Anyone want a Hilary or Donald 3

[Craiglxviii]

Trump has a tame Congress, most likely a tame Supreme Court, and the vocal support of bigoted right wing news outlets like Fox News.
Obama faced obstruction at every point. Its not a like for like comparison, you'd need to go back to the 1960's to have a Democrat President in this position.

Trump also has the highly vocal opposition of the Liberal Progressive Left who are attempting, very publically throughout all sectors from the public to the bureaucracy of government, to prevent a peaceful transfer of power. Why else do you think the Acting A-G, and a High Court judge, both came out with political criticism of government policy? Why do you think there have been organized marches (hint- who organized the marches? Read up on George Soros.)

Obama's answer to the obstruction he faced was to push through EOs using the majority Democrat Congress (255: 179) during his first term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress. One of the major ratifications of this Congress was NEW START which further reduced strategic weapons- at the expense of the US. NB Russia during this time brought into service a completely new fleet of ICBMs- not that this sort of thing has any bearing on the global balance of power though eh?

During the next Congressional term, the Democrat minority worked to make it the least productive since the end of 1945, with record low approval ratings. This then got even worse in the NEXT term.

So it would be more correct to say that under Obama's terms, he managed to effectively stall Congress and push through Executive Orders over their heads.

 

[davemercedes]

Well, today's the day for Trump's next legal hoop.

Forecast of results anyone?

 

[Naraic]

He'll lose the gist of it...but will claim an outstanding victory.

 

[Craiglxviii]

Well, today's the day for Trump's next legal hoop.

Forecast of results anyone?

There was a very interesting explanation given on R4 news yesterday morning of the situation. That is to say, the judge in question had no legal standing to oppose the ban, and cited a number of primary precedents. I forget the details of these, but they all point back to the fact that the legality of the executive order is based on existing, already-approved legislation.

Nolan Rappaport, Immigration Law Expert on the House Judiciary Committee for the last 3 years (e.g. not a Trump appointee) says:

The EO uses the president’s authority under section 212(f) to suspend the entry of nationals of Syria from the refugee program until it has been determined that the new screening procedures are sufficient “to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.”

Syria has been on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list since that list’s inception on December 29, 1979. Countries are put on this list when the State Department has determined that they have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.

The State Department also has found that, “Syria is a source and destination country for men, women, and children subjected to forced labor and sex trafficking.”

A federal judge has granted an emergency stay request from the American Civil Liberties Union to bar the deportation of people with valid visas who landed in the U.S. after the EO was issued.

Frankly, I do not understand this judge's order. The issuance of a visa does not guarantee an alien’s admission into the United States. In fact, this is explicitly stated on the State Department’s Frequently Asked Questions site About Visas - The Basics.

"After I have my visa, I will be able to enter the U.S., correct?

"A visa does not guarantee entry into the United States. A visa allows a foreign citizen to travel to the U.S. port-of-entry, and the Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) immigration inspector authorizes or denies admission to the United States."

Nevertheless, it is apparent that the EO will inconvenience many people who are coming here for legitimate purposes, and that is unfortunate.

On the other hand, it also is apparent that President Trump did not exceed his statutory authority over alien admissions with the directives in the EO, and that he issued it to protect the United States and its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States.

 

[Craiglxviii]

The ACLU is a Progressive Liberal institution, run by Democrats by the way.......... founded by a Communist to boot.

So... Trump's first really politically divisive EO gets held up in the courts by a judge (who has already declared, "black lives matter") based on the appeal of the opposition to the Presidency who have already said that they will openly challenge a peaceful transition of power.

Interesting.

 

[prwales]

He did that by reducing the size, depth, capability and freedom of action of the US military to a significant degree. The extent of that degree can be seen by the new Administration's plans on revitalizing it.

spin spin spin

 

[Craiglxviii]

spin spin spin

Present an argument to counter it then, if you're capable?

 

[Frontstep]

that really is rubbish and you know it, Obama reduced the actions of the US Military by an enormous extent compared to George Bush

No the fact is Obama bombed these countries,
reducing the amount of your guns but shooting more people wouldn't sway most objective people that you were going down a pacifist route.

Letting more bad people do bad things does not persuade me either.

Lets face it whatever side of the political divide your on Obama (with mitigation granted) failed on many things.

 

[prwales]

all political careers end in failure, its down to historians to do the retrospective, perhaps its a little too early to judge Obama

 

[Xtractorfan]

all political careers end in failure, its down to historians to do the retrospective, perhaps its a little too early to judge Obama

So what about our own Loser, slick sleazy lying Dave... We do seem to have a thing for PM's who have a problem telling the truth and doing down those who would try and be honest about the situation.

 

[prwales]

better than Blair but worse than Brown?

 

[davemercedes]

better than Blair but worse than Brown?

Oh no, for chief liar Harold Wilson was the champ.

I remember a two page article in the London Evening Standard (admittedly almost neurotically Tory in those days) that was titled "The Man & The Promise". Underneath the heading they listed lots - maybe a hundred of things he/or his ministers had said along with the actual truth. But the public then as now were gullible and he went on lead us into the dark days of the 2-Day Week while having beer and sarnies with trade union leaders at No 10.

He was the one who devalued the pound (before it was a floating currency) and made that lying speech about "the pound in your pocket and in your purse is still worth the same etc". Hmm... sounds familiar, somehow.

 

[Craiglxviii]

better than Blair but worse than Brown?

Blair had the ability to capture the public and was a very good orator. But a deeply concerning personality to say the least.

Broon was unable to handle stress* and could not tolerate opinions contrary to his own, and was very poor at complex problem-solving. The great gold sell-off for example.

Of the two I'm not sure who was worse. How does Call Me Dave fit in between them? I think he was broadly more competent than Broon, and maybe cast in the same mould as Blair. Perhaps. Hard to say yet. Events have rather overtaken some of his policies.

(*apparently the only PM ever known to have involuntarily lost control of his bladder during one Cabinet meeting...)

 

[davemercedes]

The Appeal

Going by the reported hard questions from the judges the result looks rather dodgy for Trump (they now say a ruling is expected "later this week")...

I guess that if Trump wins, the streets will be full of rioters demonstrating.
- But if he loses, the streets will be full of demonstrators rioting.

 

[Craiglxviii]

Going by the reported hard questions from the judges the result looks rather dodgy for Trump (they now say a ruling is expected "later this week")...

I guess that if Trump wins, the streets will be full of rioters demonstrating.
- But if he loses, the streets will be full of demonstrators rioting.

It's interesting how the news here presents it. I was listening this morning...

..."countries that President Trump has said constitute a terror threat".

The fact that the State Dept has categorized the same countries specifically as a terror threat dating back to the mid-1970s seems to escape them.

If the California-based Appeals Court returns a verdict against POTUS, this will go straight to the Supreme Court...

 

[prwales]

Blair had the ability to capture the public and was a very good orator. But a deeply concerning personality to say the least.

Broon was unable to handle stress* and could not tolerate opinions contrary to his own, and was very poor at complex problem-solving. The great gold sell-off for example.

Of the two I'm not sure who was worse. How does Call Me Dave fit in between them? I think he was broadly more competent than Broon, and maybe cast in the same mould as Blair. Perhaps. Hard to say yet. Events have rather overtaken some of his policies.

(*apparently the only PM ever known to have involuntarily lost control of his bladder during one Cabinet meeting...)

I think that faced with the collapse of Northern Rock, HBoS and RBS anyone would be likely to suffer stress incontinence...the fact is he coped with it

 

[Xtractorfan]

Blair had the ability to capture the public and was a very good orator. But a deeply concerning personality to say the least.

Broon was unable to handle stress* and could not tolerate opinions contrary to his own, and was very poor at complex problem-solving. The great gold sell-off for example.

Of the two I'm not sure who was worse. How does Call Me Dave fit in between them? I think he was broadly more competent than Broon, and maybe cast in the same mould as Blair. Perhaps. Hard to say yet. Events have rather overtaken some of his policies.

(*apparently the only PM ever known to have involuntarily lost control of his bladder during one Cabinet meeting...)

You worry me greatly, I for some reason have a belief that you are actually a Tory politician, for you never seem to forget to include the disparaging and degrading opponent remarks in your statements, with many of these statements light on fact and full of flightful and seemingly factual innaccuries.

 

[Craiglxviii]

You worry me greatly, I for some reason have a belief that you are actually a Tory politician, for you never seem to forget to include the disparaging and degrading opponent remarks in your statements, with many of these statements light on fact and full of flightful and seemingly factual innaccuries.

The statement on bladder control was made by one of his close protection detail in an interview.

So it is only Tory politicians who disparage their opponents? Interesting take on reality.

 

[JBell]

Blair had the ability to capture the public and was a very good orator. But a deeply concerning personality to say the least.

A man I truly dislike (being kind) and someone who has used the very system he claimed to be against to amass a fortune.

Broon was unable to handle stress and could not tolerate opinions contrary to his own, and was very poor at complex problem-solving. The great gold sell-off for example.

An equally appalling excuse for a man, utterly clueless about finance (Gold), a bully and someone who ran and hid as soon as his time was up.


Between the pair of them they perfectly demonstrated the usual Leftie policies by "eventually running out of other peoples money"

They claimed to be "for the ordinary working person" yet managed to hit them as hard as possible in the pocket whilst smiling and telling everyone "things will only get better" (I didn't like that song when it was released and them using it for "spin" made it even worse)

 

[davemercedes]

I think that faced with the collapse of Northern Rock, HBoS and RBS anyone would be likely to suffer stress incontinence...the fact is he coped with it

I don't think he did cope with it - I think by the time Blair let him take the chair he had no idea at all. And the public resented his automatic "coronation". Funny thing with most politicians is that unless you actually know them you only have that first "gut feel" thing... My gut feel was I wouldn't trust him with sixpence - same as most people I knew. Then there was the "tic" in his throat that made you think he was either lying badly or was going to vomit.
- Nothing to do with his capabilities but politicians are "on show" whenever they let them out!

He had more than a little bit of overwhelming sense of his own importance that didn't go very well with lousy field support - remember the "bigoted woman" newsreel?

- And she was supposedly a 'staunch' labour supporter!