2016 US Presidential Election and Fallout

[Cruiser Elite]

Say what? Federal Judge in Hawaii has stopped the Trumpsters new Travel Ban - that bloody Obama again - he would be behind this also wouldn't he Trump lovers?

 

[amaroo]

Justin has got his wish .... 10 fold increase.

Usually at this time of year about 50 people a month cross here to seek asylum.

Right now, about 500 people per month are coming into Quebec alone, and while conflict overseas is the ongoing push factor, the numbers have spiked since the election of Donald Trump and new restrictions on immigration and refugees entering the United States.

Asylum seekers make perilous crossing into Canada from US seeking 'safety, protection and home' - Donald Trump's America - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

 

[whatmeworry]

FBI director Comey confirms Obama didn't order any wiretaps on Trump.

"I have no information that supports those tweets," Comey said of a March 4 twitterstorm in which Trump levelled the wiretapping charge at Obama, "[and] we've looked carefully inside the FBI."
And before any of the panel could argue that he spoke only for the FBI, Comey added that he had been asked by the Justice Department, which does much of the legal work to approve surveillance operations, to inform the committee that it too had no such information.

The FBI boss didn't actually utter the word, but he pretty well called his President a liar.

Reality dawns on Americans as President tweets Russia-Trump hearing in real time

 

[drron]

And although they have been investigating for 9 months they have not yet come up with any evidence.
The only illegality discovered has been the leaking of Flynn's talk to the Russian Ambassador and the admission that his name would have been only known to a few top officials in the FBI and Justice department.

 

[Cruiser Elite]

And now Trumps Health Care Bill to replace Obamacare has been pulled due to lack of support - good to see the new team on top of things as normal.

 

[whatmeworry]

So much winning!

 

[dajop]

And now Trumps Health Care Bill to replace Obamacare has been pulled due to lack of support - good to see the new team on top of things as normal.

They probably don't need to get it up. Just quietly retain the ACA and relabel as Trumpcare ... there have been several reports of people commenting that in their experiences of dealing with health care that Trumpcare has been better than with Obamacare.

 

[GarrettM]

Political comedy in America is sometimes very good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7niptfGSrhk

 

[Cruiser Elite]

................................

 

[Quickstatus]

I thought the democrats were champions of the simple majority - popular vote ?. Apparently they are actually not in favour of it when it does not suit them.
In any case the US Constitution provides that the selection of a SCOTUS is by simple majority anyway.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

I thought the democrats were champions of the simple majority - popular vote ?. Apparently they are actually not in favour of it when it does not suit them.
In any case the US Constitution provides that the selection of a SCOTUS is by simple majority anyway.

Two words. Merrick Garland.

 

[drron]

Two words. Merrick Garland.

More relevant is the date 21/11/2013

 

[Quickstatus]

Two words. Merrick Garland.

And they could not put him in because they could not get a simple majority in the Senate (as they were able to do for other lower court judges). Presidential executive power is checked - it has be to confirmed by another branch of government - legislative or judicial. Trump is finding that out too.
Constitutionally it seems that supermajorities are only necessary for certain events but not SCJOTUS.
These are: override presidential veto (2/3 majority in both houses), ratify a treaty with a foreign power (2/3 majority in Senate), constitutional amendments (2/3 majority in both houses), impeachment

Still I would have thought that the Democrats would have been the first to let it be known that a simple majority rules in the Senate given their recent and perhaps ongoing refrain that Hilary won.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

And they could not put him in because they could not get a simple majority in the Senate (as they were able to do for other lower court judges). Presidential executive power is checked - it has be to confirmed by another branch of government - legislative or judicial. Trump is finding that out too.
Constitutionally it seems that supermajorities are only necessary for certain events but not SCJOTUS.
These are: override presidential veto (2/3 majority in both houses), ratify a treaty with a foreign power (2/3 majority in Senate), constitutional amendments (2/3 majority in both houses), impeachment

Still I would have thought that the Democrats would have been the first to let it be known that a simple majority rules in the Senate given their recent and perhaps ongoing refrain that Hilary won.

Absolute rubbish. The Republicans refused to even consider his nomination. So there was no test of whether there was majority support.
Are you wilfully conflating this with Hillary's win by 3 million in the popular vote or are you being deliberately mischevious?

 

[Quickstatus]

The reason the Republicans could was because they knew the Dems could not muster a simple majority. Had the Dems had that majority Garland would have been sworn in.

turn the tables, most of the Dems resisted gorsuch's nomination but the Republicans believe they have a simple majority. So the vote goes ahead.

Both.

Again the election cannot just be won by a simple majority - a candidate can only win by a majority in a majority of states. But the Dems don't accept that and are claiming the simple majority. Then when it does not suit them to accept the simple majority (which does apply in the Senate) the Dems refuse to accept that power.

 

[drron]

Absolute rubbish. The Republicans refused to even consider his nomination. So there was no test of whether there was majority support.
Are you wilfully conflating this with Hillary's win by 3 million in the popular vote or are you being deliberately mischevious?

And you have ignored my response.On 21/11/2013 the Democrats used the nuclear option of a simple majority vote for confirmation hearings in the Senate for the first time in history.They can hardly complain now.

 

[Skyring]

Again the election cannot just be won by a simple majority - a candidate can only win by a majority in a majority of states. But the Dems don't accept that and are claiming the simple majority. Then when it does not suit them to accept the simple majority (which does apply in the Senate) the Dems refuse to accept that power.

I don't think the Democrats are saying that Trump didn't win the election.

I think they are making the point that more people voted for Clinton than Trump. Ultimately, as we have seen in similar elections in Australia, this has no impact on the election outcome but has a great deal of moral force. The opposition can claim the incumbent has no mandate and harp on the theme that the voters actually preferred their guy. This will have an effect all the way through to the next election.

Incumbents who just squeak into power tend to have a difficult time in office and unless they work really hard at doing a good job, get tossed out next time the voters stand up. Or they think that they are bulletproof and act accordingly. With the usual unsurprising result that the voters disagree with the "bulletproof" assessment.

In the case of Trump, the Democrats are reaping unexpected rewards in that he has revealed that he is sensitive to measures of popular support. He tried to pretend that more people attended his inauguration than Obama's, despite every piece of evidence demonstrating the exact opposite. He has bizarrely claimed that three million votes were cast illegally for Clinton, because he is unable to accept that he was rejected in the popular count. Trump is rattled and distracted and making mistakes, which are quickly seized upon by the Dems, leading to a spiral of decline as Trump tries to pretend that he's doing a great job. Despite the evidence.

It's an excellent tactic. Without control of any of the three branches of American government, the Democrats have to look to the next elections to have any impact. I think they are doing an effective job. Next year's midterms are going to be an uphill battle for the GOP.

 

[Quickstatus]

I don't think the Democrats are saying that Trump didn't win the election.

I think they are making the point that more people voted for Clinton than Trump. Ultimately, as we have seen in similar elections in Australia, this has no impact on the election outcome but has a great deal of moral force. The opposition can claim the incumbent has no mandate and harp on the theme that the voters actually preferred their guy. This will have an effect all the way through to the next election.

Incumbents who just squeak into power tend to have a difficult time in office and unless they work really hard at doing a good job, get tossed out next time the voters stand up. Or they think that they are bulletproof and act accordingly. With the usual unsurprising result that the voters disagree with the "bulletproof" assessment.

In the case of Trump, the Democrats are reaping unexpected rewards in that he has revealed that he is sensitive to measures of popular support. He tried to pretend that more people attended his inauguration than Obama's, despite every piece of evidence demonstrating the exact opposite. He has bizarrely claimed that three million votes were cast illegally for Clinton, because he is unable to accept that he was rejected in the popular count. Trump is rattled and distracted and making mistakes, which are quickly seized upon by the Dems, leading to a spiral of decline as Trump tries to pretend that he's doing a great job. Despite the evidence.

It's an excellent tactic. Without control of any of the three branches of American government, the Democrats have to look to the next elections to have any impact. I think they are doing an effective job. Next year's midterms are going to be an uphill battle for the GOP.

That might be a plausible view of what is happening over there. We shall see.

The Dems and their proxies really do believe that Trump not only is the illegitimate president but did not properly win the election.

 

[whatmeworry]

Suggestions Breibart will go to war with Trump if Bannon is sacked.

A former Breibart executive has warned it will be “open warfare” against Donald Trump’s team if his son-in-law Jared Kushner forces out Steve Bannon following reports of a fierce West Wing feud.
Chief strategist, Mr Bannon, who founded the far-right Breibart website, was removed from the National Security Council this week amid widespread reports of clashes with senior adviser Mr Kushner, who is married to the President’s daughter Ivanka.
During a discussion on the reported in-fighting between Mr Trump's two closest advisers, former Breibart employee Kurt Bardella said the cold reaction of the nationalistic “Bannonoite” wing of the party to the air strikes against Syria is a clear sign they fear their man is losing his influence over the President.

Trump faces 'open warfare' with Breitbart if Bannon is fired, says former executive of the far-right website | The Independent

Trump has taken his 15th Golf Trip in eleven weeks since becoming President.

During a campaign rally last year, Mr Trump referred to a string of his golf clubs when claiming: "You know what – and I love golf – but if I were in the White House, I don’t think I’d ever see Turnberry again, I don’t think I’d ever see Doral again, I own Doral in Miami, I don’t think I’d ever see many of the places that I have.
"I don’t ever think that I’d see anything, I just wanna stay in the White House and work my cough off, make great deals, right? Who's gonna leave? I mean, who's gonna leave?"

While still a private citizen, the billionaire tycoon repeatedly criticised former President Barack Obama for playing golf rather than attending to his presidential duties.
"Can you believe that,with all of the problems and difficulties facing the U.S., President Obama spent the day playing golf.," he wrote in one 2014 tirade.

Donald Trump takes 15th golf trip in 11 weeks since becoming President | The Independent

Trump has spent as much on travel expenses in ten weeks as Obama had in two years.

After he hosts Chinese President Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago this weekend, Mr Trump will have averaged $2.4 million (£1.9 million) tax dollars a week on his Florida trips. If he keeps going at this pace, he will have outspent Mr Obama’s $97 million figure in just ten months.

Donald Trump's travel expenses in 10 weeks cost US taxpayers as much as Barack Obama spent in two years | The Independent

 

[whatmeworry]

Author claims Eric Trump said funding for Trump golf courses came from Russia.

Eric Trump said three years ago the Trump Organization had “all the funding we need out of Russia” for its golf course projects, according to an author recounting the story of a 2014 meeting with Donald Trump and his son.





The author also said Donald Trump “sort of tossed off that he had access to $100m”.

Trump’s older son, Donald Jr, has also made mention of financial relationships in Russia. In 2008, speaking at a real estate conference, he said: “We are looking all over the place, primarily Russia.”




He also said: “And in terms of high-end product influx into the US, Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets; say in Dubai, and certainly with our project in SoHo and anywhere in New York. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ily-golf-courses-russia-funding-author-claims