Official Special Investigation Into Trump Thread

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

FalloutJack:

Redryhno:
Snip

Well, it's not going to go away until you listen. I'm sorry, but people don't stop complaining when there's a problem and it only gets worse as the problem gets worse.

"Until you listen". That phrase is so incredibly loaded and you know it.

Complaining doesn't do shit if you don't try to make your case heard coherently by your opposition. But there's only a very tiny minority of people even attempting that. Like seriously, look around on this site alone, how often do you see the people that despise Trump act the slightest bit courteous to anyone that doesn't believe him to be the scum of the earth, or even that they think he might have a positive influence on something for the country during his term?

It's constant bashing, it's not attempting to even allow the opposition to have a space in it all. And "until you listen" is part of the mentality I'm talking about. It's not "until we talk it out", "until we hear each other", or even "until it's heard". It's "until YOU listen". Anti-Trump doesn't have the moral highground anymore in my eyes, not with how they've treated even the people that have just said they voted for the guy because they didn't trust Clinton or the DNC after the Bernie bullshit.

Yeah, there's problems, many, many problems with Trump. I'd honestly be surprised if my prediction before he took office of being a net-neutral and just a setup for better candidates in 4 years actually turned out true at this point. And from where I'm standing, all I'm seeing is just further radicalization. Which means my vote in 4 years will mean even less, because I don't see myself voting for either of the big parties because either they reign in the bullshit(which they never do), or they just go more extreme. Add in how much shit people got(and continue to get) for specifically voting third-party, and you don't have a good choice that might get the whining children in both parties to grow the fuck up and actually do more to get back voters.

But that doesn't mean I stop trying to get it through to anyone that's willing to listen(note, willing) about the mentality and attitude being the biggest rebuttal to any of the ideas presented.

Also, you do remember when people said the exact same thing about Obama right? You remember how that turned out right?

Redryhno:
Complaining doesn't do shit if you don't try to make your case heard coherently by your opposition. But there's only a very tiny minority of people even attempting that. Like seriously, look around on this site alone, how often do you see the people that despise Trump act the slightest bit courteous to anyone that doesn't believe him to be the scum of the earth, or even that they think he might have a positive influence on something for the country during his term?

It's constant bashing, it's not attempting to even allow the opposition to have a space in it all.

Hey! I deliberately try to avoid doing that.

Redryhno:
And "until you listen" is part of the mentality I'm talking about. It's not "until we talk it out", "until we hear each other", or even "until it's heard". It's "until YOU listen". Anti-Trump doesn't have the moral highground anymore in my eyes, not with how they've treated even the people that have just said they voted for the guy because they didn't trust Clinton or the DNC after the Bernie bullshit.

Arguing with voters about who has the moral high ground is a waste of time. Morally speaking, the people who abstained from voting for Clinton because they found her a flawed candidate were taking the moral high ground. That doesn't make their decision any less of a mistake from my perspective.

More generally, who you decide to vote for is the exercise of your perogative as a voter. You can cast a vote for whatever reasons you want. You can vote for Trump because you think it's funny to watch him stumble through press conferences. You can vote for him because you like his hair. But if I were to criticise a voter for casting a stupid vote, it would be on the basis that by doing so, they failed to responsibly exercise that perogative. And if they abstained, well, they're abdicating what little power they have over the political system.

That kind of skin-deep approach to politics...it's not morally wrong. But it's self-defeating, and in a lot of ways I guess it's unethical if you can think of it as a question of voter ethics. If there's a Trump voter out there who cast their vote because they legitimately believed that he would be a good president, I don't want to excoriate that person. Why would I? They're the victims in this scenario; they're the people who got conned. They wanted better healthcare or more jobs or not being blown up by terrorists, which are all very admirable desires, and it's not ultimately their fault that they put their faith and their trust and their votes in the hands of an overrated, narcissistic swindler.

But if there's a Trump voter out there who voted for him because because they hate social justice warriors or whatever, or because they thought it'd be funny, or because they wanted to set fire to the ship of state...well, I won't say that those are bad people. But that's definitely not a responsible use of a citizen's power to cast a vote. It's immature and unethical. That's what I would say to that voter. I would tell them that they need to grow up.

Redryhno:
Also, you do remember when people said the exact same thing about Obama right? You remember how that turned out right?

Look, the difference between what's happening right now with Trump and what happened with Obama is twofold. First, the Republican's criticism of Obama was both hysterical and without merit, whereas the Democrat's criticism of Trump is hysterical but has some merit. Trump genuinely is pretty corrupt; some of his executive orders genuinely are unconstitutional; there genuinely are very suspicious ties between Russia and members of his campaign or administration. In contrast, all the shit about Obamacare death panels was pure fabrication. The legitimate criticisms - the expanded surveillance, the ill-timed Iraq withdrawal, the ramp-up of drone bombings - were very rarely raised by his right-wing critics, and seem super tame in comparison to what Trump is doing or trying to do.

Second, and I hate to say this, but a lot of the criticism to Obama was pretty fucking racist. That whole birther thing - god, Trump was even involved in that, wasn't he - was pretty transparently racist. The stuff about Obama "hating white people" was racist. I'll admit that criticising the first black president of the US was always going to be a bit of a minefield, but there were more delicate and appropriate ways of criticising Obama than what a lot of right-wing media outlets eventually resorted to.

No one should need convincing that Trump is evil. That is why I dont care to try too hard. Anyone who needs convincing, isnt (morally) worth convincing.

Redryhno:
Snip

*Snerk*

Obama? You mean all that stuff about him not being American and crap? Come on, that wasn't even remotely true, but everything here's out in the open and obvious. The two don't even compare.

Anyway, the argument is very coherent. I dunno what your problem is.

On a semi-related note, apparently Trump has stopped considering Joe Lieberman to replace Comey as FBI director.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/joe-lieberman-had-too-many-conflicts-to-be-fbi-director/

Must be because he was a Democrat.

FalloutJack:

Redryhno:
Snip

*Snerk*

Obama? You mean all that stuff about him not being American and crap? Come on, that wasn't even remotely true, but everything here's out in the open and obvious. The two don't even compare.

Republican 1: "Let's make some racist noise about him being an illegitimate president to distract from all the ridiculous shit he's pulling in favor of the banks and how bought he is by the pharmaceutical and insurance lobbies! After all, he's making it very hard for us to say anything reasonable against him when his legislative agenda is to the right of basically any other mainstream conservative party in the world and we're paid by the same people he's doing favors for!"
Republican 2: "I know, let's unironically call him a socialist and propound absolute Social Darwinism like Rand-loving loons! That will allow us to insist on a legislative agenda which is even more favorable to the industries he has been working hard for so we can get more of their money too!"
Republican 1: "We can also hypocritically whine about executive power."
Republican 2: "Oh, good idea. Can't really touch him on the systemic corruption of our political system because we'd be doing the same thing, though, and that shit actually matters."
Media: "Yeah, we'll cover this bullshit (and ignore the criticisms which make both parties look bad). We're paid by the same people you are!"

Redryhno:
But that doesn't mean I stop trying to get it through to anyone that's willing to listen(note, willing) about the mentality and attitude being the biggest rebuttal to any of the ideas presented.

So you see a tactic isn't working, so your solution is to do it even harder while shitting on anyone who doesn't appreciate your efforts. There are healthier ways of wasting your time.

BeetleManiac:

Redryhno:
But that doesn't mean I stop trying to get it through to anyone that's willing to listen(note, willing) about the mentality and attitude being the biggest rebuttal to any of the ideas presented.

So you see a tactic isn't working, so your solution is to do it even harder while shitting on anyone who doesn't appreciate your efforts. There are healthier ways of wasting your time.

More like shitting on anyone that thinks that their opposition is filled with nothing but the worst of humanity and decide that instead of following their own mantra of treating each other with respect, they decide instead to treat them with disdain at best, because morality and "they deserve it".

But yes, you are correct, there are healthier ways of wasting my time. But I like to think that the Escapist can handle having different opinions without everything turning into either shouting matches or the classic passive-aggressive "Oh, you've posted something that was mildly Right before, I'm just going to sit around and mock everything you say and do because you obviously are too stupid to think for yourself, also I'm going to imply you have views that I decide are Neo-Nazi" bullshit. I'd like there to actually be discussion again around here again instead of the game playing that should've been left behind in high school at the absolute latest.

It's exhausting and makes half of what is discussed completely worthless because nobody wants to accept differing opinions, however tame they may be. So you've kinda just got a forum of a bunch of the same people that don't accept anyone that isn't the same as them while claiming to all be unique and have formed their own opinions completely on their own without interference.

Redryhno:
I'd like there to actually be discussion again around here again instead of the game playing that should've been left behind in high school at the absolute latest.

And you think you're accomplishing that with your present course of action? How many converts have you won? How much progress have you made? Yes, this sort of behavior feels validating and empowering for a few minutes, I've been there. But in the grand scheme of things, is it really worth it?

BeetleManiac:

Redryhno:
I'd like there to actually be discussion again around here again instead of the game playing that should've been left behind in high school at the absolute latest.

And you think you're accomplishing that with your present course of action? How many converts have you won? How much progress have you made? Yes, this sort of behavior feels validating and empowering for a few minutes, I've been there. But in the grand scheme of things, is it really worth it?

Well people in this very thread act like their hate of Trump means that he'll be ousted solely because of it, you given this speech to half of R&P yet? Or am I lucky number one? I do so hope that this is the start of a new forum-goer gimmick, we need more of them.

Because if you just want me to shut up, you can say that. No reason to play this "what are you really doing with your life" crap. I don't particularly care either way, this place has been my internet home since 2009, and I'm just looking for anyone to have the slightest bits of their minds and perspectives changed so that maybe we can actually get around to that treating each other with respect idealistic future at some point. Because that kind of shit doesn't just happen because people say they want it.

Redryhno:
-snip-

Okay. Full truth: I honestly believe that you're doing this more to stroke your own ego than for any professed cause and I wanted to see if I could tactfully persuade you to knock it off. Can't win every time.

Peace.

BeetleManiac:

Redryhno:
-snip-

Okay. Full truth: I honestly believe that you're doing this more to stroke your own ego than for any professed cause and I wanted to see if I could tactfully persuade you to knock it off. Can't win every time.

Peace.

Nope, if I wanted internet points and ego, I'd go to a site that actually tracks them.

But I can definitely see why, considering the general disposition of this site the last two years or so.

and the latest news in..

jared kushner along with flynn met with everyones favourite russian ambassador/spy and wanted to set up a secret communications back channel between the trump administration and the russians that wouldnt be monitored by us intelligence

that sounds TOTALLY legit and not in any way suspicious.

also in the news.. the senate intelligence committee asked for all documents, etc for the trump campaign dating back to june 2015

pookie101:
and the latest news in..

jared kushner along with flynn met with everyones favourite russian ambassador/spy and wanted to set up a secret communications back channel between the trump administration and the russians that wouldnt be monitored by us intelligence

that sounds TOTALLY legit and not in any way suspicious.

The most important part of this story is the simple fact that they wouldn't have asked for a communications channel if they weren't already in collusion with Russia prior to that meeting. These people are traitors, plain and simple. And they should suffer the fate of traitors.

pookie101:
also in the news.. the senate intelligence committee asked for all documents, etc for the trump campaign dating back to june 2015

Also in other news, that aluminum magnate and Russian oligarch and organized crime figure Oleg V. Deripaska (seriously, his name would pop up every once in a while in Europe even before the election) asked for immunity for testifying before congress. They said no, because it would make it more difficult for federal criminal investigators to do their jobs.

Adam Jensen:

pookie101:
and the latest news in..

jared kushner along with flynn met with everyones favourite russian ambassador/spy and wanted to set up a secret communications back channel between the trump administration and the russians that wouldnt be monitored by us intelligence

that sounds TOTALLY legit and not in any way suspicious.

The most important part of this story is the simple fact that they wouldn't have asked for a communications channel if they weren't already in collusion with Russia prior to that meeting. These people are traitors, plain and simple. And they should suffer the fate of traitors.

pookie101:
also in the news.. the senate intelligence committee asked for all documents, etc for the trump campaign dating back to june 2015

Also in other news, that aluminum magnate and Russian oligarch and organized crime figure Oleg V. Deripaska (seriously, his name would pop up every once in a while in Europe even before the election) asked for immunity for testifying before congress. They said no, because it would make it more difficult for federal criminal investigators to do their jobs.

wouldnt want to actually make a case now would they

If this latest revelation turns out to be true and if politics doesn't get in the way of justice, quite a lot of people in Trump administration could go to prison for the rest of their lives. It's not an exaggeration. They're violating the Espionage Act. People die in prison for this shit. Pretty much everyone who "forgot" to mention their contacts with Russians could be on the chopping block. Kushner, Page, Stone, Bannon and Flynn would definitely fall. And quite possibly Sessions since he lied about meeting Russians as well. Trump might get away. Despite being a Russian puppet, 60 million people did vote for him. In the interest of national security it might be best to let him resign in peace. But who knows at this point. I'm also not sure what would happen to Pence. It's practically impossible that he didn't know anything, but it's also difficult to prove that he did if there's no evidence of him meeting with the Russians.

Adam Jensen:
If this latest revelation turns out to be true and if politics doesn't get in the way of justice, quite a lot of people in Trump administration could go to prison for the rest of their lives. It's not an exaggeration. They're violating the Espionage Act. People die in prison for this shit. Pretty much everyone who "forgot" to mention their contacts with Russians could be on the chopping block. Kushner, Page, Stone, Bannon and Flynn would definitely fall. And quite possibly Sessions since he lied about meeting Russians as well. Trump might get away. Despite being a Russian puppet, 60 million people did vote for him. In the interest of national security it might be best to let him resign in peace. But who knows at this point. I'm also not sure what would happen to Pence. It's practically impossible that he didn't know anything, but it's also difficult to prove that he did if there's no evidence of him meeting with the Russians.

That really just depend on what happen in 2018 (hint: the republican are almost certainly going to win, so not much will happen) because once politic get into the equation then it really doesn't matter how sever a crime someone commit. Remember Cheney literally shot some guy and didn't get into any trouble and just this week someone punch a reporter and not only he got elected but he also didn't get any criminal charge against him.

The more the Russian scandal grow, the more people who feel disillusion by politic grow in numbers. This means they won't vote and so extremist become more and more important since they do vote, these extremist do not care one bit about all the shit politician do so long as they support there twisted world view ("I don't like Trump but we have to vote for him because otherwise gay will be able to marry!"). I wouldn't be surprised one bit if the whole russian affair just help republican in the long run.

Meiam:
That really just depend on what happen in 2018

This is unraveling way too fast. This scandal's not waiting for the 2018 elections. The entire intelligence community is handling this.

apparently the only comment from the white house is "we have a number of back channel communications with few countries"

pookie101:
apparently the only comment from the white house is "we have a number of back channel communications with few countries"

Of course they do. But this wouldn't have been a back channel. Kushner proposed that they use Russian based secure comms. Russians were supposed to be in control of the system. The only reason you'd want to do something like that is if you wanted to hide your communications from the government. Why would the government want to do that? This is spy shit. Furthermore, because Russians would have been in control of this "back channel", they would have owned all of the communications that went through it and they would have been able to blackmail anyone who communicated with them. Even now we don't really know if they have something damning on Kushner and Trump. We know that Trump continues to behave like he hates the EU and NATO, which doesn't do the US any favors. Putin on the other hand...

Adam Jensen:

pookie101:
apparently the only comment from the white house is "we have a number of back channel communications with few countries"

Of course they do. But this wouldn't have been a back channel. Kushner proposed that they use Russian based secure comms. Russians were supposed to be in control of the system. The only reason you'd want to do something like that is if you wanted to hide your communications from the government. Why would the government want to do that? This is spy shit. Furthermore, because Russians would have been in control of this "back channel", they would have owned all of the communications that went through it and they would have been able to blackmail anyone who communicated with them. Even now we don't really know if they have something damning on Kushner and Trump. We know that Trump continues to behave like he hates the EU and NATO, which doesn't do the US any favors. Putin on the other hand...

out of curiosity do you know if presidents can be charged with treason?

pookie101:
out of curiosity do you know if presidents can be charged with treason?

No.

Treason in the US is actually a very specific crime. It requires that the person provide aid to a state that the US is currently at war with. Not the de-facto war waged whenever a president exploits his position as commander-in-chief to "deploy troops" somewhere; the official declaration-of-Congress type of war. Even during the Cold War, collaborators with the USSR were convicted of espionage, not treason, because there was no official state of war with the USSR.

bastardofmelbourne:

pookie101:
out of curiosity do you know if presidents can be charged with treason?

No.

Treason in the US is actually a very specific crime. It requires that the person provide aid to a state that the US is currently at war with. Not the de-facto war waged whenever a president exploits his position as commander-in-chief to "deploy troops" somewhere; the official declaration-of-Congress type of war. Even during the Cold War, collaborators with the USSR were convicted of espionage, not treason, because there was no official state of war with the USSR.

Can we charge him with espionage, then? The Russia-related questions and scandals are piling up they point to Trump obtaining the new nickname of Mr. Leaky.

FalloutJack:

bastardofmelbourne:

pookie101:
out of curiosity do you know if presidents can be charged with treason?

No.

Treason in the US is actually a very specific crime. It requires that the person provide aid to a state that the US is currently at war with. Not the de-facto war waged whenever a president exploits his position as commander-in-chief to "deploy troops" somewhere; the official declaration-of-Congress type of war. Even during the Cold War, collaborators with the USSR were convicted of espionage, not treason, because there was no official state of war with the USSR.

Can we charge him with espionage, then? The Russia-related questions and scandals are piling up they point to Trump obtaining the new nickname of Mr. Leaky.

Uncertain. To my understanding, it's actually a matter of some debate whether a sitting president can even be indicted and prosecuted, much less convicted. The issue came up in 1998...

The question of whether a sitting President can be indicted and criminally prosecuted has been, for most of the nation's history, an obscure matter for debate among constitutional scholars and legal historians. That changed last week, as it periodically does when allegations of impropriety and possible illegality start swirling around a President.

The inquiry by Kenneth W. Starr, the Whitewater independent counsel, into President Clinton's relationship with a former White House intern raised for the first time since Watergate the question of whether impeachment is the only means of pursuing potential criminal charges against a President or whether the ordinary processes of criminal law can go forward. While the question remains theoretical with respect to Mr. Clinton, in terms of possible charges of perjury, subornation of perjury and obstruction of justice, it was nonetheless being asked here as the unsettling week came to an end.

The short answer to one of the oldest of constitutional questions is that there is no clear answer. The Constitution's text, which sets out procedures for impeaching and removing executive branch officials and Federal judges from office, does not resolve the issue.

Source: New York Times

And again in 2016...

No clear legal answer exists to the question of whether a sitting President can be indicted and prosecuted. The Attorney General's Office of Legal Counsel has considered this issue in depth twice in the past half-century - in 1973, in connection with President Richard Nixon's role in Watergate, and again in 2000, after President Bill Clinton was acquitted of impeachment charges. On both occasions, federal lawyers in the Attorney General's office apparently determined that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President was impermissible and unconstitutional because it would undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.

The United States Constitution provides only for impeachment and is silent on the issue of whether federal officials can be criminally prosecuted while holding office. As a result, analysists are forced to comb through fragments of debates held during the constitutional conventions to discern the Framers' intent with regard to this issue. In 1973 and 2000, lawyers in the Attorney General's Office determined because of the singularly unique duties and demands of the position, a President cannot be called upon to answer the demands of another branch of government - in this case the judicial branch - in the same manner as all other individuals. They concluded as a matter of policy that a President cannot both serve as the nation's chief executive and defend criminal charges.

For sure, the President is not above the law. He is accountable for any misconduct that occurs before, during, and after service to the country. When in service, however, he occupies a unique position within our constitutional order. According to the memorandum written by the Office of Legal Counsel in 1973, a criminal trial empowering a jury of twelve individuals to, in effect, overturn a national mandate as expressed through the election of a President through a guilty verdict is unacceptable. Instead, as written in that memorandum, the decision to terminate the service of a President "is more fittingly handled by the Congress than by a jury, and such congressional power is founded in the Constitution" through the impeachment process.

Source: Forbes

As I understand it, the president has a lot of [unofficial?] immunity to criminal prosecution, and you basically have to wait until a president is removed from office before humoring the idea of convicting the president of a crime. That being said, treason would be a textbook example of grounds for impeachment, as Article II Section 4 flat out cites it as an example. "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors."

well after trumps outstanding visit to G7 and NATO where he didnt ratify article 5 of the nato charter.. the thing about mutual defense the german leader has said ?the times in which we can fully count on others are somewhat over, as I have experienced in the past few days.?

im honestly wondering how much damage he can do before his term ends

apparently someone who was familiar with the planning that went into the NATO meeting said "It's like they're preparing to deal with a child-someone with a short attention span and mood who has no knowledge of NATO, no interest in in-depth policy issues"

pookie101:
well after trumps outstanding visit to G7 and NATO where he didnt ratify article 5 of the nato charter.. the thing about mutual defense the german leader has said ?the times in which we can fully count on others are somewhat over, as I have experienced in the past few days.?

im honestly wondering how much damage he can do before his term ends

apparently someone who was familiar with the planning that went into the NATO meeting said ?It?s like they?re preparing to deal with a child?someone with a short attention span and mood who has no knowledge of NATO, no interest in in-depth policy issues"

I prefer the Jon Stewart term of 'Man-Baby'. Seems to fit with my assertion of 'Mr. Leaky'.

pookie101:
well after trumps outstanding visit to G7 and NATO where he didnt ratify article 5 of the nato charter..

Ah-ah-ah; legal pedantry incoming.

"Ratification," in the terms of international law, refers to the point at which a signatory passes domestic legislation that enforces the obligations of the treaty. Ratification is the only way an international treaty can gain any practical legal weight, as international law does not come before state sovereignty, and if a signatory to a particular treaty never ratifies the treaty, they're under no obligation to ever enforce it or adhere to it.

If I remember correctly, NATO was ratified by the US in the 1960s, and has been a part of US law ever since. That is, America is actually legally obligated - by passage of its own laws - to enforce Article 5 of NATO if it is ever invoked.

Trump did not and cannot unilaterally ratify or un-ratify article 5, because he's the president and he can't pass or repeal laws. Congress could withdraw from NATO, but NATO itself requires that member states give a year's notice before withdrawing from the alliance, so it may technically be illegal for Congress to repeal the law without any warning. (I'm honestly not sure how that interacts with the Constitution.)

What Trump did was conspicuously fail to reaffirm US commitment to NATO under article 5, which he was not supposed to do, as members of his administration and his own spokespeople said beforehand that he would explicitly reaffirm NATO in his speech. He didn't, probably by mistake, and that has the rest of the world in a tizzle because this is what you fucking get when you elect an uncontrollable idiot to the presidency.

bastardofmelbourne:

What Trump did was conspicuously fail to reaffirm US commitment to NATO under article 5, which he was not supposed to do, as members of his administration and his own spokespeople said beforehand that he would explicitly reaffirm NATO in his speech. He didn't, probably by mistake, and that has the rest of the world in a tizzle because this is what you fucking get when you elect an uncontrollable idiot to the presidency.

I'm not so convinced it was a mistake; granted, reports suggest that he was exhausted even after his first day traveling, let alone when he eventually gave that speech, but at the same time the guy's entire persona advocates being the strongest guy in the room, France's new head of state reputedly kicking his butt in handshakes aside. =P Reaffirming the U.S.' commitment to Article 5 plays to that narrative far less than giving every other member state a stern talking to about their expenditures, so it's kind of inevitable he'd go in that direction. I mean, this was a chance for him to read a few dozen leaders of entire countries the riot act while they're standing close by, does Trump's ego really seem like it would pass up the opportunity?

That being said, mistake or not, this is only one of a reported handful of fuckups, including what I'm pretty sure is going to be a metaphor for global politics over the next three and a half years; apparently at the G7 meeting, when the leaders of the other six countries were walking maybe several hundred yards to a spot for a group photo, Trump ended up staying behind... so an electric cart could come give him a ride to the spot instead. xP Now, to be fair, the guy's in his seventies... and his eating habits are horrific... and reports suggest he thinks exercise is actually bad for you in the long run. (Of course, this is a guy who trashed Clinton's supposed lack of stamina, soooo fuck those excuses. =P )

But it kind of makes his rumored cancellation of speaking at an Israeli mountain stronghold more credible, given the reported reason was that he wouldn't be able to land the helicopter directly on the mountain, and would have had to take a cable car up. German media reported that Trump sought to take the country to task for selling automobiles in the U.S., threatening to slap a tariff on em, despite the fact that these automakers DO have factories in the U.S. (The White House denied it, but them denying it has no connection to whether or not it's true. =P )

Then there's other meme-ish stuff like that push, those handshakes, and of course the fact that he's back on Twitter with a vengeance as if reuniting with a cherished lover after a long absence. This might land him in some different hot water, as though he's copiously texted about the Republican win in Montana, fake news, democrats, how awesome he is, some people are asking why in the midst of that spiel he's offered precisely zero words of condemnation for the recent double-homicide in Portland, when a white supremacist (or, at the very least, anti-Muslim,) fellow was hollering and threatening a pair of Muslim women, ended up getting knifed by said fucker for interfering, killing two of them.

bastardofmelbourne:

pookie101:
well after trumps outstanding visit to G7 and NATO where he didnt ratify article 5 of the nato charter..

Ah-ah-ah; legal pedantry incoming.

"Ratification," in the terms of international law, refers to the point at which a signatory passes domestic legislation that enforces the obligations of the treaty. Ratification is the only way an international treaty can gain any practical legal weight, as international law does not come before state sovereignty, and if a signatory to a particular treaty never ratifies the treaty, they're under no obligation to ever enforce it or adhere to it.

If I remember correctly, NATO was ratified by the US in the 1960s, and has been a part of US law ever since. That is, America is actually legally obligated - by passage of its own laws - to enforce Article 5 of NATO if it is ever invoked.

Trump did not and cannot unilaterally ratify or un-ratify article 5, because he's the president and he can't pass or repeal laws. Congress could withdraw from NATO, but NATO itself requires that member states give a year's notice before withdrawing from the alliance, so it may technically be illegal for Congress to repeal the law without any warning. (I'm honestly not sure how that interacts with the Constitution.)

What Trump did was conspicuously fail to reaffirm US commitment to NATO under article 5, which he was not supposed to do, as members of his administration and his own spokespeople said beforehand that he would explicitly reaffirm NATO in his speech. He didn't, probably by mistake, and that has the rest of the world in a tizzle because this is what you fucking get when you elect an uncontrollable idiot to the presidency.

thank you for the clarification :)

LEARNING IS FUN !

lets see..

- trumps personal attorney is being investigated in regards to the russia scandal, he was asked to testify but refused.

- someone has leaked information of intercepted russian to russian communications saying they had derogatory information on trump in regards to finances.

- according to the white house the trip was the completely successful and reaffirmed alliances

- A GOP candidate in portland has said that republican candidates will need private security forces and wants to use right wing milita's to do the job

- the Lexington Herald-Leader a newspaper in kentucky had someone shoot its windows out

While they're at it, let's see if they can find out that the DNC murdered Seth Rich because he was in contact with WikiLeaks.

Delicious Anathema:
While they're at it, let's see if they can find out that the DNC murdered Seth Rich because he was in contact with WikiLeaks.

Yeah, Seth Rich's family would really prefer people not spread that conspiracy theory, please and thank you.

interesting.. trump changed his NATO speech at the last minute remove the reference to mutual defence

altnameJag:

Delicious Anathema:
While they're at it, let's see if they can find out that the DNC murdered Seth Rich because he was in contact with WikiLeaks.

Yeah, Seth Rich's family would really prefer people not spread that conspiracy theory, please and thank you.

And they for finding the killer and against the media burying it.

Delicious Anathema:

altnameJag:

Delicious Anathema:
While they're at it, let's see if they can find out that the DNC murdered Seth Rich because he was in contact with WikiLeaks.

Yeah, Seth Rich's family would really prefer people not spread that conspiracy theory, please and thank you.

And they for finding the killer and against the media burying it.

Well sure. Who wouldn't want police to find out who killed their kid in a botched robbery?

Interesting updates: Former FBI Director James Comey is due to speak Thursday. He is expected to speak more about Trump than Russia because of Mueller's investigation. And CBS has decided to air Comey's testimony live.

http://www.politicususa.com/2017/06/05/trumps-worst-nightmare-true-cbs-air-james-comeys-testimony-live.html

The White House is seeking to minimize any damage Comey's testimony may cause by vilifying Comey any and every way it can.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/336452-team-trump-on-offense-ahead-of-comey-hearing

Some folks are saying this testimonial could be one for the history books.

Delicious Anathema:
While they're at it, let's see if they can find out that the DNC murdered Seth Rich because he was in contact with WikiLeaks.

Even Fox News pulled that conspiracy story after being trounced by the facts. Only Sean Hannity and his fellow conspiracy nuts are pushing the idea that Seth Rich's death was part of some "grand plot" that only "they" have the "courage" to pursue.

Disgusting.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here