistically I'm mainly Zeelandic-Bavarian with a decent splash of French and some more (different) German, but there might be some Russian in there. :P

I'm mainly Zeelandic-Bavarian with a decent splash of French and some more (different) German, but there might be some Russian in there. :P

That's far from being enough or even anything. I'm afraid that you'll have to dig much deeper. Wish you luck. :P

Peter the Great adored the Netherlands for its scientific prowess, for its trade acumen, for building his fleet, for its cheese and for its soused herring. Isn't that enough? :)

Hmm, not really.
If he'd invaded it and kept it for a while, chances for a Russian ancestor would have been much better. :P

He probably fathered my Zeelandic ancestral line (and that of most Dutch people) while being taught how to build ships at the local wharfs, or maybe while he was being taught how to build locks, fortresses, and entire cities. :insane:  :whistle:

But occupation? Never! We'd just driven out the Spanish tyranny. :devil:

You wanna pay for that, Sang?

Did you want to learn anything for once in your life? I didn't think so. Banning those six countries will do little to nothing to stop terrorism. Of course this has nothing to do with establishment clause at all. Banning all Muslim would create that appearance. What happened, you read somewhere tying this to the establishment clause was the liberal position. How many times did I have to tell you, for me it's about what works. Banning countries that have never committed terrorism in the US while allowing travel from countries that produce the most Islamic terrorists is a complete failure, except for ISIS who can use it as a propaganda recruitment tool. Again, what will stop ISIS from sending a terrorist from Saudi Arabia (or any other country of origin from the 9/11 terrorists...) Nothing at all. The travel ban is just stupid crap to make is brain dead supporters (such as yourself) think he's actually doing something. In fact, this could be worse than doing nothing by creating a false sense of security.

What happened, you read somewhere tying this to the establishment clause was the liberal position.

Yeah, I "read somewhere (http://www.hid.uscourts.gov/files/announcement142/cv17-50%20219%20doc.pdf)"… :)

Your speculations about national security and the War on Terror™ are a mish-mash of leftie talking points, Sang. If Obama had issued this order it would have been constitutional but since Trump did it isn't? (Even Alan Dershowitz finds this reasoning odd (http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Dershowitz-Supreme-court-travel-ban/2017/03/18/id/779490/). :) ) But for you it's par for the course…
Carry on, proud resistor!

Guess what, Obama didn't issue the order and it would have been idiotic if he did (explainng why he didn't...) This makes your reasoning odd, not mine.  I don't know if the second order is constitutional or not, but that's immaterial on the matter of if it will accomplish anything or not, besides provide the terrorists anti-american propaganda of course.

My position isn't a mish-mash of anything; it's merely questioning the policy on national security grounds. But you know this if you would stop trying to make up my positions for me. Do us both a favor and stop trying to incorrectly tell me my opinion.

Why are you such s blind Trump worshipper now? You must know in your heart, he's a gigantic ignoramus, the new "know nothing." This guy's job performance combined with his wild conspiracy theories is enough to make one miss Bush.

Guess what, Sang: I quoted Alan Dershowitz... Obviously a right-wing kook who knows nothing about ConLaw! (I guess you no longer follow links. Good practice, for you: You don't seem to understand what you read or hear. Beyond "Trump bad!" that is. :) )
So: You're cool with my source for the ludicrous claim that the second EO can be stayed because it runs afoul of the Establishment clause? :) (Or did you skip that link too?)

I still fail to see the origin of your foreign policy and national security expertise... (CNN or HuffPo, seem likely though.)

I don't know nor care who he is.  Once again, I'm not arguing the establishment clause. But you know this, but are unable to demonstrate that a travel ban on those six countries will do anything to prevent terrorism (again, ban Syria and ISIS can just send somebody from Saudi Arabia - the birthplace of bin Laden...) Next time pay fucking attention

You don't know who Alan Dershowitz is? And you attempt to ridicule my legal understanding? :)

Now I need to "demonstrate" that the President's policy "will do anything to prevent terrorism"? You're the National Security Advisor, now? (Even if so, it's still the President's call...)
Cuss all you want, Sang! It only makes you look sillier...

p.s.,
If you read the opinions written by members of the 9th Circuit about that Court's refusal to re-hear en banc, you'll gain some understanding of why its Panel decision was so bad...

Tut, tut, Language, midnight.  :(

I already chided Sang for his language, RJ; no need to pile-on: He's a child, who needs to be taught. (Unfortunately, he poses as an adult amenable to rational argument…(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/68/87/e6/6887e6d0e1e0283e693e0ac7c610b8fe.jpg)
Sang certainly isn't that! :) )

[I wanted to post the 98lb weakling posing as Bluto… But I didn't find that quickly. Upon refletiion, this works! Sang has some issues… :) ]

No what do you know OakdaleFTL - we have those kind of holiday postcards here too! have to say that swearing is I am afraid a weakness and can happen when a person goes bananas in an argument.  :o

In other words, you agree with Sang and his "98-pound weakling" opinions? But I'd agree: cussing is a sign of acknowledgement that one has already lost the argument…

The argument about President Trump's Executive Orders concerning vetting of immigrants is bizarre: Hawaii and the state of Washington's district court judges should determine national security questions?
I know you don't understand this… But even you should glom that these are not "players"… :)

Oops! There's going to be a ninth Justice on the Supreme Court! I'll admit, that I don't know how Gorsuch will rule — it depends upon the actual case and the facts presented. But my understanding of the relevant law and precedents leads me to believe that the Justice will be in the majority…
And Trump's Executive Order will be upheld.
(Sang will wail "Bwah, Republicans… :) Because everything Democrat is good and everything Republican is bad; that's his level of discourse.)

Dear, oh dear. How did you manage to work out that head scratching thing that I was automatically agreeing with your adversary??!  :faint:

Easy: Y

Dear, oh dear. How did you manage to work out that head scratching thing that I was automatically agreeing with your adversary??!  :faint:

I only know what you post…

And you attempt to ridicule my legal understanding?

I'm ridiculing the fact that you're pretending that I'm discussing the establishment clause when I'm not even close to doing so. When Trump said he was going to ban all Muslims, that would have been against the establishment clause. But since the travel ban is specific countries, it most likely doesn't break the establishment clause. How is this hard to understand? In fact, I do know why this is hard for you to understand - the liberal position is supposed to be that the travel ban breaks the establishment clause. However, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm merely questioning the effectiveness of banning those six countries. Do you get it now? No? Didn't think so.

I was automatically agreeing with your adversary??!

Now you know how I feel when this arguments against me have nothing to do with what I'm actually saying, instead are based on his assumptions of my opinions.

So: You can't be bothered to read District Court Judge Derrick Watson's ruling -which states the complaint and provides the legal "reasoning" for instituting the stay… You're okay with the result, so niceties like the law and the Constitution are beside the point?
And your reason for liking the result is that you don't think the so-called "travel ban" will do anything good?

Want me to e-mail the President to tell him that some guy in Nevada doesn't think his Executive Order will do any good, so he should just shelve it? Is that how it's supposed to work? :)

And your reason for liking the result is that you don't think the so-called "travel ban" will do anything good?

If read my posts instead of trying to make up my positions (and telling me that some guy disagrees with a position that I don't even have :faint: ) you would know.

Is that how it's supposed to work?

No. How it's supposed to work is that he thinks thing through before signing ridiculous executive orders that ISIS can easily get around (as if they're a threat inside the US in the first place...) Don't you see all he does is plays on the fear and ignorance of people like yourself? Maybe that's part of why his approval rating is already in the 30's with none of the traditional "honeymoon" period of incoming presidents. Or maybe that's because he spends every week golfing. Or maybe it's because he espouses outlandish conspiracy theories still. Where's the evidence that Obama wiretapped him? Oh that's right now the loony is accusing the British of doing that for Obama :faint: No evidence for that insanity either.

Or even because of his corruption (I told you before I used to live in the NY/NJ area where he was widely known as a crook. And what is this with his daughter having top level security clearance without even officially having a job in the white house? If you don't have a job requiring clearance, you're not supposed to get it, so WTF?

Where's the blind trust president put their assets in as protection against corruption and misuse of presidential power for personal gain? This guy is completely indefensible. At least with a normal republican president, I can disagree with positions but this guy is the most corrupt/ incompetent president yet of any party. The reason for that verbiage is to include the Whigs, Federalists, Democratic/Republicans and not just the two modern major parties. And yet you support the worst lunatic running the asylum  because he happens to call himself a Republican, even he's not even really that.

Him being president is proof of the failure of the two party system. Howie might have been right this whole time, even though he didn't explain his "wide democracy" idea very well. But carry on supporting your corrupt looney. Maybe one day you'll learn what even many of your fellow Republicans knew about him from the get-go. Or did you think criticism of him only came from the Left, in your colossal ignorance.

ps, if you ban certain countries - it is by definition a travel ban. Get it yet? No quotes required. Did you need me to post the definition of ban for you? Oh I remember now. Right wing blogs said a travel ban isn't a travel ban if it only bans travel from certain countries :faint:

Oh yeah. Trump once said somebody under FBI investigation isn't qualified to run for president. Now he is under FBI investigation and IS president. How does that work?

Shall I take your rambling innuendo point-by-point? (I'd as soon leave it that your talent for mendacity seems to be your only claim on anyone's attention… :) ) Still, here goes:

1. We've already agreed (haven't we?) that you have no interest in the law, up to and including the Constitution… Check.
2. You disagree with the President and his advisors about the import and likely effects of his Executive Order, so it's not "thought through," and "ridiculous" to boot! Got it! That's logic, for you.
3. (A lot of hand-waving…) To be expected…
4. Devin Nunes has a source that may obviate your rhetoric, and support Trump's claim; former Judge Napolitano (the GCHQ angle being his scoop…) has his own source… Time will tell how credible they are. (see CNN's latest (http://http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/22/politics/devin-nunes-trump-communications/); but keep in mind: It's CNN… :) )
5. "Widely known to be a crook" is a standard so loose that it would apply to Jesus Christ… (He did throw the money-changers out of the Temple!)
6. Whether the President can issue security clearances, for whatever reason…I don't know; what reason does he give for granting a clearance to his daughter? (He can unilaterally de-classify info.)
7. Where's the law requiring a blind trust? (Since you missed it, there's no law requiring a presidential candidate or the President to release their tax returns; just like there was no law requiring candidate and, then, President Obama to stay within FEC-set spending limits during his campaigns — since he eschewed federal financing. He gave us the first $2-billion campaign!)
8. Your contention that our two-party system has failed is merely evidence of your continued shock, that Trump won and Hillary lost… :)
9. I guess a pause while we examine our vetting procedures is an itty-bitty ban… Just like a fine for not following the ACA's Individual Mandate is a tax, eh?
(How long before we get into the "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is territory? :) )

Finally, your oft repeated charge that I'm a blind supporter of Trump is, I suppose, supportable; considering I'm usually replying to blind opponents of his… (blind with fury, that is!) :)
I like some of his proposed policies (and dislike others). I still find him to be inarticulate. (I don't read Twitter, so that's not really a problem for me… I'll leave that one to the Twits.)

BTW: How do you explain President Obama's last-minute amending of 12333 (usually referred to as twelve triple-three) granting access of raw NSA intel to all 16 intelligence agencies?
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
About candidate Trump's opinion regarding an actual FBI investigation and Comey's behavior: I guess the Comey see-saw is back to the lying side!

Again (since you seem to have ADHD…), I consider the topic of the legality of the President's "travel ban" EO, and the rogue courts' opinions against it, to be much more important than your qualifications as a military strategist and national security expert… You'd prefer to stay away from topics you know nothing about — to focus on topics you know nothing about!
Typical Democrat.

The functioning of our government and the rules we accept to allow that in relative calm (if not always ease) seems to matter not at all to you: Your "side" must win, or else!
(How else to explain your bizarre contention that Trump's EO is unconstitutional (…yeah, I know you didn't actually say that; you just think that, if you disagree with it, the President shouldn't do it…and the courts should support you), you can ignore the actual court rulings — which other courts have to pay attention to? What country do you think you're living in? Soviet Russia? Communist China? Why not?! That's what you'd prefer, if you were in power.
That's why court opinions matter, BTW. The 9th Circuit's refusal to rehear en banc left a stain that will be hard to eradicate… : What amounts to acceptance of hear-say evidence is enshrined in Circuit Court precedent, in matters of national security and national policy. You don't want rules; you want to rule!) The rule of law requires some understanding of the law, which you lack. But we still have some semblance of fidelity… Oh, never mind! You just want what you want, when you want it! That's your argument.
What you mean is: You should be king! (Queen!?) Supreme Ruler…?
(I full well expect this to be censored — and I'm well aware that no 1st Amendment rights are implicated: If it goes away into the bit-bucket, sobeit!) Sang's main argument against the EO seems to be: Don't upset the Muzzies!)

Would you opine on Senator Feinstein's creation of a "super-precedent"…? :) (Good thing she went into politics! Her Arts History degree hasn't served her well, when contending with learned people! But she's been shielded: She's a Democrat.)

As usual, Sang is slow to reply… (He hasn't had time to see what others are saying, in his circle. So, how could he know what he thinks: It hasn't been "vetted" yet… :) ) Is there anything in his litany that goes beyond "I hate Trump"?
Not that I see.

For Sang. it really comes down to "is it good or bad for Trump". Buyer beware!

Ya gotta admit: This is much longer than my usual post… I expect Sang to exceed it… Or give a two or three-word reply. (He's not very creative.) The only thing he can do is proclaim how much smarter and more informed he is — than us. (That's going to fly like a lead balloon!)
The Dems have staked out their claims. But investigations are on-going… They're -the Dems- skating on thin ice: When the leakers are finally caught, their political leanings will, of course, come up. Intelligence agents have to be pro Democrat? Well. of course! Who controlled the Executive branch…
There will be prosecutions. (Unlike under the Obama administration, where violations of federal law were just reasons to bring race-based reasoning into — well, everything! The prosecutions will be for actual violations of U.S. law. A circumstance that almost all Democrats decry…)

Hey, Sang: Did you notice, Trump won the general election; Hillary lost? :)

BTW: If Sang ever posts anything worth replying to, I'll be brief…

Shall I take your rambling innuendo point-by-point?

[rambling innuendo and general nonsense]

Did you notice, Trump won the general election; Hillary lost? :)

You two should ditch Macs. And probably drinking too.

Ah! The anti-Mac contingent chimes in… Are you a teetotaler too, ersi? :)

But I wonder: Do you have any opinions about the various topics raised here? The Executive Order referred to as an "immigration ban" and it's legality would be a good start. Did you read Derrick Watson's opinion?

Maybe the Democrats need an education review so they might understand who won and who lost the damn election?!

But I wonder: Do you have any opinions about the various topics raised here?

Have you not seen any from me in this thread? This must be a Mac user thing...

The Executive Order referred to as an "immigration ban" and it's legality would be a good start. Did you read Derrick Watson's opinion?

What about it? Am I supposed to dis/like the opinion or does it somehow matter if Derrick Watson dis/likes Trump's dis/order?

The questions you pose about Trump's immigration are irrelevant to this world. Switch to a real OS. The sooner the better. Perhaps too late already.

Ah! I see: The most important question of Trump's first 100 days in office is…what computer operating system posters here use! :)

But what does Trump use? :P

But what does Trump use?  :P

Dixie cups and string? (He's a little paranoid about "wiretapping"…) :) His Android is only for Tweeting!

"Trumpcare" collapsed as the vote is withdrawn. The horrendous piece of legislation that removes access to healthcare to 24 million people while giving the rich even more cuts can go rot in hell where it belongs.

Yup! A clean, complete repeal of the ACA/PPA followed by as reasonable a plan as is politically possible is the way to go…

But you, Sang, prefer to see Obamacare through to the bitter end. BTW: The Democrats now completely "own" it. Are you happy about that?

I'm still sure that Judge Gorsuch will be confirmed; if it takes McConnell invoking the "nuclear option" — sobeit! (Dems are dumb, followers of the herd… Don't they want an easier time stopping the next two appointments? Nah. They think they're going to win big in 2018… :) )

@ersi: The attention you pay nets you the return you deserve. You invest only what you can afford; your meager intellectual capital means you'd likely make, at best, a penny or two… :) Luckily -for your country- you remain uninvolved; otherwise, you'd just gum up the works.
But -again- I ask you: What's your problem with President Trump?!
Don't be shy: Mention the calamities that have occurred as the result of his policies and actions…

Never mind. You know nothing, and prefer it that way.
Heck, you do the same in your own country.

I'm pretty sure Sang wants to say that the administration's failure to "repeal and replace Obamacare" this week is fatal…
Unfortunately, the failure redounds upon the American public; a group that the Democrats have never cared about. Obamacare will crash and burn, if the Republicans don't save it.
The Democrats don't care; and the Republicans can't save it — the Democrat way.

Governing is hard! Being the "opposition" -the Dems will find- is even harder! :)
But they's better get used to it…

But -again- I ask you: What's your problem with President Trump?!
Don't be shy: Mention the calamities that have occurred as the result of his policies and actions…

Trump is fake news. See https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=2527.msg70226#msg70226 and the following.

The attention you pay nets you the return you deserve etc. The power of projection is great in you, dude.

This from the guy who repeatedly denigrates people for, in his words, likes and dislikes replacing "rational" argument… :) ersi, you have no opinion about President Trump and his administration — other than that you don't like him. (I'd say, don't vote for him… :) But since you don't vote, for anyone, what's the point?)
There are policies and actions that matter to some of us; well, maybe just me and Sang… You can't be bothered to know anything about them; except to post non sequiturs — but that's what you do!

BTW: Your attempts to sound hip make you seem like a drug-addled hippie… :) (You're certainly not a surfer dude!)

Certainly 24 million is a lot of people but what about the other tens of millions of others who cannot afford anything?  What happens to them I would like to be informed please.

ersi, you have no opinion about President Trump and his administration — other than that you don't like him. (I'd say, don't vote for him… :) But since you don't vote, for anyone, what's the point?)
There are policies and actions that matter to some of us; well, maybe just me and Sang… You can't be bothered to know anything about them; except to post non sequiturs — but that's what you do!

I didn't say I had no opinion. I said I had no enmity with Trump, no feelings. You evidently think feelings are the same as opinion. (Hmmm, from this perspective, your posts actually make some sense - the way hysterical ladies make sense.)

I have also posted my opinion about his campaign promises, whereof the wall thing has become a policy. It's clear now that you are commenting on my posts without reading them. I won't read yours either anymore.

I'd be generous and assume it's a Mac user thing, but you are making generosity increasingly difficult.

BOMBSHELL: CIA Whistleblower Leaks 47 Hard Drives Exposing Obama Administration Spying (https://wearechange.org/bombshell-cia-whistleblower-dennis-montgomery-leaks-47-hard-drives-exposing-obama-administration-massive-surveillance-of-govt-employees/)

systematic illegal surveillance on prominent Americans, including the chief justice of the Supreme Court, other justices, 156 judges, prominent businessmen such as Donald Trump.

House Intelligence Chairman: Trump’s Transition Team Were Under Surveillance (https://wearechange.org/house-intelligence-chairman-trumps-transition-team-surveillance/)

Comey stated that “Obama political appointees had the ability to ‘Unmask’ American citizens.”

Will this be investigated? Probably not. The prominent "whistleblower" left his government position in 2001… (His reasons were good.) What we have now is a "previous" administration's appointees (and long-time Democratic-leaning civil "servants") bending the law, for the purpose of hindering the current administration…
(Democrats never give up! When they win, they push onward. When they lose, they obstruct, dissemble and propagandize. Of course, they'll have to -eventually- win elections… Will they?
Probably not.)

If you would like a pleasant dictator please let me know. I have a bowler hat for parades and would bring that along for a touch of dignity.

If you would like a pleasant dictator

No thanks, RJ! We just got done with a president who had "a phone and a pen" — and no respect for our constitution…
The new guy will settle in and learn the ropes.

Aw, well, fair enough. It would have been a challenge and a bit like a Glaswegian having to run Edinburgh.  :wizard:

There's lots more going on. But Assad has (…or Russia has) crossed a "red line". Barack Obama's leading from behind strategy is toast. And Putin is between a rock and a hard place…

I don't think we (the U.S.) needs to solve the Syrian civil war. But Russia has required us to do so…
(They want to see how far we will go…) There's a message being sent,

What will Putin's response be?
—————————————————————————————————————
Anyone notice that Sanguinemoon has stopped posting? (Well, Howie's posts tend to have that effect… :) ) But doesn't Sang have something to say?
Nah! He's waiting to see what his "leaders" have decided.
(And they just can't decide… :) )
Heil!

He won't get the joke; but he also won't ever reject the Democratic ideological way of viewing the world.

Guess what? Nobody cares anymore…

What do our European brothers think?
————————————————————————————————
Another thing about Russia's reaction:

Apparently all 50 Tomahawks struck home. Assuming that to be true, several deductions are possible.

First, those are slow missiles. Top speed, about 500 miles per hour. They are very accurate, but they are slow. They were in the air for at least half an hour. They went past areas defended by Russian missiles of SA-6 and newer, any of them capable of shooting down a slow cruise missile like a Tomahawk. It is unlikely that the fleet of 50 Tomahawks, fired in a time on target pattern, were not observed; but so far as I know, not one was intercepted.

(This, from Jerry Pournelle… You can find his stuff easily.)

I'll wait to hear from SecState Tillerson. (Your milage may vary… :( )

Indeed, there's a new sheriff in town. And Putin knows it.

I don't think we (the U.S.) needs to solve the Syrian civil war. But Russia has required us to do so…
(They want to see how far we will go…) There's a message being sent,

What will Putin's response be?

Whatever happened to "Putin has said nice things about me. He respects me!"?

Trump was wrong. And this is not even the worst thing he's wrong about. Every time he tries to set things straight, he makes them worse. Get your popcorn ready.

I don't think we (the U.S.) needs to solve the Syrian civil war. But Russia has required us to do so…

For sure.
Russia has also required you to invade Iraq, to bomb Libya and to stage and heat up the civil war in Syria.

You invaded Iraq without having any solid evidence of Saddam's WoMD existence.
Déjà vu - now you are attacking again a sovereign state without having any solid evidence.

What do our European brothers think?

The USA doesn't give a damn shit on international law when it comes to its own interests.

BTW,
it should be by now Trump's new slogan: "Make America Al-Qaeda's Airforce again"

Guess what? Nobody cares anymore…

What do our European brothers think?

My immediate reaction was: What a Clintonian response. 
Bill Clinton used to do this. To me missile lobbying is indicative of a lack of a long-term strategy, a winning one anyway, combined with the need to make a point.  I am no fan of this, but depressingly it is in the shortlist of least bad options. 

In itself it will not improve the situation, or substantially change it, it does not up the ante. It is a call, to use that parlance.


The reaction is predictable, to retweet:

The Left today are genuinely more outraged by attack on air base that killed no civilians than they are Trump bombing a mosque with kids in.

(and of course in this case "The Left" is interchangeable with "The Right")

Does nobody remember Obama's "Red Line"?
Our military and Russia's and Syria's know where the chemical attack came from: Shayrat airfield. It won't be used for more such attacks…

On a much lighter and brighter note, Judge Gorsuch will be sworn in as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday. And, until the Senate changes its rules again, the unprecedented threat of a filibuster for such a position is gone.

Our military and Russia's and Syria's know where the chemical attack came from: Shayrat airfield.

Blah blah blah, parroting false neocon war pretenses. At least something you are good for.
You didn't got the chance to witness a war on American soil. Who knows, maybe your grandchildren will. I'm sure they would be very proud of their 'brave' grandfather...

"False neocon war pretenses"? :)
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.redstate.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F04%2Fhaley-statement.jpg&hash=00ddc9a9b9fd8e576bfe2a7166b4729e" rel="cached" data-hash="00ddc9a9b9fd8e576bfe2a7166b4729e" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.redstate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/haley-statement.jpg)

"False neocon war pretenses"? :)

Exactly!
Like Obama's "Red Line" you are proudly mentioning.
The Red Line and the Rat Line (https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line)

I find very strange such a chemical attack, with no strategic objective whatsoever, by the Syrian forces the very moment they and their Russian allies are beating the enemy all over the line.
By the contrary I can understand very well the need for inventing a pretext so the rich sick boy can play with missiles. He must be feeling himself a powerfull War Lord.

krake, you might like this (http://blog.dilbert.com/post/159300836386/the-syrian-air-base-attack)… Oh, and what did Clausewitz say? "War is merely the continuation of politics by other means."

I find very strange such a chemical attack, with no strategic objective whatsoever, by the Syrian forces the very moment they and their Russian allies are beating the enemy all over the line.
By the contrary I can understand very well the need for inventing a pretext ...

WMDs In The UNSC - History Repeats Itself, First As Tragedy, Second As Farce

(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.moonofalabama.org%2Fimages5%2FhaleyUN-s.jpg&hash=fd38f63aa3273fcb2480f9808de8b5b2" rel="cached" data-hash="fd38f63aa3273fcb2480f9808de8b5b2" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.moonofalabama.org/images5/haleyUN-s.jpg)

krake, you might like this (http://blog.dilbert.com/post/159300836386/the-syrian-air-base-attack)… Oh, and what did Clausewitz say? "War is merely the continuation of politics by other means."

I was well aware of those reasonings. If I agree with them is another matter.
As for Clausewitz, he omitted to tell that there can be also states who mix up politics with war.
In case of the USA, politics is merely the continuation of wars by other means.

BTW: Andy McCarthy, writing at the National Review, agrees with you (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446546/us-airstrikes-syria-bashar-al-assad-donald-trump-intervention-foreign-policy-error) – mostly. But what his analysis misses is that the U.S. and Syria are signatories to the CWC; and the U.S. has troops (and allies) fighting ISIS in Syria…
Are there to be no consequences for the use of chemical weapons? Surely, you don't suggest that the U.N. do anything…)

His arguments regarding the use of force as per the Constitution is quite weak. But he was an able prosecutor!

Don't we all know what happened to Saddam's WMDs? :) He very convincingly concocted most of them, to keep his generals and his neighbors in line. He managed to convince the intelligence services of France, Great Britain and the U.S., didn't he?

That would in hard fact be easy to do as the West is so damn full of itself and thinks it is the bees knees.

Ah! Of course, RJ. I should have thought of that! Obviously, only the humble who know they know nothing know anything! :) How very almost Socratic of you…

Since I see Rjhowie has warmly and courteously opened up a room for us all (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=2666.0), I suggest we take our party over there. 

The day is increasingly coming hen the ex-colonies will be the last unprincipled place to be cumfy in.

The day is increasingly coming hen the ex-colonies will be the last unprincipled place to be cumfy in.

Your chickens are coming home to roost, Orangeman… (Did you need to spin the wheel and guess a "W"? Too bad, you wound up on Bankrupt!)

So: Who used poison gas at that town and who didn't stop them? (You do know, it's going to come out…)

Nice swerve, coming back to this thread to post… :) Like no one would notice!

BTW: Do you have any GB politicians you like and agree with? Or are you just a Jew and America hater? (You used to be a Muslim hater, too! But when it finally dawned on you how much they hate the Jews, you relented… :) Good-fellows!)

What are your principles, RJ?

You really are such a limited mindset my dear man.

If anyone has a forthright view (especially on the US or Jews then it is automatically a hate thing. Once you leave mental school age and grow up the world might seem a better place.

Howie, your bundle of prejudices don't qualify as a "forthright view"… The idea that I consider a viewpoint "automatically" anything conflates rational discourse with your style ranting.

Well maybe I should just muse that you are full of national prejudice.  You lot wax liberally about being the world's greatest democracy ( :lol: ), full of freedom ( :lol: ), fairness ( :lol: ) . So full of yourselves nationally whilst much of the citizenry would be better living somewhere else! That you are being brained is so obvious to the rest of the world but simpletons don';t see the obvious. :no:

"You lot"? "So full of yourselves"…? :) Oh, and where would "much of the citizenry" be better off living? Russia or Glasgow? :)

Simple answer to both...yes. You lot are hypocrites.  :hat:

Simple answer to both...yes. You lot are hypocrites.  :hat:

And you of course.

You lot are hypocrites.

I don't need to read what you actually posted to support this: It's Americans!

My question would be -for anybody but you- who isn't? (My answer would be anathema to you: American constitutionalists…) You're still sore that we beat King George and became a separate and, eventually, a more important country than yours. But you still think you should be important; hence, your continual funk.

What are your actual problems with the Trump administration?
I suspect you'll eventually say you don't like his hair…

And when you had your revolution it was led by the corporatists of the time and they set up the basis for the same crowd that run the damn place today - NOT the people at all. They only made up a third of the Revolutionary side but had the money and power etc.  When you tried to invade Canada which had the sense not to go your daft way you got thumped and I dare say many of the Canadians who did the routing were ex-Yanks who had left the ex-colonies and wise they were too. For all the utter hypocrisy over that damn bit of paper the wonderful Constitution it was okay as long as you weren't black. Great principles and you have been fighting over the bleeding bit of paper ever since.

When you become a full democracy rather than the big two corporate parties and deal with the tens of million of Americans who are suffering then boast.  Yeah technically a full Republic but a full democracy? Nope.  :down:

For you, RJ, your democracy is a fetish… And your disdain for so-called corporatists is typical, coming from someone who's only ever worked for the government! (Am I wrong about that?

Again I ask -since it's the topic of this thread- what, specifically, is your problem with the Trump administration? (I've previously, in other threads. asked what your problem with the U.S is.… You've never answered. But I understand: Blind prejudice is often hard to justify.) I'll stick with my bet: He gets away with his hair, while you don't get away with yours! :)

You are wrong about my employment history and I only worked for the government for a year. And you try to claim I am wrong about my assertions on your country. Try reading THE LIST I gave you that show the utter hypocrisy. You are ruled by corporates and still re today in both Democrats and republicans while no-one else can get a look in due to that corrupting power. The military is huge and again the military corporate industry clapping it's hands and so on. You just ignored my list because it cannot be properly answered. President trump will get sucked into the routine and has already started. Saying one thing at the hustings then once in power the system controls the leader.

Well over two centuries and still a mess up with millions getting nowhere at all and you just ignore that. Hope you get to the off-licence before closes or you will groan at the truth!  :blush:

It seems that "buy American, hire American" has already disappeared... but no, here comes superman with a law.
The man is great. Fantastic. Huge.
Is it a bird? an airplane? no, it's supertrump!!

Markets are stupid, so they will keep on buying European, Chinese, bla bla and hiring Mexicans for manufacturing lousy American stuff...

As Lowry wrote in National Review:

Trump is a particular kind of hawk. The Jacksonian school is inclined toward realism and reluctant to use force, except when a national interest is clearly at stake. As historian Walter Russell Mead writes, “Jacksonians believe that international life is and will remain both violent and anarchic. The United States must be vigilant, strongly armed. Our diplomacy must be cunning, forceful, and no more scrupulous than any other country’s.”
(source (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446821/donald-trump-syria-not-a-neocon?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Trending%20Email%20Reoccurring-%20Monday%20to%20Thursday%202017-04-18&utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives))

Is that not an arguably sensible position? :)

@Bel: My sister and great nephew are flying a Brazilian designed and made E-175 turbofan jet half-way across the country… I believe in free trade. Tend your garden, would-be gentry! :)
(Of course, its engines were made by General Electric and its avionics by Honeywell… I'm just saying.)

Back at RJ: Our Democrats declared a "War on Poverty" in the '60s, and we've spent trillions of dollars fighting it. Of course, the actual number of those in poverty remains roughly the same.
Isn't it much the same in your country?
(BTW: "Poor" in the U.S. is usually equivalent to Upper Middle Class, in Great Britain… :) )

And -since you don't care what thread you "drop" your posts- I'd ask: What did you do most of your working life? I'd thought you were a government employee; but you answered that you'd only worked one year for the government… What did you do for pay in the private sector?

The second special election since Trump's win:

Massive amounts of money have poured into the Georgia 6 election, with Democrat John Ossoff reporting April 6 that he raised $8.3 million in funds and had $2.1 million on hand as the campaign approached an end.

Republican Judson Hill had the second-most amount of funds raised, reporting $473,000 with $113,000 on hand and Republican and Karen Handel was third in fundraising with $463,000 being raised as of the the reporting date. She had over $183,000 on hand heading into the final weeks.

Polls released prior to the April 18 election indicated that Ossoff would take the election outright, but likely wouldn’t reach the 50 percent necessary to win outright. Handel has been second in all of the polls and led all 11 Republicans in the race. Republicans Bob Gray, Dan Moody and Hill all received similar support in polls.

The election has a nationwide feel to it, as it’s one of the first elections since Trump was elected president. In fact, Trump recorded a robocall that was sent to voters in the district Monday, and he tweeted out later that night with such a crowded GOP field, a runoff would result in a “win” for the Republican candidate.
(source)

Remember, Obama was the only "modern" candidate for the presidency to forego public financing: He spent about $2 billion on his initial election… (Of course, Trump is the only "modern" candidate to not disclose his tax returns… :) )

The previous special election in Kansas resulted in a Republican win. What do the Dems expect?

Is that not an arguably sensible position?

Maybe, but does it describe Trump?

"inclined toward realism"? No.

"reluctant to use force"? No.

"a national interest is clearly at stake"? He doesn't know what a national interest is.

Etc.

Of course, its engines were made by General Electric and its avionics by Honeywell... I'm just saying.)

Probaby made in China... and by the way, Embraer builds their planes at a new modern factory here in Portugal. Except for the passengers theres nothing American at that turbofan. Bon voyage. :)

Trump's economical isolationism and proteccionism, his electoral flag, it's a joke.
The EUA would close doors in a week and not a single job would be created, by the contrary, millions would be destroyed.

The only thing I recognize Trump to be good is at showing how someone with so many million dollars can be such an imbecile.
America - the land of possibilities, indeed.

Trump's first hundred days are up. How to describe it? Commendably, he has shown himself a busy working man. Unsurprisingly, he either silently gives up or loudly denies his campaign promises. Sadly, his style of reality show gets old fast and is losing its entertainment value. Luckily, none of his worst far-out plans have succeeded (yet). Here's a laundry list.

1. He said he wouldn’t bomb Syria. You bought it. Then he bombed Syria.

2. He said he’d build a wall along the border with Mexico. You bought it. Now his secretary of homeland security says “It’s unlikely that we will build a wall.”

3. He said he’d clean the Washington swamp. You bought it. Then he brought into his administration more billionaires, CEOs, and Wall Street moguls than in any administration in history, to make laws that will enrich their businesses.

4. He said he’d repeal Obamacare and replace it with something “wonderful.” You bought it. Then he didn’t.

[...]

6. He said he’d release his tax returns, eventually. You bought it. He hasn’t, and says he never will.

7. He said he’d divest himself from his financial empire, to avoid any conflicts of interest. You bought it. He remains heavily involved in his businesses, makes money off of foreign dignitaries staying at his Washington hotel, gets China to give the Trump brand trademark and copyright rights, manipulates the stock market on a daily basis, and has more conflicts of interest than can even be counted.

8. He said Clinton was in the pockets of Goldman Sachs, and would do whatever they said. You bought it. Then he put half a dozen Goldman Sachs executives in positions of power in his administration.

[...]

11. He said he knew more about strategy and terrorism than the generals did. You bought it. Then he green lighted a disastrous raid in Yemen- even though  his generals said it would be a terrible idea. This raid resulted in the deaths of a Navy SEAL, an 8-year old American girl, and numerous civilians. The actual target of the raid escaped, and no useful intel was gained [Foreign Policy: Donald Trump Needs to Own the Yemen Raid (https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/14/donald-trump-needs-to-own-the-yemen-raid/)]

Etc.

Unfortunately this change of stance from what is said in election campaigns then about facing once in the White House is sadly routine.

Trump's first hundred days are up. How to describe it?

The "rulers of the world" turned into a joke. A bad taste joke.

This is the real triumph of consumerist capitalism, a morone with millions turns into the leader of million of morones...


Even Bush was better than this bimbo.
I believe that many / most Americans don't deserve this.

Well, I'll grant that even a certain Portuguese can count up to a hundred. But he -like most here- will continue this thread: because Trump has done such terrible things — to the world!

Shall we start a new thread for the first 200 days? :)

I believe that many / most Americans don't deserve this.

Your "believes" are usually inane.
Tend your garden! (Don't be tempted by that snake!)

Trouble with America is that too many decent and sensible Americans are stuck with a control system that contradicts the principles!  :blush:

The only real trouble with Scotland is (according to one poster here…) that he isn't in charge! :) The poverty and crime, Jeez, they'd go away overnight, if he were!
Because he's led boys on walks through the forrest. And, really, what else do you need to know — besides what you see on your telly? :)

I read that Americans are waiting to know when Trump will change sex... since he already changed everything he said...  :lol:

Well we Oakdale have forests which one takes it are similar to your "forrests."?A long ago friend of mine got married her then emigrated to America and California. She still groans after decades as to what passes for the word 'democracy.' Her son and his wife visited the democracy of Gt Britain including Scotland and they were overwhelmed with the general difference the wider politics and standards including north of the Border. So much so the couple are now proceeding to ell their house and move to the west of Scotland. My friend their mother and father are supporting them in the move. Trouble is that millions of ex-colonists can't afford to cross their own country never mind try to get out of it!  :hat:

Trump is less interesting than the mass delusion that made him a president.

It may take a long time to be dispelled, far more than hundred days. After the fall of the Wall communism collapsed in the West as well, but it took years. When it happens it is unlikely to do so without taking much of the Republican party down with it.

One observation from the first hundred days is that he seems to have a deep need to be liked and admired. That wasn't all that clear before he got elected, his famously thin skin notwithstanding. It seems the worst scenarios can be avoided, but there are many more chapters to go.

Well I am fed up with all the stuff we get saddled with on television here. The first hundred days programme and others and i do wish they would give it all less time as it is a boring as the hot place. It is an American issue or problem depending on which side one is on over there but for heaven's sake I wish the media here would give us a damn break.

Well I am fed up with all the stuff we get saddled with on television here.

Well, boy-o, your Telly is a government supported and government approved propaganda outlet, like RT and Pravda… You can complain all you want, but they'll still make you pay to watch the bits that you still like.
Do they still make you pay coins in a slot for lights and heat?

Well I am fed up with all the stuff we get saddled with on television here.

There's an off button on your TV. Press it and the problem is solved.  :yes:

If you can't find it, it's usually the same as the "on" or "power" button.

That reminds me of this classic Doe Maar song:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yxt0-G4qtbU

hé er is geen bal op de TV
alleen een film met Doris Day
en wat dacht je van net twee
eine wiener operette nee
er zit een knop op je tv
die helpt je zo uit de puree
druk hem in en ga maar mee
de bloemen buiten zetten

There's jack shit on TV^[1]
only a film with Doris Day
and what about channel two^[2]
eine wiener operette nay!
there's a button on your TV
it'll help you out of the puree
press it and come with
putting the flowers outside^[3]

Oh that snooty smug stuff from Luxor about television buttons. Well smart alex I use the silence button when your wee witch Sturgeon comes on. It is just as well she has high heels so can be seen. When I watched a speech she gave when the carer gave a scene from her rear she was standing on a wee raised board at the lectern! Enjoyed the humour!  :hat:

Oh that snooty smug stuff from Luxor about television buttons

Good grief, knock that chip off your shoulder.  :rolleyes:

Enjoyed the humour!

I seriously doubt that you would know what humour is RJ.

Well I am not as pompous as you poor man and a bit more practical and down to earth.Every time I see your pal the wee witch speaking I used to just laugh but turning the sound down or watching a proper comedy is better. Your lot in with the Green buteers is even a bigger laugh! :hat:

Well I am not as pompous as you poor man […]

:) There's no one in the world I'm familiar with that could make that statement true!
But Howie still thinks I'm a hermit.

Well I am not as pompous as you

Yet you post some drivel, instantly disproving that theory.  :up:

Another example of pomposity nationalistic keech.

No chance of another referendum and the state of the police, Health Service, Education after 10 years of the Brigadoons shows they have reached the zenith. What is it now after the Local elections - only one Council with anyone having overall control?. It is all pumped up emotional midden stuff but at least it gets you on here.  Even in that arrogant mouth Salmond's constituency the anti-Nats did very well. Call me what you like as it will passingly help your grey cells but in practice means hee-haw.

Another example of pomposity nationalistic keech.

???   :troll:

Another very duh answer there folks. Proves my point!

According all international analysts, the White House turned into a lunatic asylum.
This is no good.

Maybe not the white House Belfrager maybe more the way the country is unfortunately in general. Will be surprised if anything comes up about the nonsense regarding Russia.  Maybe the US political brain deads might take up Putin's offer? Maybe not as it doesn't suit their ex-colonial nonsense.

According all international analysts […]

Are they all or only mostly LGBT activists? :)
What "international analysts" do you refer to? And why?
When you refer to "all" you only mean all those you agree with you… Who the hell are you, Belfrager? A citizen of Portugal. Anything else?
Do tell!

When you refer to "all" you only mean all those you agree with you...

All those "you agree with you" it's a very strange concept at the Old World...

Meanwhile Trump keeps on babbling, now at the middle east. Nice place to babble, indeed.
And they even say the man was receiving special lessons to go abroad... fantastic.

Who the hell are you, Belfrager? A citizen of Portugal. Anything else?
Do tell!

Nice inquisitorial style from the New World...  reading Torquemada these days? :)

Some system that can elect a Trump?

I suppose this (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448156/paris-agreement-treaty-requiring-two-thirds-senate-vote) qualifies… :) (Arithmetic doesn't seem to taught anymore. It's still the "first hundred days" for most Democrats; it will stay that way for years! Most leftists in Europe -have we any posters from anywhere else that the U.S., Europe and Great Britain? [Sorry, Broohaha, I didn't mean to sleight Brazil…] They agree with "the Opposition" here in the States: Trump must go!
President Trump has decided to take the U.S. out of the Paris Accord (on climate change…).
The Paris Accord is a typical EU slight of hand move: Capitalism — Bad! America — Bad! Western civilization and progress — Bad!

What actually happened? The street-performers haven't lost their audience. But they've lost their most lucrative passers-by who'd throw a coin into their hat or guitar case… :)
————————————————————————————————————————
BTW: I saw a recent picture of Angela Murkey, and wondered when Paul McCartney became the Chancellor of Germany? :)

I suppose this (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448156/paris-agreement-treaty-requiring-two-thirds-senate-vote) qualifies… :) (Arithmetic doesn't seem to taught anymore. It's still the "first hundred days" for most Democrats; it will stay that way for years! Most leftists in Europe -have we any posters from anywhere else that the U.S., Europe and Great Britain? [Sorry, Broohaha, I didn't mean to sleight Brazil…] They agree with "the Opposition" here in the States: Trump must go!
President Trump has decided to take the U.S. out of the Paris Accord (on climate change…).
The Paris Accord is a typical EU slight of hand move: Capitalism — Bad! America — Bad! Western civilization and progress — Bad!

From behind the link,

Opinion among White House advisers reportedly is split: [...] Ivanka wants to stay [in the Paris Accord], and so does Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

Look at all that leftist scum! Doesn't Ivanka know arithmetic? It takes two thirds of the Senate vote! Well, of course she doesn't know any arithmetic - she's an anti-capitalist Commie who wants Trump to go away. Same for that crypto-democrap Tillerson. They are always undermining American values and Western civilization! But Trump is going to show them real good...

:) It's almost as if you'd read the piece, ersi!
I appreciate your point of view. But your take is much the same as that of the Main Stream Media; anything that can be spun anti-Trump is acceptable! :)
Yes, I believe more than a few in the administration are in favor of the Paris Accord. A few in Trump's family… So?
The phrase "domestic tranquility" does not mean that your immediate relatives and close friends agree with your policy decisions — specially when you're the president of the United States.

Trump's remit is clear. (You don't think so…or, at least, don't think he understands it.) He's done what needed to be done by pulling out of the Paris Accord; next, I'm anxious to see which of the various mechanisms he invokes to finalize that decision…

I'm of two minds: What I'd like best is for him to Just Say No. But there's good reason to give it back to the U.S. Senate, which needs a 3/4 majority to approve a treaty; it's their job, after all.

Too lazy to create a new thread, after earlier (IIRC) pointing out this thread has expired?

What's a treaty in the context of the US constitution should be, and I assume has been, for the courts. If the sentiment is that a single person can't commit a country to an irreversible agreement without a countersignature, I'd agree. The sign & ratify mechanism is fine, and a typical US pattern is that the president sign, and the Congress ratify half a generation or so later.

Is the Paris agreement a treaty? It wouldn't be unreasonable to say that it is, nor would it be unreasonable to say that it isn't. I would tend to the latter. It is an agreement within an existing framework, which the US has already joined. It's a statement of intent, non-binding commitments. In that regards it is not unlike the NATO commitment of member countries reaching 2%GDP expended on military by 2024, or countries pledging to contribute aid to other countries after disasters, aid that may or may not be forthcoming when the time comes. There is no court or adjudication process, like with e.g. the Maastricht Treaty. In short no loss of sovereignty, which I assume is what the US Constitution is about. On the other hand it would develop some transnational structures and a verification process, that can be stuff that treaties are made of.

While the Trump administration has drummed up excitement, reality show-like, will he/won't he, the battle of the Trump advisers, I would be surprised for any other outcome than the one we got. It doesn't benefit the Trump family and it won't make it easier for him to get reelected.

 American psychiatrics are discussing what to do when the President is mentally disturbed...
America is turning worst than North Korea.

Is the Paris agreement a treaty? It wouldn't be unreasonable to say that it is, nor would it be unreasonable to say that it isn't. I would tend to the latter. It is an agreement within an existing framework, which the US has already joined. It's a statement of intent, non-binding commitments.

As usual you're completely out of scope my dear Jax
Paris treaty is simply a civilizational landmark. The most advanced and inclusive one, a step for humankind.
It's not everyday that the Pope publishes an encyclica about it, "Laudate Si" - the Earth as our common House.

Trump's decision should be rewarded with the American tradition of applying the "law of Lynch".

As Macron said, "Let's make Earth great again"...

Covfefe  ???

Sean Spicer told during a White House briefing that a small group of people know what "covfefe" means.
Unfortunately I'm not one of that small group of people who know what "covfefe" means.
I'm afraid that I'll have to look up this book:
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Ffun.drno.de%2Fpics%2Ftrump%2Fmein-covfefe.jpg&hash=bdf3a8c62c3f965d4221a35672129832" rel="cached" data-hash="bdf3a8c62c3f965d4221a35672129832" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://fun.drno.de/pics/trump/mein-covfefe.jpg)

As usual you're completely out of scope my dear Jax
Paris treaty is simply a civilizational landmark. The most advanced and inclusive one, a step for humankind.
It's not everyday that the Pope publishes an encyclica about it, "Laudate Si" - the Earth as our common House.

Trump's decision should be rewarded with the American tradition of applying the "law of Lynch".

As Macron said, "Let's make Earth great again"...

I may be more cynical than you it seems, but politicians' declarations of intent should be taken for what they are. There are no consequences, except perhaps some public pillorying during the years of introspection (2018 and every five years thereafter).

That said, these declarations are still highly important symbolically and practically. They do show intent and direction, and these are believable, as is the underlying technology. That's the big story.

What the US does can still be very damaging (minimal benefits now, long tail of costs), but seen long-term I think Trump is sowing seeds of self-destruction.

What the US does can still be very damaging (minimal benefits now, long tail of costs), but seen long-term I think Trump is sowing seeds of self-destruction.

American top psichiatrists are already discussing what to with a mentally disturbed president.
This is not long-term analysis, the seeds of self destruction are already blooming.

The U.S. can’t quit the Paris climate agreement, because it never actually joined (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/01/the-u-s-cant-quit-the-paris-climate-agreement-because-it-never-actually-joined/)

President Trump is expected to announce today that the United States will not be party to the Paris agreement on climate change. What he should say is that the United States never properly joined the accord: It is a treaty that requires the advice and consent of the Senate. Instead, President Barack Obama choose to “adopt” it with an executive order last September.

Some scholars have gone so far as to argue that the Paris agreement represents an exotic and previously unidentified species of international deal that does not have to be treated as a treaty. But even in this view, if Obama was within his rights to treat it as a non-treaty, Trump would be entirely within his executive rights to interpret it differently — as a treaty requiring Senate consent, which has not even been sought yet.

Some argue that even if Trump’s non-acceptance of obligations under the agreement would be consistent with the Constitution, it would be a breach of an international obligation and weaken foreign trust in U.S. commitments. Yet foreign countries are in no place to complain if the United States insists on treating the agreement as a treaty requiring submission to the legislature — because that is exactly how they have treated it themselves.

Indeed, the real U.S. exceptionalism would be not in Trump’s action, but in Obama’s – in not seeking ratification.

The Wikipedia entry on American exceptionalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism)

American exceptionalism is one of three related ideas. The first is that the history of the United States is inherently different from that of other nations.^{[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism#cite_note-amerExcep-2)} In this view, American exceptionalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exceptionalism) stems from the American Revolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution), becoming what political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Martin_Lipset) called "the first new nation"^{[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism#cite_note-3)} and developing the uniquely American ideology of "Americanism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanism_(ideology))", based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, republicanism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_States), democracy, and laissez-faire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire) economics. This ideology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology) itself is often referred to as "American exceptionalism."^{[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism#cite_note-Lipset1997-4)} Second is the idea that the U.S. has a unique mission to transform the world. Abraham Lincoln stated in the Gettysburg address (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettysburg_address) (1863), that Americans have a duty to ensure that "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." Third is the sense that the United States' history and mission gives it a superiority over other nations.

US attitudes in this field will affect how the US will interact with the rest of the world. While this attitude is unusual, it isn't truly exceptional, there are other nation states in the world with their own form of national exceptionalism. The writer muddies the waters with a purely domestic discussion. 

Incidentally, the Wikipedia entry on weasel words (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word)

A weasel word, or anonymous authority, is an informal term (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_language) for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that a specific or meaningful statement has been made, when instead only a vague or ambiguous claim has actually been communicated.

Speaking of which, the Paris Agreement can be momentous if taken in good faith, but can also be easily subverted if not. Actually the developments across the world, including the US, indicate the former.