The Trump Presidency - how I stopped worrying and learned to love the Hair

Laughs thread is thataway -->

Meanwhile: Dispute erupts over House panel subpoenas for CIA, FBI

Reuters said:
A political feud erupted on Wednesday over the U.S. House Intelligence Committee's probe of suspected Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, with charges that the panel's Republican chairman subpoenaed the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency without telling Democratic members.

Committee aides complained that the chairman, Representative Devin Nunes, who publicly recused himself from leading the Russia probe in April following a secret visit he paid to White House officials, failed to consult Democrats on the subpoenas.

The subpoenas asked the agencies to provide details of any requests made by two top Obama administration aides and the former CIA director to "unmask" names of Trump campaign advisers inadvertently picked up in top-secret foreign communications intercepts, congressional sources said.

The former officials named in the subpoenas were Obama national security adviser Susan Rice, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power and former CIA Director John Brennan.

...

Several U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters that all such requests by Obama administration officials were properly scrutinized and appropriate.

...

The spy agency subpoenas were not mentioned in a bipartisan announcement on Wednesday that the panel approved subpoenas for President Donald Trump's former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, in connection with the Russia probe.

...

Conaway assumed Republican leadership of the probe after Nunes recused himself. Nunes retained his power to issue subpoenas.
Click to expand...

Does that last sentence strike anyone else as a bit odd? I understand Nunes merely recused himself versus leaving the committee, but to have someone recused and retain subpoena power to throw wrenches in a probe seems silly.
 
For the record, 51% of republicans, 75%+ of democrats, and over 65% of undecided/neither are all against this move. He's going a bit rogue here, to join the only two countries on the planet who didn't sign on: Nicaragua (who only didn't join because they said it wasn't strong enough) and Syria (who was/is in the middle of a horrific civil war).
 
NecroJoe said:
For the record, 51% of republicans, 75%+ of democrats, and over 65% of undecided/neither are all against this move. He's going a bit rogue here, to join the only two countries on the planet who didn't sign on: Nicaragua (who only didn't join because they said it wasn't strong enough) and Syria (who was/is in the middle of a horrific civil war).
Click to expand...
But that 51%, including some of our regulars, are 100% of his voters. And that's all he cares about.
 
I'm not sure I understand...or maybe I wasn't clear...LESS than half (49%) of his own party thinks leaving the agreement is a good idea. Over half is against him.
 
NecroJoe said:
I'm not sure I understand...or maybe I wasn't clear...LESS than half (49%) of his own party thinks leaving the agreement is a good idea. Over half is against him.
Click to expand...
OK, I got you wrong there, but I still think he caters only to the 49% (not 51) who think man-made climate change is a myth, or at least, not the government's business. We got at least two of these "libertarian" persons on here...

As the other 51% won't be able to agree on an opposing candidate anyways and the DNC is already busy with digging the party's grave for the next election, these 49% are all Trump needs for four more years. And probably a change to the constitution to make it eight.
 
ahpadt said:
Unsurprisingly, he pulled the plug on the Paris agreement.
Click to expand...

Promises made, promises kept.

I thought the whole "dance" around the issue these last days was unworthy. Trump said quite clearly in the run up to the presidency that he would pull out of Paris (lol), now it turned out he hadn't actually made up his mind yet - or lied about that part either to his voters or the international leaders and stuff like his board of advisors.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/01/media/disney-ceo-bob-iger-trump-advisory-board/
Two CEO advisers walked away from President Trump on Thursday.[...] Top executives have been fiercely critical of Trump's decision on the Paris accord.
Salesforce (CRM, Tech30) CEO Marc Benioff, Microsoft (MSFT, Tech30) President Brad Smith, Google (GOOG) CEO Sundar Pichai and Facebook (FB, Tech30) CEO Mark Zuckerberg all took to social media Thursday to express their disappointment.
Click to expand...
The great negotiator at work ...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...supreme-court-in-attempt-to-revive-travel-ban
Trump goes to supreme court in attempt to revive travel ban
Donald Trump?s administration has asked the US supreme court to allow his ban on travelers from six Muslim-majority nations to come into effect after it was blocked by lower courts that deemed it discriminatory.

The administration filed two emergency applications with the nine justices seeking to block two different lower court rulings that went against Trump?s 6 March order barring entry for people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days while the US government implements stricter visa screening.[...] In its 10-3 ruling the US 4th circuit court of appeals said challengers of the ban, including refugee groups and others represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, were likely to succeed on their claim that the order violated the US constitution?s bar against favoring or discriminating against a particular religion.
Click to expand...
This is going to be interesting ... will the Us Supreme court consider the intent of these executive orders relevant (like most of the lower court cases that were lost by by the government) or will they ignore that part? Or will the Supreme Court even hear the cases? Suspense ...

Question to our Us members - how long does a supreme court case usually take and how long until the court decides if to even take the case or not?
 
Interrobang said:
Question to our Us members - how long does a supreme court case usually take and how long until the court decides if to even take the case or not?
Click to expand...

Depends. Some cases are decided within a couple months, others take years. This one would probably be fast tracked if the Court decides to hear it, although the Court's term is scheduled to end at the end of June and not reconvene until the next term in October. I'm not up on my SCOTUS history enough to know of cases of the Court extending its term or bumping cases to another term to hear another one.

In other news, scientists are bad unless we want to abuse their studies to support our politics, in which case we'll horribly misunderstand the studies and use that flawed understanding as a basis:

Reuters said:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology officials said U.S. President Donald Trump badly misunderstood their research when he cited it on Thursday to justify withdrawing the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement.

Trump announced during a speech at the White House Rose Garden that he had decided to pull out of the landmark climate deal, in part because it would not reduce global temperatures fast enough to have a significant impact.

"Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100," Trump said.

"Tiny, tiny amount."

That claim was attributed to research conducted by MIT, according to White House documents seen by Reuters. The Cambridge, Massaschusetts-based research university published a study in April 2016 titled "How much of a difference will the Paris Agreement make?" showing that if countries abided by their pledges in the deal, global warming would slow by between 0.6 degree and 1.1 degrees Celsius by 2100.

"We certainly do not support the withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris agreement," said Erwan Monier, a lead researcher at the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, and one of the study's authors.

"If we don't do anything, we might shoot over 5 degrees or more and that would be catastrophic," said John Reilly, the co-director of the program, adding that MIT's scientists had had no contact with the White House and were not offered a chance to explain their work.

...

A senior administration official defended Trump's use of the findings. "It's not just MIT. I think there is a consensus, not only in the environmental community, but elsewhere that the Paris agreement in and of itself will have a negligible impact on climate," the official told reporters at a briefing.
Click to expand...

"We'll not contact you about the results of the study, and keep defending our misinterpretation even after you call us out as mistaken."
 
The biggest issue I see is that he wants to pull out now but European leaders are saying it'll take 3-4 years. I don't know if trumpy can handle that.
 
The date it would take place is literally the next day after the next presidential election. In theory, a new president's first order of business could negate the changes and keep out participation intact, the way I understand.
 
NecroJoe said:
The date it would take place is literally the next day after the next presidential election. In theory, a new president's first order of business could negate the changes and keep out participation intact, the way I understand.
Click to expand...

The day after the election just means we know the President-elect. They don't have a say until the inauguration. However, joining the Paris Agreement is rather easy, so it could be a 'get the ball rolling' Day 1 kind of thing.

Truthfully, the biggest damage leaving causes is harm to America's reputation abroad. As I understand it, basically everything about the Agreement except target tracking by an expert panel is non-binding, so Trump could have just kept the US in the agreement but not followed the targets. Leaving is just a big FU to the rest of the world.
 

Caving the instant you get pushback is a sure sign your art/comedy project was all shock value and zero substance. She didn't even try to stand by her words.

Compare her to real comics who can state some (apparently) appalling shit, manage a leary crowd, and then back up what they said.


[video=youtube;rAD-ky3TYQk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAD-ky3TYQk[/video]​
 
Because she apologised, that is what made her wrong?

It would have been funnier during the campaign.
 
First off, she never threatened him. She was mocking what Trump said during the campaign. I am the first to admit that the severed head part was distasteful. But if it were a cardboard cutout that started spewing blood, that would have been hilarious during the campaign.

Why is it the "free speech champions" get all bent out of shape when things get thrown at someone they feel obligated to support? Unpopular speech is what the First Amendment is all about.
 
The hooting, hollering, and applause following trumps withdrawal from the Paris agreement summarizes everything wrong with this country. Fuck these people. I still refuse to acknowledge Trump as President of this country. He can fuck right off and eat a mountain of shit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top