The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
3 trillion would be new. If Trump is acting according to the bit of policy he actually formulated at this point, he will double the debt of the United States within 4 years. He could do that and probably banks would finance it, but the effect would be a state deficit way above the level of countries like Greece. It's just not feasible.

that is simply wrong.

In business. you dont spend from earnings. You borrow to build your business and increase earnings. People will have money to spend, thus creating demand. The economy will improve...and guess what they will be paying income tax.
I do not accept the Libertarian prinicple of economics. And Tricke Down Econimics is bullshit.

And please. We are not Greece.

The mechanics are simple. btw I believe he mentioned elswhere he expects the spending to be spreadout over 10 years?
The question is the will. Will Trump have the fight for it? If the House puts it to a vote not just depending on Republican votes, it will pass easily. I doubt McConell will fight his populous president especially when there will be broad support for this.
 
'Darkness falls across the land...'

Trump%2B2.jpg
 
People don't half paint with a bleak brush.

"omgz! He will hold rallies, just like Hitler and probably Stalin did! #clearlyfascist #endoftheworld"

"Oh, look, they spoke about trains. Clearly a metaphor for wanting to start American concentration camps! #Dachau2016 #Bergen-Belsen-revived"

It is getting a bit silly now, it truly is.
 
https://www.change.org/p/electoral-...twitter&utm_campaign=share_twitter_responsive

Surely this can't be right? Pissing in the wind if you ask me, just like those hoping that Parliament will vote against leaving the EU. Can't blame them for trying though.


I think they electors have a right to change their vote (would have to double check that) but I am not sure any actually would. I almost said, unless Trump does something outrageous, but he has and that did not stop him from getting this far.
 
People don't half paint with a bleak brush.

"omgz! He will hold rallies, just like Hitler and probably Stalin did! #clearlyfascist #endoftheworld"

"Oh, look, they spoke about trains. Clearly a metaphor for wanting to start American concentration camps! #Dachau2016 #Bergen-Belsen-revived"

It is getting a bit silly now, it truly is.

I am an old fart and it seems that at last since the 60's every Republican get's called the new Hitler and/or they are going to start WW3 and launch the nukes. Now granted eventually they might be right, but they are a bit like the boy who cried wolf in that by time they are right they will have been wrong so many times nobody will listen.
 
I think they electors have a right to change their vote (would have to double check that) but I am not sure any actually would. I almost said, unless Trump does something outrageous, but he has and that did not stop him from getting this far.

So glad you added that bit. :lol:

There's no way they will change their vote as it's completely undemocratic and no matter how much people disagree with the election, the result must stand. However, I am very surprised that nobody made more of the FBI obvious interference in to the election, and I am equally surprised given the hate that is still there from the Cold War, how and why nobody seemed outraged with the Russian meddling in the election. I would have thought those two reasons would be enough for people to march and petition, or for the Dems to voice serious complaints, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
 
Is it fair to say that, if the situation were reversed, the Republicans would be making more of a thing about the FBI interference?

Ive heard a lot of people suggest the Democrats are basically soft and do not have the stomach for the kinds of fights the Republicans are happy to have - or almost thrive on.
 
Is it fair to say that, if the situation were reversed, the Republicans would be making more of a thing about the FBI interference?

Ive heard a lot of people suggest the Democrats are basically soft and do not have the stomach for the kinds of fights the Republicans are happy to have - or almost thrive on.
Yeah, kind of worries me they'll roll over to be honest. At least Harry Reid is going out guns blazing.
 
Is it fair to say that, if the situation were reversed, the Republicans would be making more of a thing about the FBI interference?

I would think so yes, definitely. You can bet your fecking arse they sure as hell would if Hillary had ties to the Russians like the new President has, and especially since Russia admitted meddling in the election. They have got exactly what they wanted, I can't for the life of me see how this isn't being complained about more? It's insanity, especially considering it's Russia we are talking about here.
 
I think they electors have a right to change their vote (would have to double check that) but I am not sure any actually would. I almost said, unless Trump does something outrageous, but he has and that did not stop him from getting this far.

They can but this scenario would be extremely unlikely. Changing the vote is frowned upon and large scale change would undermine the a core tenet of US "democracy". Those who cast against are called Faithless Electors. 29 states have laws that will penalise a faithless elector, 21 do not. However those than penalise can only do so after the elector casts the vote, far as I know they cannot be stopped ahead of time.

Wikipedia not a god citing source, but it does list all the faithless electors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
 
So glad you added that bit. :lol:

There's no way they will change their vote as it's completely undemocratic and no matter how much people disagree with the election, the result must stand. However, I am very surprised that nobody made more of the FBI obvious interference in to the election, and I am equally surprised given the hate that is still there from the Cold War, how and why nobody seemed outraged with the Russian meddling in the election. I would have thought those two reasons would be enough for people to march and petition, or for the Dems to voice serious complaints, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

It's a weird thing with the Russians, just as many in the CE seemed to idolize Putin for "standing up to the west" I think that a good many of the Trump Nutters are not bothered by Putin's actions because he "stood up to Obama or some such nonsense." Which comes as no shock given how much so many of them hate President Obama
 
29 states have laws that will penalise a faithless

Yeah, but it's only a fine, so really shouldn't be seen as a deterrent to be honest. As the petition says, i'm sure donors would pay, I mean Cuban was offering up to $10 million for video's of the President Elect saying lewd or racist things.

It's a weird thing with the Russians, just as many in the CE seemed to idolize Putin for "standing up to the west" I think that a good many of the Trump Nutters are not bothered by Putin's actions because he "stood up to Obama or some such nonsense." Which comes as no shock given how much so many of them hate President Obama

I really do not get it at all. It's truly bizarre.
 
https://www.change.org/p/electoral-...twitter&utm_campaign=share_twitter_responsive

Surely this can't be right? Pissing in the wind if you ask me, just like those hoping that Parliament will vote against leaving the EU. Can't blame them for trying though.
If they elect Hillary that way it would lead to a scenario close to a civil war. What they need to do is deny him getting to 270 votes, which leaves the matter to the House. Which will elect another republican. But this whole thing is pure fantasy, there is no way to find 30 unfaithful electors.
 
She's a formidable woman. Articulate, intelligent, gracious, (and beautiful)!
It's a shame she receives so much unwarranted invective from people clearly nowhere near as informed about the issues she talks about.

Here's a quote from Coulter.
"If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women."

Coulter is far right, same camp as Bachmann and Palin. Perfect example of the minority trying to impose their will on the majority by screaming louder. Coulter gets all the criticism she deserves. Not even going to touch on the radiation as a cancer vaccine. As bad as food babe and her airplane air isn't pure oxygen crap.

Coulter is a smart woman, I will give you that. Sometimes I feel she is on a windup and playing the right for fools because they are easy marks and she makes a lot of money and has a lot of fame off of it.
 
Thanks for the helpful response, as opposed to the two others posters.

A cursory look through the wikipedia page shows that she doesn't reject evolution. It appears she endorses intelligent design, which, as far as I understand, rejects macro-evolution but affirms micro-evolution.

Says she doesn't reject evolution. Admits she rejects evolution. Can see why you have an affinity with your flip flopping liar of a leader.
 
Just got back from my brothers place in Manchester. Managed to avoid most of this crap after the election but sadly back in Florida again to the craziness.

Have some thoughts here.
  • Trump is all over the place right now. Still no consistency. Obviously still pandering to where he will get the most hate. Says that Same sex marriage is "settled law" (Supreme Court 2015) but when it comes to abortion will try to repeal (Supreme Court 1973). Both are what he would consider "settled law" but in general same sex marriage is generally more accepted outside the Christian Right that Abortion which seems to have less wider appeal
  • Seeing a lot of people say this is an election for change. Yet congress has barely shifted. Marco Rubio sent back to Congress. The fellow with the worst absentee record in the whole of congress. President can be very weak domestically, Congress can make or break progress
  • Anecdotally, I am seeing a lot of people pro Trump who are more elderly and white. Even within my family. Yet these people are the ones most reliant on social welfare of some sort (Social Security 1935, passed when Dems had all 3; Medicaid 1965, passed when Dems had all 3; Disabilities Act 1990, passed when Dems had both Chambers). It's odd that a lot of the older white population tends to vote conservative yet barely survive on what Dems programs the Dems have carved out. Again, this is anecdotal based upon my own observations. I am sure more research has bee done into why people tend to be more conservative the older they get
  • Large swathes of Americans don't seem to care about sexual violence and misogynistic attitudes. It is there. I work in Corporate world with C levels, I see it all the time. Hard to marry up the idea Trump is "Gods answer" given his possessive attitude to women. It is so casually disregarded if someone is "on your message". It's a problem. Throwing randon names out there like John Edwards, Newt Gingrich, Jameis Winston is the reason I won't watch the Buccaneers any more. This is a problem that transcends party afiliation
  • By far the biggest problem though was Clinton. She couldn't mobilize voters to go out vote for her. The Bernie screwjob has cast a long shadow. There is no doubt in my mind that many who voted for her wished there was a better GOP candidate to switch. The Dems need to learn from this or they are in danger of becoming another irrelevant elitist party who thinks they should tell us hoe to vote and end up suffering the fractures the GOP has with the so called Tea Party. I don't think Bernie would have won this to be fair. But we will never know. I know my wife went independent, she was strongly in favour of Bernie. The Dems should put Bernie on the DNC and actually listen to him now. This is not a Trump thead though, not the Clinton one

Say what now?
 
Basically she believes if you put bacteria under certain conditions (very easy to do, for example, a gradient of a poisonous substance in the presence of small amounts of a mutagen) then they will evolve to habit the new environment. Beyond that... God did it.

@McUnited that right there is not believing in evolution no matter how you spin it.
 
Say what now?

I surrendered my season ticket to the Buccaneers when they signed him out of protest, and I know a number of others who did too. I know a fellow at ticket sales and he told me they did take a hit when he signed, but it tailed off. I have a wife and daughter. Damned if I am going to go watch someone who thinks is appropriate to stand on a table and yell FHITP. I have some friends who still go, it's their right and I have no problem with that. Football has some big issues with violence against women in general and an atmosphere of tolerance or damage limitation until it gets public. Just my view.
 
Thanks for the helpful response, as opposed to the two others posters.

A cursory look through the wikipedia page shows that she doesn't reject evolution. It appears she endorses intelligent design, which, as far as I understand, rejects macro-evolution but affirms micro-evolution.

Without digressing utterly, support of intelligent design is categorically a rejection of evolution. Really. She's not hiding it. At all.

There are thousands and thousands of links, quotes, writings, statements all over the web regarding her position on these matters. She's a Christian fundamentalist, hard core science denying, illiberal uber conservative polemicist. And she's very open about it. She literally describes evolution as a "bogus science". You may agree with her and think she's right, but you surely aren't disputing her position on these matters. If you are, you either can't be bothered to read up on her even a little or you are willfully misunderstanding or misrepresenting.
 
Thanks for the helpful response, as opposed to the two others posters.

A cursory look through the wikipedia page shows that she doesn't reject evolution. It appears she endorses intelligent design, which, as far as I understand, rejects macro-evolution but affirms micro-evolution.

So basically you called a woman intelligent and articulate, but either didn't know all she articulated or chose to conveniently ignore it. Then you proceeded to ask for proof of Ann Coulter saying some of the things he said. Now you are complaining that some posters are not helpful when they did ask you to go a search in google, which is the best way to find out for yourself. Isn't that how you came across Ann Coulter? Through internet searches unless you know her personally?

Now you look at her wikipedia page and spint it saying she endorses intelligent design. I can edit her wikipedia page and make it seem like she participated in the kentucky derby too. Here's a taste of Ann Coulter

 
Says she doesn't reject evolution. Admits she rejects evolution. Can see why you have an affinity with your flip flopping liar of a leader.

1) I never said she doesn't reject revolution. I asked where they'd hear this.

2) Having read a summary of her views, it turns out she doesn't reject revolution but neo-darwinism. Not the same thing. Do your research.
 
1) I never said she doesn't reject revolution. I asked where they'd hear this.

2) Having read a summary of her views, it turns out she doesn't reject revolution but neo-darwinism. Not the same thing. Do your research.
'
Ann Coulter has been in the public eye for ~20 years. It doesn't matter how much you twist and turn you're not going to change the minds of people who have listened to her vile bs for decades. Neither are posts on the Caf going to change the definition of evolution.
 
Without digressing utterly, support of intelligent design is categorically a rejection of evolution. Really. She's not hiding it. At all.

There are thousands and thousands of links, quotes, writings, statements all over the web regarding her position on these matters. She's a Christian fundamentalist, hard core science denying, illiberal uber conservative polemicist. And she's very open about it. She literally describes evolution as a "bogus science". You may agree with her and think she's right, but you surely aren't disputing her position on these matters. If you are, you either can't be bothered to read up on her even a little or you are willfully misunderstanding or misrepresenting.

I haven't read her original words, only the link that someone's sent me where she's portrayed as an advocate of intelligent design. I'll buy the book at some point!
There are many subtleties within evolution, including micro-evolution and macro-evolution. I don't think any intelligent person would reject evolution meaning 'change over time', or micro-evolution. However, there is dissent over macro-evolution. I suspect (though don't know, since I haven't read her book) that this is what Coulter has doubts about. If anyone's read her book, perhaps they can put me straight!
 
'
Ann Coulter has been in the public eye for ~20 years. It doesn't matter how much you twist and turn you're not going to change the minds of people who have listened to her vile bs for decades. Neither are posts on the Caf going to change the definition of evolution.
Revolution :nono:
 
So basically you called a woman intelligent and articulate, but either didn't know all she articulated or chose to conveniently ignore it. Then you proceeded to ask for proof of Ann Coulter saying some of the things he said. Now you are complaining that some posters are not helpful when they did ask you to go a search in google, which is the best way to find out for yourself. Isn't that how you came across Ann Coulter? Through internet searches unless you know her personally?

Now you look at her wikipedia page and spint it saying she endorses intelligent design. I can edit her wikipedia page and make it seem like she participated in the kentucky derby too. Here's a taste of Ann Coulter



Of course I don't know everything she's ever said.

Just because I ask to see proof doesn't make me wrong. It makes me lazy.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I haven't read her book. Have you?

That tweet was clearly tongue-in-cheek.

There's a difference between taking someone seriously but not literally, and not taking someone seriously but taking them literally.
 
President-elect Donald Trump is about to learn the nation’s ‘deep secrets’
What President-elect Donald Trump did on his trip to Washington
Botsford161110TrumpOBAMA83981478803931.jpg


Trump arrives at the White House for a meeting with Obama and on Capitol Hill to meet with Republican congressional leaders.


One of the most important phases of the transition to power for President-elect Donald Trump includes briefings on U.S. intelligence capabilities and secret operations as well as separate descriptions of the extraordinary powers he will have over the military, especially contingency plans to use nuclear weapons, according to officials.

In 2008, after then-President-elect Obama was given one sensitive intelligence briefing at a secure facility in Chicago, he joked, “It’s good that there are bars on the windows here because if there weren’t, I might be jumping out.”

Though Trump has been given some intelligence briefings on threats and capabilities, there are a series of separate briefs scheduled for the president-elect into what Obama has called “our deep secrets.”

Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks said she could not provide any information on the schedule for the briefings. Previous presidents received them over the course of the entire transition.

First is a detailed look at technical and human intelligence sources and methods that provide critical information on Special Access Programs — the most sensitive top-secret undertakings — for drone strikes and other intelligence operations. This would include the disclosure, if Trump wants the names, of the dozens of officials abroad paid by the CIA, to the tune of millions of dollars. Though entitled, presidents normally have not asked for names unless the secret relationship involves a particularly important CIA asset.

Other methods include the most sensitive technical capabilities of the National Security Agency to intercept communications abroad, store them and make them instantly available to analysts and operators.

Trump will learn that the president is considered “The First Customer” by the intelligence community, which has a tradition of responding to any and every presidential request.

A second briefing will be on the covert actions undertaken by the CIA that are designed to change events abroad without the hand of the United States being revealed publicly. There are currently about a dozen such “Findings” — intelligence orders signed by the president. Some are broad authorities to conduct lethal counterterrorism operations in dozens of countries. Others are narrow, such as support for clandestine efforts in a single country to stop genocide or payments to political opposition or rebels.

Under law and procedures, such covert-action orders are issued by the office of the president, and Obama’s orders will continue unless Trump, as president, changes them. Normally, the president-elect will review current covert actions and decide before the inauguration whether he wants to continue, modify or cease any. He also could add new covert operations after taking the oath.

Obama received his briefing on covert action Dec. 9, 2008.

Under law, the president can decide to launch new covert operations but must inform the Senate and House intelligence committees. For particularly sensitive operations, the president has to see only that the Gang of Eight is informed. The eight are the two party leaders of both the Senate and House, plus the chairman and ranking member of the intelligence committees.

Among the most important “Findings” are counter-proliferation operations designed to prevent a country from obtaining a nuclear weapon or a nuclear weapon delivery capability.

Other operations are offensive aggressive cyberattacks involving stealthy computer hacking designed to break into computer systems of foreign governments. Previously, they have been called the Computer Network Attack (CNA) and are among the most highly secret undertakings of the U.S. government.

In addition, Trump will receive information on domestic counterterrorism overseen by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security. After the 9/11 attacks, the FBI was turned loose to stop the next attack. Efforts to penetrate banks, communications and foreign corporations in the United States have been significantly expanded.

Trump will also be given information about “Continuity of Government,” which are the plans and procedures designed for implementing the line of presidential succession. That could be in case of a terrorist attack or other emergency in which the president dies or could not carry out the duties of his office.

A third briefing will be on nuclear-war plans and options. The “football,” a briefcase carried by the military aide to the president, includes authentication codes designed to ensure that any launch order comes only from the commander in chief.

The “football” also contains a book of options benignly called the “Presidential Decision Handbook.” This top secret/code-word book, known as the “Black Book,” of about 75 pages has separate contingency plans for using nuclear weapons against potential adversaries such as Russia and China.

The president can select nuclear strike packages against three categories — military targets, war-supporting or economic targets and leadership targets. There are sub-options, and the menu allows a president to withhold attacks on specific targets.

Two officials said that the “Black Book” also includes estimates on the number of casualties for each of the main options that run into the millions, and in some cases over 100 million. Officials who have dealt with nuclear-war options said that learning the details can be horrifying and that there is a “Dr. Strangelove” feel to the whole enterprise.

President-elect George W. Bush did not receive his briefing on nuclear options until five days before inauguration in 2001.

Top White House officials say that presidents in the past have had no love and little interest in getting the nuclear war plans briefing and almost recoil at the prospect of having such authority. Under practice as the commander in chief, the president can employ U.S. military forces as he sees fit.

The system of authentication and options is designed for quick response to attack in an emergency. A president might have to make a decision in a matter ofminutes with little or no time to consult the secretary of defense, military leaders or the National Security Council.

In addition, Trump will receive briefings from the Pentagon on current military operations, including the deployments in the ongoing wars in Afghanistan, against the Islamic State and other Special Operations actions abroad.

After one of the briefings in 2008, Obama told a close adviser that it was perhaps one of the most sobering experiences of his life. He said, “I’m inheriting a world that could blow up any minute in half a dozen ways, and I will have some powerful but limited and perhaps even dubious tools to keep it from happening.”

In an Oval Office interview on July 10, 2010, Obama confirmed that he had made that sort of comment.

“Events are messy out there,” he said. “At any given moment of the day, there are explosive, tragic, heinous, hazardous things taking place.” He acknowledged that as president it was his responsibility to deal with all these problems. “People are saying, ‘You’re the most powerful person in the world. Why aren’t you doing something about it?’ ”

The power of the presidency has two sides. On one, it is an extraordinary concentration of constitutional and legal authority. On the other, as Obama said, it can be limited and dubious.

Soon, Trump will experience both the power and its limits.

Evelyn Duffy contributed to this report.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...f9bc40-a847-11e6-8fc0-7be8f848c492_story.html
 
'
Ann Coulter has been in the public eye for ~20 years. It doesn't matter how much you twist and turn you're not going to change the minds of people who have listened to her vile bs for decades. Neither are posts on the Caf going to change the definition of evolution.

I agree with your first sentence. The rest is nonsense.

Change who's minds about what?

Who's trying to change the definition of evolution?
 
1) I never said she doesn't reject revolution. I asked where they'd hear this.

2) Having read a summary of her views, it turns out she doesn't reject revolution but neo-darwinism. Not the same thing. Do your research.

So in other words she rejects science. Have you noticed how when the anti-science nutjobs want to oppose something they never seem to have the guts anymore to just say the equivilent of 'I believe in a flat earth!'. No, instead they have to pull all this micro/macro bullshit which means basically nothing in the sense that they 'understand' it.

TLDR: If you think evolution in the accepted scientific sense isn't real, then you're not 'intelligent and articulate', you're just very silly.
 
So in other words she rejects science. Have you noticed how when the anti-science nutjobs want to oppose something they never seem to have the guts anymore to just say the equivilent of 'I believe in a flat earth!'. No, instead they have to pull all this micro/macro bullshit which means basically nothing in the sense that they 'understand' it.

TLDR: If you think evolution in the accepted scientific sense isn't real, then you're not 'intelligent and articulate', you're just very silly.

A classic example of a Liberal misrepresenting other people's views to suit their agenda.

In other words she rejects science? How did you reach this conclusion?

Micro/Macro evolution isn't BS. Do your research.

If you think evolution is universally accepted you're just badly informed. I'm sorry.
 
1) I never said she doesn't reject revolution. I asked where they'd hear this.

2) Having read a summary of her views, it turns out she doesn't reject revolution but neo-darwinism. Not the same thing. Do your research.
Intelligent design is explicitly, categorically and unarguably a refutation of evolution by making the primary driver of evolution an intelligent creator and not an un-directed process like natural selection. There isn't an argument here. It is not science, but a religious position. Which Coulter believes and has openly stated over and over again that she believes.

Oh, and there's nothing "neo" about not believing that God directs evolution.
 
I haven't read her original words, only the link that someone's sent me where she's portrayed as an advocate of intelligent design. I'll buy the book at some point!
There are many subtleties within evolution, including micro-evolution and macro-evolution. I don't think any intelligent person would reject evolution meaning 'change over time', or micro-evolution. However, there is dissent over macro-evolution. I suspect (though don't know, since I haven't read her book) that this is what Coulter has doubts about. If anyone's read her book, perhaps they can put me straight!

Using my powers of deduction I estimate you are a white American Trump supporter with a penchant for GILF porn.
 
A classic example of a Liberal misrepresenting other people's views to suit their agenda.

In other words she rejects science? How did you reach this conclusion?

Micro/Macro evolution isn't BS. Do your research.

If you think evolution is universally accepted you're just badly informed. I'm sorry.
It's universally accepted by anyone who knows what they're talking about.
 
A classic example of a Liberal misrepresenting other people's views to suit their agenda.

In other words she rejects science? How did you reach this conclusion?

Micro/Macro evolution isn't BS. Do your research.

If you think evolution is universally accepted you're just badly informed. I'm sorry.
Also, the Micro/Macro evolution debate (for instance: Gould vs. Dawkins) is really not the same as intelligent design. Unless you think Stephen Jay Gould was a proponent of intelligent design.
 
Intelligent design is explicitly, categorically and unarguably a refutation of evolution by making the primary driver of evolution an intelligent creator and not an un-directed process like natural selection. There isn't an argument here. It is not science, but a religious position. Which Coulter believes and has openly stated over and over again that she believes.

Oh, and there's nothing "neo" about not believing that God directs evolution.

In the words of someone else:
It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.