45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. (Vol 4)

[Byker28i]

Tartan Pixie said:

Byker28i said:

This ones sneaking in today whilst trump is stiring the st at NATO. He's signed an Executive Order to end competitive selection process for Administrative Law Judges, making them political appointees who can be fired at will (and probably appointed).


Oh and add to that tomorrow the Senate is expected to vote to confirm Benczkowski as Asst AG. He would be in the line is succession should Rosenstein get fired The problem? He worked for Kremlin-linked Alfa Bank that the FBI was investigating as part of Russia probe

Is there no check or balance on this, can one of the houses not introduce a bill or something? This is full on banana republic stuff.

Not if you control the supreme court

The declaration (because thats what it is)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/ex...

The order cites the recent Supreme Court decision Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, in which the court found SEC administrative law judges are considered “inferior officers” under the Constitution and, as such, are subject to the Appointments Clause. It pulls administrative law judges out of the competitive service where they are vetted by the Office of Personnel Management and into a more traditional appointment process.


https://www.govexec.com/management/2018/07/trump-m...


Then of course there's his other executive order
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/ex...

which provides an exception from competitive service hiring rules for the appointment of criminal investigators and deputy U.S. marshals within the U.S. Marshals Service, which the White House said is needed “to better hire and retain qualified individuals in certain duty locations.”

This is why trumps questions all the govt employees (that he sees as his employees) as to whether they are loyal to him and he gets rid of those he perceives aren't. Which is why the positions of power are full of his cronies who aren't capable of doing anything but supporting him.

Just a reminder from a NY time article in June 2016
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/opinion/campaig...

[Byker28i]

Nanook said:

I know it's not fashionable to deal with real facts and figures in this thread, when the alternative is a bit of bashing, but read what's there. All of it. Then read it again.

The 2% figure is something they're already supposed to be meeting. And were already supposed to be meeting before today, before 2014, before 2006.

So now NATO have reiterated a need to try and reach this 2% figure by 2024, which is fine and dandy, but not really the point that's being made.

It'sexactly the point being made b trump and the trumpettes are lapping it up as usual.
The 2% spending target is not a current commitment but a goal set for 2024, still six years away. No one is "delinquent" or owes the US any payments.

[Davos123]

Eric Mc said:

He wouldn't have turned his attention to it only for the fact that he wants to butter up Vlad.

Don't masquerade wild speculation and opinion as fact. A theme of Trump's presidency has been him attacking nations based on a perceived (real or not) unfairness to America - this is a very obvious example of that, to suggest it's because of Putin seems tenuous at best.

[Eric Mc]

Davos123 said:

Eric Mc said:

He wouldn't have turned his attention to it only for the fact that he wants to butter up Vlad.

Don't masquerade wild speculation and opinion as fact. A theme of Trump's presidency has been him attacking nations based on a perceived (real or not) unfairness to America - this is a very obvious example of that, to suggest it's because of Putin seems tenuous at best.

You really think that?

Nothing more needs to be said.

[Byker28i]

Davos123 said:

Eric Mc said:

He wouldn't have turned his attention to it only for the fact that he wants to butter up Vlad.

Don't masquerade wild speculation and opinion as fact. A theme of Trump's presidency has been him attacking nations based on a perceived (real or not) unfairness to America - this is a very obvious example of that, to suggest it's because of Putin seems tenuous at best.

Tell you what - lets look at The White House's records of Trump's conversations with Putin, whether conversations in person or by telephone
We can't because they are nonexistent (never produced), incomplete, or misleading. Other conversations went undisclosed, denied until revealed.

We don't have any idea what he's raised with Putin. We certainly can't believe what he tells us, because the only thing important to trump is his personal fortune and his ratings

[Byker28i]

Eric Mc said:

Davos123 said:

Eric Mc said:

He wouldn't have turned his attention to it only for the fact that he wants to butter up Vlad.

Don't masquerade wild speculation and opinion as fact. A theme of Trump's presidency has been him attacking nations based on a perceived (real or not) unfairness to America - this is a very obvious example of that, to suggest it's because of Putin seems tenuous at best.

You really think that?

Nothing more needs to be said.

NATO is a force multiplier to anyone who challenges the Western order, the non nuclear deterrent, that its members stand together, like we did for USA in september 2001.
The only person a weakened Nato helps is Putin and his expansionistic ideas. trumps doing his bidding, which keep his political and financial help flowing in midterms and 2020, and keep the lid on all the dirt Putin has on Trump & his circle.
Probably.

[Davos123]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

2014 is when they committed (loosely) to a deadline. The target has been about since 2006 but 8 years of countries doing precisely fk all to meet it led to a target date being set. 4 years on and nations still aren't ramping up their spending enough to realistically hit it.

I think the target is bullst but people here are acting like NATO members have been genuinely committed to it and trying their hardest to reach it - that's not true.

[Davos123]

Byker28i said:

Davos123 said:

Eric Mc said:

He wouldn't have turned his attention to it only for the fact that he wants to butter up Vlad.

Don't masquerade wild speculation and opinion as fact. A theme of Trump's presidency has been him attacking nations based on a perceived (real or not) unfairness to America - this is a very obvious example of that, to suggest it's because of Putin seems tenuous at best.

Tell you what - lets look at The White House's records of Trump's conversations with Putin, whether conversations in person or by telephone
We can't because they are nonexistent (never produced), incomplete, or misleading. Other conversations went undisclosed, denied until revealed.

We don't have any idea what he's raised with Putin. We certainly can't believe what he tells us, because the only thing important to trump is his personal fortune and his ratings

Agreed. So we probably shouldn't make assertions that he's doing something for Putin when we don't really have any idea. His treatment of NATO appears to be entirely in line with his MO of strong-arming countries into making concessions that benefit America (at least according to him) I don't see there's any particular reason to think he's trying to collapse it for Putin. If he was trying to do that he'd have just withdrawn already.

[Byker28i]

More and more comes out about the deal with Kennedy to retire

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-anthony-kennedy-br...

Now not that trump has shown anything other contempt for any of the laws supposed to be governing the POTUS, or even he constitution, but trump getting Kennedy to retire so he could nominate a favourable replacement surely would be bribery covered under Article 2 Sec 4

[Byker28i]

Davos123 said:

Byker28i said:

Davos123 said:

Eric Mc said:

He wouldn't have turned his attention to it only for the fact that he wants to butter up Vlad.

Don't masquerade wild speculation and opinion as fact. A theme of Trump's presidency has been him attacking nations based on a perceived (real or not) unfairness to America - this is a very obvious example of that, to suggest it's because of Putin seems tenuous at best.

Tell you what - lets look at The White House's records of Trump's conversations with Putin, whether conversations in person or by telephone
We can't because they are nonexistent (never produced), incomplete, or misleading. Other conversations went undisclosed, denied until revealed.

We don't have any idea what he's raised with Putin. We certainly can't believe what he tells us, because the only thing important to trump is his personal fortune and his ratings

Agreed. So we probably shouldn't make assertions that he's doing something for Putin when we don't really have any idea. His treatment of NATO appears to be entirely in line with his MO of strong-arming countries into making concessions that benefit America (at least according to him) I don't see there's any particular reason to think he's trying to collapse it for Putin. If he was trying to do that he'd have just withdrawn already.

We have a POTUS who's open to bribery because of secrets held about him. Already shown with porn stars, probably will be shown when cohen testifies that the broidy payment was also connected for trump. A POTUS who'd been very favourable to russia, refusing to implement sanctions, actively seeking Putins praise. A POTUS who tried to relax china sanctions when they favourably fund one of his asian businesses. A POTUS who's in the pocket of many people, many countries.

He's been heavily played by Kim and blustered over it, he's been out manouevered and needs to recompense Putin as he sanctions won't be dropped. Those sanctions that affect Putins pocket and especially the oligarchs that keep him in power.

The Steele dossier has been right about everything so far, the meetings, the money trail, only the kompromat and the actual linking of money laundering is left. As with everything, the cover-up is much, much bigger then the crime.

[Byker28i]

We haven't even discussed facebook getting the maximum fine here (just about 15 mins operating profit in the UK)
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/11...

Just to sum up for the hard of reading.
Facebook broke the law.
Cambridge Analytica broke the law.
Vote Leave broke the law.
LeaveEU broke the law.
Brexit and Trump were both won through breaking the law.
Facebook let it all happen and covered it up.

[Byker28i]

This is interesting

http://confirmkavanaugh.com/wp-content/uploads/201...

One of the former Kavanaugh clerks signing a letter of endorsement for their old boss is Philip Alito, son of Justice Samuel Alito, who just happened to be very supportive of trumps muslim ban,

[ajprice]

Caption competition?...

[Prolex-UK]

ou sont les biscuits said:

Nanook said:

Why 2%?

Because, as I understand it, it was what NATO decided the figure should be a long time ago. This figure isn't a new thing.

As for your example, are there really any governments or MOD/DODs out there that are stupid enough to do that? I don't think so.

I was just commenting, some people seem to be insinuating that Trump's being a bit of a dick for suggesting that America are paying more than everyone else. Really, he's saying that the agreement was that every NATO member, regardless of size, has agreed to contribute 2% of GDP towards defence, for the 'greater good', and that most countries are not pulling their weight.

I've found a reference to the 2% 'target' from 2006, but I'm sure it's been around longer than that. Albeit a 'target' than a rule, but I don't see what's wrong with expecting other NATO members to contribute fairly.

I don't see what's wrong with expecting the POTUS to behave diplomatically. Look at this tweet from the Orange Buffoon a few hours ago.

POTUS Tweet said:

The European Union makes it impossible for our farmers and workers and companies to do business in Europe (U.S. has a $151 Billion trade deficit), and then they want us to happily defend them through NATO, and nicely pay for it. Just doesn’t work!

Basically, he's using the 2% as blackmail.

Why does nobody point out to the orange twunt that 2 % of GDP means fk all to NATO expenditure ? By anyone I mean head of state

[anonymous-user]

As I've said before, UK MoD only meets the 2% by recently including war pensions previously included in accounts by DWP.

But 2% is balls anyway and 4% just ridiculous, primarily this is simply trying to drum up sales for the US defence industry. That the US piss away money on useless and unnecessary military kit is their issue but the rest of the world don't need or want to be dragged into it. They positioned themselves as world police so they can fund it.

[Europa1]

ajprice said:

Caption competition?...

"Quick, whilst he's looking the other way - can you see that hilarious giant, orange skinned baby floating over London"

[JonChalk]

Trump is now saying he wants NATO members to contribute 4%

[roachcoach]

Nanook said:

No-one owes the US any money, I've not seen anyone with half a brain suggesting so.

Trump said:

Many countries in NATO, which we are expected to defend, are not only short of their current commitment of 2% (which is low), but are also delinquent for many years in payments that have not been made. Will they reimburse the U.S.?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1016729137409486853


Although I do agree with your sentiment, which I took the liberty of bolding

[Byker28i]

I see Manafort tried to get out of jail on bail again, saying that being two hours away from his attorney was affecting his ability to efend himself.
The judge reaslised he only wanted bailoffered to move him to a closer jail, only it wouldn't be so comfortable, so Mannafort declined...

In doing so Manafort admitted by default that his original claim of being too far away from his lawyers was nonsense. This is a good way to alienate the judge when it comes to other upcoming rulings ahead of the trial, rulings similar to those many that he's lost so far...

[Byker28i]

ajprice said:

Caption competition?...

"Would all Putins puppets look to their right..."