-
@gt12 said in US Politics:
Having said that, on the polls, I think Gollum is wrong here - his line of reasoning is a bit off, because I don't think Trump gives a shit, I don't think Natuonal polling at this time means jack shot, and I think Trump's current strategy is working in the way he wants it to.
Not sure if it was covered (can't be bothered reading the bile), but now that he's in, will the "soft Trump supporter" phenomenon go away?
The Gallup thing is interesting, but as someone said above - depends who was asked.
I'm pretty sure we're not going to get "soft Trump opponent" in any case.
-
@gt12 said in US Politics:
Fine, but just because he was wrong with his predictions (no matter how strongly he suggested them) doesn't mean he's wrong now to bring up polls - especially when those polls clearly point out the problems with their methodology. You and his bickering is fucking boring and since we can't put certain posters on ignore in the new software (can we?), can we all take it as read that you both want to flush each other's head down the toilet?
Having said that, on the polls, I think Gollum is wrong here - his line of reasoning is a bit off, because I don't think Trump gives a shit, I don't think Natuonal polling at this time means jack shot, and I think Trump's current strategy is working in the way he wants it to.
No no no.... you misunderstand..... being wrong with predictions is basically a pre requisite for posting here. Lecturing others how you are the ONLY one who understands polls whilst clearly not understanding polls.. and then being not man enough to front after you get it wrong... that is what makes Gollum a special case. I have zero respect or patience when he starts talking about polls. And lets not forget in this iteration he bought my name into the conversation....
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
@gt12 said in US Politics:
Having said that, on the polls, I think Gollum is wrong here - his line of reasoning is a bit off, because I don't think Trump gives a shit, I don't think Natuonal polling at this time means jack shot, and I think Trump's current strategy is working in the way he wants it to.
Not sure if it was covered (can't be bothered reading the bile), but now that he's in, will the "soft Trump supporter" phenomenon go away?
The Gallup thing is interesting, but as someone said above - depends who was asked.
I'm pretty sure we're not going to get "soft Trump opponent" in any case.
It wont go away IMO. Many people just cannot be bothered facing the vitriol they receive if they support Trump.
I think there is a lot more support for Trump in NZ than people think as well. -
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
It wont go away IMO. Many people just cannot be bothered facing the vitriol they receive if they support Trump.
I was thinking more in terms of the polls run by phone like Gallup - not like you're yelling the answers for the neighbourhood to hear or carrying a placard.
As for local support for Trump - I was at the local bottleshop last weekend and saw a guy in cricket whites with a Trump cap on. I found that unusual, but wasn't sure if he was an expat.
The popularity of supporting your outspoken President is surely easier to countenance than an outspoken Candidate?
-
Acting AG Sally Yates instructed the DoJ that it should not follow through with Trump's ban as a question of legality.
"Acting Attorney General Sally Yates has told Justice Department lawyers not to make legal arguments defending President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration and refugees, according to sources familiar with the order."
So he fired her:
-
@NTA just imagine him reliving his Apprentice days ha
to shady gollum and his reliable side kick....I imagine many snowflakes as annoying children in parent's car on a drive to the beach.....'are we there yet, are we there yet' after only 10 minutes. then a few minutes later, 'dad, I don't see the beach yet'....not only incredibly biased per se, but the patience of a pair of pesky flies.Trump and his administration have been excellent so far, transparent, productive, and strong. The next interesting thing to watch will be the Senate conformation of his S C pick and whether that leads to the nuclear option.
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
Acting AG Sally Yates instructed the DoJ that it should not follow through with Trump's ban as a question of legality.
"Acting Attorney General Sally Yates has told Justice Department lawyers not to make legal arguments defending President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration and refugees, according to sources familiar with the order."
So he fired her:
He had to fire her. Her position was untenable.
-
@Wairau said in US Politics:
Trump and his administration have been incredible so far, transparent, productive, and strong.
Perhaps also illegal and unconstitutional. That will only be determined, in this case, if the Executive Order is tested in a court of Law.
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
He had to fire her. Her position was untenable.
I agree - basically she could not conduct her office under that statement, with a hostile administration.
I'm not a lawyer. Sally Yates is, and if she says "At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities of the Department of Justice, nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful" then I'm inclined to go with her, until it can be proven one way or the other.
-
@Wairau said in US Politics:
Trump and his administration have been excellent so far, transparent, productive, and strong. The next interesting thing to watch will be the Senate conformation of his S C pick and whether that leads to the nuclear option.
I just want to see what this awesome negotiator has up his sleeve for dealing with China after throwing away the trump card in the TPP...
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
@Wairau said in US Politics:
Trump and his administration have been incredible so far, transparent, productive, and strong.
Perhaps also illegal and unconstitutional. That will only be determined, in this case, if the Executive Order is tested in a court of Law.
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
He had to fire her. Her position was untenable.
I agree - basically she could not conduct her office under that statement, with a hostile administration.
I'm not a lawyer. Sally Yates is, and if she says "At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities of the Department of Justice, nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful" then I'm inclined to go with her, until it can be proven one way or the other.
Seriously? You think she did this for legal reasons and not political ones??? I have some sand to sell you.
This was 100% political,. an Obama appointment playing politics, nothing more, nothing less. -
Clinton is applauded, Trump vilified for the same words. The left in America are behaving too politically, nonsensical. Well, nothing new there.
@antipodean Meh, TPP was always a goner, another example of transparency and keeping his word, and much better to get it out of the way and focus on producing real change, as he is doing.
China will be difficult indeed, so let's wait and see. Peter Navarro and Carl Icahn are tough nuts, and Trump has already staked out a number of assertive positions.@NTA as bsg just said, you are now heading into another area, the obvious lack of impariality of Obama appointed officials, and judges. It's another part of the swamp to be drained. Furthermore, are you just referring to this EO, or all of them. On the assumption you are being selective, why only this one? And, what parts of it are unconstitutional?
that's my limit in here for today... -
@Wairau said in US Politics:
. It's another part of the swamp to be drained
Before or after Gingrich and the other nepotistic appointment of his children?
As for whether it's Constitutional or not: the lawyer with 30 years' experience, including the last seven in the AG's office, doesn't believe it is. So I'm going with her until it's appropriately tested.
It doesn't actually matter if it's a political move - what possible gain does it have for Obama, Yates, or the Democrats in general? Trump is going to replace anyone they don't like.
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
@Wairau said in US Politics:
. It's another part of the swamp to be drained
Before or after Gingrich and the other nepotistic appointment of his children?
As for whether it's Constitutional or not: the lawyer with 30 years' experience, including the last seven in the AG's office, doesn't believe it is. So I'm going with her until it's appropriately tested.
It doesn't actually matter if it's a political move - what possible gain does it have for Obama, Yates, or the Democrats in general? Trump is going to replace anyone they don't like.
Nick if you seriously believe that her decision was based on the law rather than politics then you are the most naïve person on this forum.
If a Republican appointee did the same thing to a Democrat administration would that also be due to concerns about the law. Like hell it would.
-
@Wairau said in US Politics:
@antipodean Meh, TPP was always a goner, another example of transparency and keeping his word, and much better to get it out of the way and focus on producing real change, as he is doing.
Yeah he's kept his word, but to what end?
China will be difficult indeed, so let's wait and see. Peter Navarro and Carl Icahn are tough nuts, and Trump has already staked out a number of assertive positions.
Being tough nuts doesn't equate to sensible, workable policy positions. In torpedoing the TPP, Trump lost the best-known case for containing China in the South East and Pacific. He's removed a trading block to deal with China's economic power and in doing so, harmed strategic relationships.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
Nick if you seriously believe that her decision was based on the law rather than politics then you are the most naïve person on this forum.
It isn't really the point.
I'll ask you the same question I asked the others: how does this score any political points for a (very) weak Democrat movement? Trump was going to remove anyone he didn't like, anyway.
Yates has been in the acting AG job 10 days, probably doesn't give a fuck actually, so she's happy to jump.
But tell me, what political gain can these 20 Republicans hope to make by protesting the move?
Forget about the party bullshit for a second: if this is tested in a Court of Law and found to be Unlawful or Unconstitutional, then everything about the EO is fucking wrong from start to finish; firstly not consulting the right people, to then implementing it rapidly, without actual plans of how to handle the many and varied cases covered under protecting US borders.
-
@canefan said in US Politics:
@NTA I expect it will be tested because Trump isn't about to flip flop on the issue
There are already a few legal actions up and running that will probably result in court cases.
If you attempt to rule through poor legislation, except it to be used as the political weapon with which you are ousted.
-
@NTA said in US Politics:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
Nick if you seriously believe that her decision was based on the law rather than politics then you are the most naïve person on this forum.
It isn't really the point.
I'll ask you the same question I asked the others: how does this score any political points for a (very) weak Democrat movement? Trump was going to remove anyone he didn't like, anyway.
Yates has been in the acting AG job 10 days, probably doesn't give a fuck actually, so she's happy to jump.
But tell me, what political gain can these 20 Republicans hope to make by protesting the move?
Forget about the party bullshit for a second: if this is tested in a Court of Law and found to be Unlawful or Unconstitutional, then everything about the EO is fucking wrong from start to finish; firstly not consulting the right people, to then implementing it rapidly, without actual plans of how to handle the many and varied cases covered under protecting US borders.
Are you serious? Now why would an Obama appointee want to try and make Trump look bad? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
There are many Republicans who are strong open-border advocates (not to mention Trump opponents) so it is absolutely no surprise whatsoever that some are protesting.
I totally agree that that the implementation of this thing is a total mess, but that is a different matter to legality.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in US Politics:
I totally agree that that the implementation of this thing is a total mess, but that is a different matter to legality.
I think its going to be very important - the content of the order can be debated under law, and so can many aspects of its implementation.
It'll be a drawn-out process for the top legal minds in the Supreme Court at a constitutional level, but a lot of the cases I'm reading about pertain to individuals, and even institutions and companies whose ability to move/trade/employ etc are limited by what is (potentially) illegal.
Expedia and Amazon, based in Washington State, are backing the state AG over this.
US Politics