Donald's First 100 Days and Before

[the_mango55]

I trust Mattis. I also trust the troops they have been sending here in Eastern Europe. Trump always takes an extreme version and negotiates down. He wants a deal with Russia that's clear and that's not a bad thing.

Mattis was one of Trump's few decent choices to be sure, but if Mattis is telling Trump one thing and Putin (or Bannon) is telling him another, who do you really think Trump will listen to?

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Gee I dunno maybe James mother ing "Mad Dog" Mattis!?
Why would you assume Trump listens to Putin?

[Ludicus]

Why would you assume Trump listens to Putin?

Well, it's the need for narcissistic supply.

[Elfdude]

Most of this EO, if not all of it, is likely legal. And those complaining about it mostly lack the ability to ground their argument in principle because they don't have any. No Obama supporter who defended his EO's can possibly complain about executive overreach today. They can only complain that they lost the election and don't like the consequences of that.

The EO's violate the establishment clause in numerous respects. Now understanding violation of law is an interesting thing which involves an argument convincing a judicial body the number of avenues this can be attacked on are astonishing.

1. Conflict of Interest - Countries left out of the ban are countries with which trump has personal business, oddly these countries are far more responsible for terrorism to the tune of 1000x more than the ones banned.
2. Green card problems - documented residents are guarenteed the same rights as citizens in nearly all cases, this means because of the hamfisted way he wrote the EO and by refusing to review the policy with legislators who could've easily sidestepped this problem trump has opened the law itself open to being invalidated by judicial review
3. It's illegal to bar people entering the country based on nationality as of 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act
4. The ban also bans on the basis of religious affiliation, this is explicitly a no-no since literally the ratification of the constitution in the 1700's
5. The ban also instructs homeland security to made further scrutinization on the basis of religion

That's just that EO, the EO regarding the oil pipelines has resulted in a 1.4 billion dollar lawsuit despite oil company's loving it they also know how to spot details which are illegal and will get every penny from our government over the issue. Regarding several of his executive cabinent members there's further legal discrepancies. Regarding trumps own conflict of interests and business dealings there's further problems. Regarding trump's proposal to tax imports of a single country there's more issues.

All of these things of course depend upon the lawyer arguing the case and the judges hearing it, even so it's unlikely that unless trump can find an extensive number of judges who can ignore jurisprudence and precedence in an intelligent way (doing so in a way which doesn't open them up to further scrutiny) which would require huge stretches that these legal issues can be swept under the rug. Trump has made the critical mistake of writing EO's without consulting the judicial branch with regards to their legality.

According to a Harvard Law Professor, Trump's actions maybe are bad policy (it was certainly badly implemented) but was perfectly lawful. He says Sally Yates made a political decision and delivered her head to Trump and that he has benefited greatly in the excuse to fire her.

A professor emeritus's opinion on law is more or less worthless. His argument is considerably dated and several parts are flat out wrong. Lawyers aren't just volunteering to take on these cases and companies and states aren't just suing the federal government, they're winning their suits for a damn good reason. Even conservative areas with conservative judges have difficulty fending off these cases because there's literally a thousand ways to go after them. If lawyers are ants, trump just threw 10 lbs of powdered sugar at the carpet.

There are a lot of people who don't actually understand what the hell those federal judges actually did. But suffice to say, they didn't make a ruling on their legality/constitutionality (the Constitutional arguments are their own level of stupid). The actions they did take were actually incredibly meager despite the cheering. Which doesn't bode well for those who want Trump to get bench-slapped.

The last time courts had a real case against EO's like this was in harry truman's administration as far as I'm aware. Maybe a dozen cases were tried under the Obama administration all resulting in pretty sound defeats to the challenges precisely because of how careful obama was with writing his EO's. This was in regard to him making appointments without senate approval which the court revoked as overstepping his executive powers.

In some alternate universe, the progressives may learn some key lessons about checks and balances and limited government from a President Trump. Maybe. But it won't happen in this one. It should also be noted that Obama had an awful record before the courts.

This is just false on numerous levels. The way that US law works makes it very difficult even with all the right people in the right places to ignore the issues brought up by Trump's EO's. Worse the regularity of it allows congress to easily justify impeachment when/if they want which is something both sides are happy with. The only thing stopping this right now is that the GOP is curious about trump's popularity. They would much rather have Pence/Ryan in office.

[Basil II the B.S]

Holy .

So Tulsi Gabbard went to Syria, met the opposition, NGOs, various religious groups, actually met Assad and looks like there's actually a way out of the Syrian civil war.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38774701
Tulsi Gabbard's Syria meeting with Assad sparks outcry

https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press...ime-change-war

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard Returns From Syria with Renewed Calls: End Regime Change War in Syria Now

Neocons are in tears, if Trump pulls this off, the entire Western leadership owes him an apology and must kiss his ass. We might as well start demanding back Obama's peace prize, give it to Trump and give a new one to Gabbard.

[Costin_Razvan]

I hope not. I clear understand the still existing authoritarian legacy of the Soviet state in the ex-communist countries - well, let's wait and see.

Not about an authoritarian legacy. We depend on the US for national security and we also look up to the US for helping free us from communism. No Eastern European country will stand against Trump.

All of these things of course depend upon the lawyer arguing the case and the judges hearing it, even so it's unlikely that unless trump can find an extensive number of judges who can ignore jurisprudence and precedence in an intelligent way (doing so in a way which doesn't open them up to further scrutiny) which would require huge stretches that these legal issues can be swept under the rug. Trump has made the critical mistake of writing EO's without consulting the judicial branch with regards to their legality.

The Justice Department's office of legal counsel weighed in on it and called it legal.

[PointOfViewGun]

I could make a short class on who really pays the tax, producers or consumers given elasticity but I guess it would be a waste here.

It's ultimately the consumers that pays for the taxes as the taxes always exist in the price people pay for goods. It's really not a complex phenomenon.

No. It's more about sold outs who lobby for foreign countries rather than USA. You're confusing Trump with Comrade Lenin.

That doesn't make much sense. His cabinet is the establishment, not people that fight it.

Not even 100 days have passed and he already created quite a hurrycane. Do you understand that?

Doesn't address what I said.

[Elfdude]

The Justice Department's office of legal counsel weighed in on it and called it legal.

I'm not even going to go into how our courts work here, essentially speaking the people defending the law have said it's legal (of course they would) now they have to argue it in court.

You mean to say the Justice Department called it illegal then had their acting DA who was about to leave office anyways fired and replaced with a conservative judge after she said it was illegal and would not be defending the EO in court. Now the Justice Department is defending it in court but loosing after 4 separate judges have stayed or struck down parts of it.



Very great, much success, super brilliant

[Costin_Razvan]

You mean to say the Justice Department called it illegal then had their acting DA who was about to leave office anyways fired and replaced with a conservative judge after she said it was illegal and would not be defending the EO in court. Now the Justice Department is defending it in court but loosing after 4 separate judges have stayed or struck down parts of it.

I said that the office of legal counsel in the Justice Department found it a legal order. Yates was on her own. Also no parts of the executive order have been struck down, you didn't even bother to read it did you?

The only thing the courts did was prevent people that were already in the US or on route from being deported. Which was never the aim of the order: It's about reviewing the situation and vetting people coming into the US. They haven't lost anything in court and order stays in place.

[alhoon]

Holy .

So Tulsi Gabbard went to Syria, met the opposition, NGOs, various religious groups, actually met Assad and looks like there's actually a way out of the Syrian civil war.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38774701
Tulsi Gabbard's Syria meeting with Assad sparks outcry


https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press...ime-change-war

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard Returns From Syria with Renewed Calls: End Regime Change War in Syria Now


Neocons are in tears, if Trump pulls this off, the entire Western leadership owes him an apology and must kiss his ass. We might as well start demanding back Obama's peace prize, give it to Trump and give a new one to Gabbard.

She is pretty.
And I can't say that I disagree with her calls to end the regime change war. After the FSA lost, it's Al Qaeda affiliates or Assad. The regime change war was lost for the west-backed moderate rebels around 2014. And those moderate rebels have ceased being moderate in 2013...

I trust Mattis. I also trust the troops they have been sending here in Eastern Europe. Trump always takes an extreme version and negotiates down. He wants a deal with Russia that's clear and that's not a bad thing.

It won't be Mattis' decision though. I agree that Trump doesn't seek escalation and that indeed EE doesn't need escalation with Russia (except Ukraine).
But you have to understand that Germany and USA put German and USA interests first. Trump is more of a pragmatist than Merkel. He is far more likely to leave you dry.

PS. The troops were sent by Obama.

[Costin_Razvan]

It won't be Mattis' decision though. I agree that Trump doesn't seek escalation and that indeed EE doesn't need escalation with Russia (except Ukraine).
But you have to understand that Germany and USA put German and USA interests first. Trump is more of a pragmatist than Merkel. He is far more likely to leave you dry.

Eastern Europe has no trust for Western Europe on the issue. As for the US, we only trust them to extent that defending us fits their interests

[alhoon]

Eastern Europe has no trust for Western Europe on the issue. As for the US, we only trust them to extent that defending us fits their interests

Western Europe has a geographical reason to stand with you though aside of political ones. Trump's USA has less political reasons to stand with you and is far away. If Trump perceives it's of the USA's interests to shut down the bases to cut costs and get lucrative trade deals from Russia, he will have easier time doing it than Germany.

Also, you say "Eastern Europe" a lot. I know they don't love Russia over there but do they really trust Trump? Or that was a fluke in his first days?

And another thing: If Eastern Europe (That's not few people mind you) feels threatened and that NATO \ EU is not enough, they could form defensive treaties between themselves too. Most of the ex-Russia-satellite states fear Russia. Band together and start training soldiers of each other, make a show of support like sending forces to each other's bases and present a united front if Russia starts moving troops.

[ShockBlast]

@alhoon
EU has it`s own defence clause.

National armies of all EU member states, minus UK, have over 1.5 million professional active soldiers.

Individually those states are weak but together there is no one that can crack EU in a conventional war.

[Elfdude]

I said that the office of legal counsel in the Justice Department found it a legal order. Yates was on her own. Also no parts of the executive order have been struck down, you didn't even bother to read it did you?

As for the office of legal counsel, this was performed without senior DOJ leadership (who usually are), it was not reviewed for its broader implications. All the Office of Legal Counsel has really said is that there's a plausibility of arguing it's legality. So far that hasn't meant much for the defense of the EO in court.

Yes I've read the EO. You're just baselessly wrong.

The only thing the courts did was prevent people that were already in the US or on route from being deported. Which was never the aim of the order: It's about reviewing the situation and vetting people coming into the US. They haven't lost anything in court and order stays in place.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...n-immigration/

Four separate rulings. Each was contested, each ruling represents a loss by the justice department to defend the EO.

Here's a good thorough rundown of parts of it that are questionable and why and which avenues can be attacked and why and how:

https://news.northeastern.edu/2017/0...l-refugee-ban/

[Basil II the B.S]

She is pretty.
And I can't say that I disagree with her calls to end the regime change war. After the FSA lost, it's Al Qaeda affiliates or Assad. The regime change war was lost for the west-backed moderate rebels around 2014. And those moderate rebels have ceased being moderate in 2013...

The FSA regularly shared territories with Al Nusrah (Al Qaeda) and fighters switched banners endless times. Let's not delude howerselves about the moderate opposition.

Even Kurds aren't ''moderates'', they are just not as crazy as pretty much all the Gulf funded groups, which in comparison make them moderates.

Well see how this plays out.

It'd be interesting to know what exactly Trump told to the Saudi King a few days ago, I wasn't exactly enthusiast about that, but I trust Gabbard but than any other player involved.

[alhoon]

The FSA regularly shared territories with Al Nusrah (Al Qaeda) and fighters switched banners endless times. Let's not delude howerselves about the moderate opposition.

They were fighting each other, they didn't trade territories, they lost them. Assad correctly surmised that if he beats the moderates, the West will step back. And a few years of seeing your friends and family killed is enough to make one stop being a moderate.

@alhoon
EU has it`s own defence clause.

National armies of all EU member states, minus UK, have over 1.5 million professional active soldiers.

Individually those states are weak but together there is no one that can crack EU in a conventional war.

I don't disagree with that, but if the Eastern Europeans are afraid that Germany and France would let them be bullied, not conquered, bullied by Trump (despite NATO and EU) then they could also band together.

[Costin_Razvan]

Western Europe has a geographical reason to stand with you though aside of political ones. Trump's USA has less political reasons to stand with you and is far away. If Trump perceives it's of the USA's interests to shut down the bases to cut costs and get lucrative trade deals from Russia, he will have easier time doing it than Germany.

Also, you say "Eastern Europe" a lot. I know they don't love Russia over there but do they really trust Trump? Or that was a fluke in his first days?

The only worry Eastern Europe has ever had is that Trump would abandon us to Russia, but we've never trusted that Western Europe would defend us. You can argue with me on this but I am merely telling you how people feel overall, and it affects governments as well.

No country in the East will oppose Trump on anything given the thousands of American troops in our borders to protect us. Europe is very divided at the moment. It's all Merkel can do to get Hollande to support her in a show of European unity.

National armies of all EU member states, minus UK, have over 1.5 million professional active soldiers.

Individually those states are weak but together there is no one that can crack EU in a conventional war.

Active solders means little. Germany's military is in shambles. France is deployed overseas in Africa and the Middle East. Spain is in shambles...Italy has deep internal divisions.

The strength of a military alliance doesn't come from raw numbers.

[alhoon]

The only worry Eastern Europe has ever had is that Trump would abandon us to Russia, but we've never trusted that Western Europe would defend us. You can argue with me on this but I am merely telling you how people feel overall, and it affects governments as well.

I know, but are you sure that's what the situation on the ground now? Like opinion polls and all?

[Costin_Razvan]

I know, but are you sure that's what the situation on the ground now? Like opinion polls and all?

Just look at how Eastern European leaders and their reactions on Trump. Opinion polls are meaningless: Most people around here couldn't give a damn about US internal policy. We only care how it affects us directly.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/01...mmigrants.html

If Trump keeps US deals with Eastern Europe every government will back him and if he really wants to force a contentious fight on the issue he'll win that fight. Who knows maybe he'll be that brick you guys in Greece have been waiting to hurl in Merkel's face.

[fkizz]

It's ultimately the consumers that pays for the taxes as the taxes always exist in the price people pay for goods. It's really not a complex phenomenon.

You're confusing law with economics.

That doesn't make much sense. His cabinet is the establishment, not people that fight it.

Well your definition of "establishment" was Rich People, so either define it better or there's not much ground to say whatever. He is passing (or trying to, let's see) laws for those who lobbied on behalf of foreign interests.