The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
Also am I right in saying the proposal of laws have to be passed by the supreme court, and they can declare it unconstitutional but Trump is able to just put whatever Judge he wants until he gets his way?

Supreme Court Judges serve until they die, resign, retire, or are removed by Impeachment, which requires a majority of the House of Representatives to bring charges, then 2/3 of the Senate to remove someone from office.

The President has no way to effect the Court's membership, other than nominating new judges when an opening occurs.
 
This thread is amazing. You dont read it for 3 days and its like 40pages further.

Never seen any thread this active before! Its only two weeks into his presidency and its 461 pages!!

I bet this will be the biggest thread on the site. Imagine a year into his presidency, we will need to spin this off onto a separate server!
 
@VP89
To add on...

The Supreme Court can declare laws passed by Congress and signed by the President to be unconstitutional only if someone brings a court case to the SCOTUS.

Lower federal courts can execute the same function, with the caveat that the ruling can be appealed to the next highest level of the federal court system. Once it is decided by SCOTUS though, it's essentially final, unless one day SCOTUS overturns itself (e.g. Plessy v. Ferguson -> Brown v. Board of Education)

And when the court case is brought to the SCOTUS, it needs to be accepted by the SCOTUS at 4/9 isn't it?
 
5/9 wins the decision if there are no abstentions

They can refuse to hear a case too though can't they? There was some discussion after the circuit court appeal that the ACLU might be holding off on any cases themselves in case the SC throws out the inevitable appeal from Trump, which would mean the circuit court decision would be binding.
 
They can refuse to hear a case too though can't they? There was some discussion after the circuit court appeal that the ACLU might be holding off on any cases themselves in case the SC throws out the inevitable appeal from Trump, which would mean the circuit court decision would be binding.
Yes, which is what happens to something like 95% of the cases brought to them. A very select few actually make the docket. Ignoring the case essentially upholds the decision of the lower court.
 
I don't think Bannon is an anti-semite. He seems to love Israel and has always talked about fighting Islam and China to defend 'Christian-Judean' values.
 
Thanks guys - answers my questions broadly. A lot of you folks know your stuff :eek:
 
So there are a few articles that might be construed as anti-semite but everyday there is a tonne of pro Israel propaganda on the site as far as I can see.

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/
His pro-Israel stance might not be pro-Semite though.

Assuming the anti-Semitism claims are true, why would he be pro-Israel?

He may feel that the Israelis are "over there" fighting against the Muslims, which he dislikes more than the Jews. The Jews he interacts with every day "over here" are not fighting the Muslims, and frequently vote against politicians who push policies that he favors. In this case, the Israelis make themselves useful in his eyes by fighting the Muslims, with an added plus that they are in their own country in another hemisphere, while the Jews here are seen as useless by him, as they are obstructing policies he wants to see in place, with the added negative that he actually has to interact with them personally.
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-bannon-apocalypse_us_5898f02ee4b040613138a951

Steve Bannon Believes The Apocalypse Is Coming And War Is Inevitable
Trump’s top adviser thinks we’re in “the great Fourth Turning in American history.”
02/08/2017 01:15 pm ET | Updated 14 hours ago

WASHINGTON ― In 2009, the historian David Kaiser, then a professor at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, got a call from a guy named Steve Bannon.
Bannon wanted to interview Kaiser for a documentary he was making based on the work of the generational theorists William Strauss and Neil Howe. Kaiser, an expert on Strauss and Howe, didn’t know Bannon from Adam, but he agreed to participate. He went to the Washington headquarters of the conservative activist group Citizens United, where Bannon was then based, for a chat.

Kaiser was impressed by how much Bannon knew about Strauss and Howe, who argued that American history operates in four-stage cycles that move from major crisis to awakening to major crisis. These crises are called “Fourth Turnings” — and Bannon believed the U.S. had entered one on Sept. 18, 2008, when Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke went to Capitol Hill to ask for a bailout of the international banking system.

“He knew the theory,” Kaiser said. “He obviously enjoyed interviewing me.”

Bannon pressed Kaiser on one point during the interview. “He was talking about the wars of the Fourth Turnings,” Kaiser recalled. “You have the American Revolution, you have the Civil War, you have World War II; they’re getting bigger and bigger. Clearly, he was anticipating that in this Fourth Turning there would be one at least as big. And he really made an effort, I remember, to get me to say that on the air.”

Kaiser didn’t believe global war was preordained, so he demurred. The line of questioning didn’t make it into the documentary — a polemical piece, released in 2010, called “Generation Zero.”

Bannon, who’s now ensconced in the West Wing as President Donald Trump’s closest adviser, has been portrayed as Trump’s main ideas guy. But in interviews, speeches and writing — and especially in his embrace of Strauss and Howe — he has made clear that he is, first and foremost, an apocalypticist.

In Bannon’s view, we are in the midst of an existential war, and everything is a part of that conflict. Treaties must be torn up, enemies named, culture changed. Global conflagration, should it occur, would only prove the theory correct. For Bannon, the Fourth Turning has arrived. The Grey Champion, a messianic strongman figure, may have already emerged. The apocalypse is now.

“What we are witnessing,” Bannon told The Washington Post last month, “is the birth of a new political order.”
5898f3841900003b75e0a5e7.jpeg

President Donald Trump speaks on the phone with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on Jan. 28, 2017, with national security adviser Mike Flynn, center, and Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, at right.

Strauss died in 2007, and Howe did not respond to requests for comment. But their books speak for themselves. The first, Generations, released in 1991, set forth the idea that history unfolds in repetitive, predictable four-part cycles ― and that the U.S. was, and still is, going through the most recent cycle’s tail end. (In Generations, Strauss and Howe became perhaps the first writers to use the term “millennials” to describe the current cohort of young people.)

Strauss and Howe’s theory is based on a series of generational archetypes — the Artists, the Prophets, the Nomads and the Heroes — that sound like they were pulled from a dystopian young adult fiction series. Each complete four-part cycle, or saeculum, takes about 80 to 100 years, in Strauss and Howe’s reckoning. The Fourth Turning, which the authors published in 1997, focuses on the final, apocalyptic part of the cycle.

Strauss and Howe postulate that during this Fourth Turning crisis, an unexpected leader will emerge from an older generation to lead the nation, and what they call the “Hero” generation (in this case, millennials), to a new order. This person is known as the Grey Champion. An election or another event — perhaps a war — will bring this person to power, and their regime will rule throughout the crisis.

“The winners will now have the power to pursue the more potent, less incrementalist agenda about which they had long dreamed and against which their adversaries had darkly warned,” Strauss and Howe wrote in The Fourth Turning. “This new regime will enthrone itself for the duration of the Crisis. Regardless of its ideology, that new leadership will assert public authority and demand private sacrifice. Where leaders had once been inclined to alleviate societal pressures, they will now aggravate them to command the nation’s attention.”

Cyclical models of history are something academics kick around every now and then, said Sean Wilentz, an American history professor at Princeton University. But the idea has not caught on among historians or political actors.

“It’s just a conceit. It’s a fiction, it’s all made up,” Wilentz said about cyclical historical models. “There’s nothing to them. They’re just inventions.”

Michael Lind, a historian and co-founder of the New America Foundation, a liberal think tank, has called Strauss and Howe’s work “pseudoscience” and said their “predictions about the American future turn out to be as vague as those of fortune cookies.”

But Bannon bought it.

“This is the fourth great crisis in American history,” Bannon told an audience at the Liberty Restoration Foundation, a conservative nonprofit, in 2011. “We had the Revolution. We had the Civil War. We had the Great Depression and World War II. This is the great Fourth Turning in American history, and we’re going to be one thing on the other side.”

Major crises “happen in about 80- or 100-year cycles,” Bannon told a conference put on by the Republican women’s group Project GoPink that same year. “And somewhere over the next 10 or 20 years, we’re going to come through this crisis, and we’re either going to be the country that was bequeathed to us or it’s going to be something that’s completely or totally different.”

The “Judeo-Christian West is collapsing,” he went on. “It’s imploding. And it’s imploding on our watch. And the blowback of that is going to be tremendous.”

War is coming, Bannon has warned. In fact, it’s already here.

It’s war. It’s war. Every day, we put up: America’s at war, America’s at war. We’re at war.White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, 2015
“You have an expansionist Islam and you have an expansionist China,” he said during a 2016 radio appearance. “They are motivated. They’re arrogant. They’re on the march. And they think the Judeo-Christian West is on the retreat.”

“Against radical Islam, we’re in a 100-year war,” he told Political Vindication Radio in 2011.

“We’re going to war in the South China Seas in the next five to 10 years, aren’t we?” Bannon asked during a 2016 interview with Reagan biographer Lee Edwards.

“We are in an outright war against jihadist Islamic fascism,” he said in a speech to a Vatican conference in 2014. “And this war is, I think, metastasizing far quicker than governments can handle it.”

In a 2015 radio appearance, Bannon described how he ran Breitbart, the far-right news site he chaired at the time. “It’s war,” he said. “It’s war. Every day, we put up: America’s at war, America’s at war. We’re at war.”

To confront this threat, Bannon argued, the Judeo-Christian West must fight back, lest it lose as it did when Constantinople fell to the Ottomans in 1453. He called Islam a “religion of submission” in 2016 — a refutation of President George W. Bush’s post-9/11 description of Islam as a religion of peace. In 2007, Bannon wrote a draft movie treatment for a documentary depicting a “fifth column” of Muslim community groups, the media, Jewish organizations and government agencies working to overthrow the government and impose Islamic law.

“There’s clearly a fifth column here in the United States,” Bannon warned in July 2016. “There’s rot at the center of the Judeo-Christian West,” he said in November 2015. “Secularism has sapped the strength of the Judeo-Christian West to defend its ideals,” he argued at the Vatican conference. The “aristocratic Washington class” and the media, he has claimed, are in league with the entire religion of Islam and an expansionist China to undermine Judeo-Christian America.

This sort of existential conflict is central to Strauss and Howe’s predictions. There are four ways a Fourth Turning can end, they argued, and three of them involve some kind of massive collapse. America might “be reborn,” and we’d wait another 80 to 100 years for a new cycle to culminate in a crisis again. The modern world — the era of Western history that Strauss and Howe believe began in the 15th century — might come to an end. We might “spare modernity but mark the end of our nation.” Or we might face “the end of man,” in a global war leading to “omnicidal Armageddon.”

Now, a believer in these vague and unfounded predictions sits in the White House, at the right hand of the president.

“We’re gonna have to have some dark days before we get to the blue sky of morning again in America,” Bannon warned in 2010. “We are going to have to take some massive pain. Anybody who thinks we don’t have to take pain is, I believe, fooling you.”

“This movement,” he said in November, “is in the top of the first inning.”


Whilst Bannon’s views certainly are dangerous I’m still not too sure about this recent trend of painting him as some sort of master manipulator, I feel he’s merely a crackpot Tea Party nut who’s found himself very fortunate to be where he is and let’s face it, from what we know it doesn’t seem take any form of high intellect to be able to manipulate Donald Trump anyway, which is probably the more worrying thought. Though a work colleague pointed out that It might be that he’s being painted as a ‘master manipulator’ in order to get under Trump’s skin.
 
So there are a few articles that might be construed as anti-semite but everyday there is a tonne of pro Israel propaganda on the site as far as I can see.

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/

I don't think Bannon is an anti-semite. He seems to love Israel and has always talked about fighting Islam and China to defend 'Christian-Judean' values.

You guys need to rethink the idea that being an anti-semite automatically makes someone anti-Zionist/Israel - I doubt you'd accept the opposite being true.
 
I don't think Bannon is an anti-semite. He seems to love Israel and has always talked about fighting Islam and China to defend 'Christian-Judean' values.
Israel is a means to an end for people like him. He'll play the Israel card when he sees fit, but then he'll also give out little shout outs to his peeps - purposefully not mentioning Jews on Holocaust Day and then forcing Spicy to double down.

As a white nationalist - as with the far right in europe, like Marie La Pen - they realize, it's easier and far more acceptable to go after muslims these days. But - their core belief and motivation remains the same.
 
Yes, which is what happens to something like 95% of the cases brought to them. A very select few actually make the docket. Ignoring the case essentially upholds the decision of the lower court.

If you don't, you end up like Brazil with all manner of suits (1000s) sitting in the Supreme Court. People have literally murdered, deemed not a flight/public risk so could stand trial free, and then had their suit take 10 years to move from one court to the other, all the way to the Supreme Court.
 
If you don't, you end up like Brazil with all manner of suits (1000s) sitting in the Supreme Court. People have literally murdered, deemed not a flight/public risk so could stand trial free, and then had their suit take 10 years to move from one court to the other, all the way to the Supreme Court.
Oh god that's absurd. Believe me, I like that our SCOTUS has a limited scope as to what it is looking for.
 
You guys need to rethink the idea that being an anti-semite automatically makes someone anti-Zionist/Israel - I doubt you'd accept the opposite being true.

It is more that I doubt Bannon is an anti-semite. It all seems to be based on hearsay and a testimony made by his wife in a divorce settlement based on something he said once.
 
It is more that I doubt Bannon is an anti-semite. It all seems to be based on hearsay and a testimony made by his wife in a divorce settlement based on something he said once.

Well there's also the case that some of his underlings at Breitbart are/have been undoubted anti-semites. But yeah actual direct, reliable evidence is lacking in his case.
 
KellyAnne is a moron. Using her taxpayer funded position located in a government office to advocate for the (further) enrichment of the President's family.
 
KellyAnne is a moron. Using her taxpayer funded position located in a government office to advocate for the (further) enrichment of the President's family.
Does this train slow down at any point? Do they normalise and start to behave like they should? Or will the normalisation be in the context that we start to accept all this as normal? I say we, but I'm not including myself in this one...
 


https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ted-as-himself-frankie-boyle?CMP=share_btn_tw

Frankie Boyle absolutely decimates Trump :lol: An absolutely amazing read, hilarious and very clever. I only wish Trump would read this, if he thinks SNL is bad, jeez, he would literally blow a fuse.

Some nice little outtakes.........

Of course, presidents always enter office with something to prove, it’s just rarely their sanity.

You look into Trump’s eyes and you see the fear and confusion of a man who has just been told he’s got stage-four cervical cancer

Trump sees anti-choice arguments all the time; the only time he sees an argument for abortion is in a mirror.

Melania Trump has a look that I’ve never seen before, the eyes of someone waiting with increasing impatience for Stockholm syndrome to set in. The look of a woman frantically trying to unlearn English, appalled to find that this only makes her understand her husband more clearly.

:lol: Priceless!
 
Great job so far in stepping up the effort in tackling Islamic Militants, Donald.

He can't be blamed for faulty intel, any planning or operational mistakes. But the potential political fallout is exactly what the President, NSC and other political advisers should be concerned about. The Dept. of Defense can come up, and will continue to come up with plans to do anything on earth. In the end its still a risk, but at least with former POTUS' we could be fairly certain they had weighed these. Not anymore. Way to go Donald, you big winner.
 
Does this train slow down at any point? Do they normalise and start to behave like they should? Or will the normalisation be in the context that we start to accept all this as normal? I say we, but I'm not including myself in this one...
Dolan seems immune to any advice that is not colinear with his own beliefs , so I would say it is rather unlikely that we see any normalization. All he knows is to double down.
 
Does this train slow down at any point? Do they normalise and start to behave like they should? Or will the normalisation be in the context that we start to accept all this as normal? I say we, but I'm not including myself in this one...

Hard to say with Trump. Normally, administrations generally and gradually cycle out some of the old campaign people for professionals over the first couple of years. With Trump, he is so personality and loyalty obsessed that he may well stick with some of the current lot for some time to come.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.