Fixed

The airtime Trump got from the mainstream media was half that and the free coverage Trump got in the media purely by saying outrageous things made up for the Shortfall.

As if that wasn’t his plan all along 🙂

Completely Irrelevant to TJ’s point or the wider attacks that were made on Trump alleging that the countries excluded from the ban were on the basis of his business interests

Well I’ve no idea which countries Trump has business interests in. It seems evident to me that the existing list was quickly picked up in order to push out a “promise” in the first few days of his Presidency.

I probably won’t make it down to London, but I may make a special trip to his golf course next time im in Aberdeen, and take a huge dump in the 18th cup…

Back on the 24th June last year trump posted a tweet “Just arrived in Scotland. Place is going wild over the vote. They took their country back, just like we will take America back. No games!.”

I can’t really post my reply as I imagine I’d get a ban for my language but it did include a pic of our night time Mtb ride over his turnberry course, it’s a cracking place for a ride and the kickers on the bunkers are great fun for comedy spills n’ crashes – you also get chased by security in golf carts which just adds to the childish fun especially when you head right for them with 3000w of blinding light.

@slowoldman It’s been fairly well documented, it doesn’t include any country on that list but does include several others in the region. Look out for some nice things for Turkey next. See also Tiawan and hotel devlopment and the Dakota pipeline.
Given how high Jamby and Ninfan were willing to jump to find a conclusion about Clinton they seem very reluctant to look in the direction of this one 😉

Murdoch’s not stupid, he’s put a Trump supporter into the Prime Time News slot.

As Jamby indicated, don’t be a trouble maker, suck up and keep with the in crowd. Don’t challenge him or he won’t be nice to you.

So what do people make of this 1 in 2 out policy?

On the face of it, it sounds like a reasonable idea. A good way to trim slack. Needs to be used without an agenda though. And if it is used with and agenda, could result in some silly laws/regulations getting implemented just so they could repeal others.

It’s also interesting, as if you google it, you come up with this, https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/one-in-two-out-statement-of-new-regulation so just something that’s been stolen from elsewhere. An indication that trump actually admires and knows more about he Europeans than you think?

Anybody know the policy in the link is viewed as a positive thing, and anything you would point to as successful use of the policy.

Dunno what I’m asking there, just curious about it..

I’d say it’s nothing more than a soundbite. Does it mean that you have to find 2 things to get rid of if you need to regulate a sector more? Remember increasing regulation in banking – it was needed due to lax regulation. Yes get rid of the redundant but not the important.

It’s a very well trotted out line that things are too highly regulated but when asked which ones people want rid of they are short of a long list. Some large corporations generally want rid of the ones that stop them hiring firing quickly and from having to justify why you employed John instead of the 25 other better qualified candidates who were women/minorities/disabled.
Some people want rid of pesky things like environmental regulation that stops them burning waste in the open.

Find a long enough list of bad regulations and work on them rather than an arbitary target.

For some light relief…

http://trumpdonald.org/

And after the light relief:

Note also the most frightening escalation last night was that the DHS made it fairly clear that they did not feel bound to obey any court orders. CBP continued to deny all access to counsel, detain people, and deport them in direct contravention to the court’s order, citing “upper management,” and the DHS made a formal (but confusing) statement that they would continue to follow the President’s orders. (See my updates from yesterday, and the various links there, for details) Significant in today’s updates is any lack of suggestion that the courts’ authority played a role in the decision.
That is to say, the administration is testing the extent to which the DHS (and other executive agencies) can act and ignore orders from the other branches of government. This is as serious as it can possibly get: all of the arguments about whether order X or Y is unconstitutional mean nothing if elements of the government are executing them and the courts are being ignored.

DOOOOOOOOMED!

The two articles he mentions at the beginning are brain meltingly terrifying too

Whereas at the same time the AG is instructing staff not to waste time defending any action against the Exec Order

“The Department of Justice will not present arguments in defence of the executive order,” she said.
Ms Yates is due to be replaced by Mr Trump’s nominee, Jeff Sessions.
In a letter to employees published by US media, she noted that the order had been challenged in court in a number of jurisdictions.
“My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is,” she wrote.
“I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right.”

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38805343
Maybe she is playing a bit of politics but could also be the case that she really doesn’t want to waste time and effort making her staff look like idiots trying to defend something they can’t (perhaps because no legal guidance was taken on the issue)

Hundreds of US diplomats around the world are set to formally criticise President Donald Trump’s immigration restrictions, officials tell the BBC.
A “dissent cable” has been drafted for senior state department officials.
The White House said those complaining should “get with the programme”.
In the wake of Mr Trump’s ban on nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries, ex-President Barack Obama has spoken out against discrimination “based on faith or religion”.
In a statement his spokesman, Kevin Lewis, said Mr Obama was also “heartened” by the level of engagement taking place across the country.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38799796
and the Donald taking a few lessons from the level of STW argument of stop complaining and get on with doing (the illegal) thing that you clearly don’t agree with.

Lets hope some consensus is reached or it makes it to a proper court action.

and not to just be doing a running commentary but he just fired the acting AG for not doing what she was told
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/30/justice-department-trump-immigration-acting-attorney-general-sally-yates

Starting to channel Nixon already

I wonder if Trump will comment on Putin’s new tolerance of domestic violence policies?

and not to just be doing a running commentary but he just fired the acting AG for not doing what she was told
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/30/justice-department-trump-immigration-acting-attorney-general-sally-yates

He’s probably right in this one, if she was obstructing the desires of The Doughnut and betraying him, then she needed to go. How would he get any legislation through if the Democrats keep blocking his way? The Doughnut knows best and he should be allowed to control the democratic process. It’s what the people voted for after all.
He is, after all, a Repulican and not a Republican’t.

He was complaining that the democrats were blocking things for political reasons…..Ummm does he understand he this works?

The sacked AG had been asked previously, by Trump’s candidate for AG, what she would do if she was asked to carry out an order from the President which she thought was illegal and she replied her duty was to the constitution not the office of president so hardly a shock on this matter

This is hilarious, just hilarious..

Not on Trump’s side but in this case he had no choice. The AG forced his hand.

Obviously doesn’t go for the dominatrix option

Well this letter from the (now ex) acting Attorney General would indicate that her position was that the legality of the EO was doubtful and that to avoid potential litigation it should not be acted upon. That is somewhat different from simple disagreement.

Shall we have a sweepstake on how long it is before someone tries to impeach Trump? The Huffington Post (OK, pretty left wing for a US paper) seems to think it’s inevitable

She may have forced his hand (and she knew she only had a week or so left) but the main issue appears to have been they didn’t bother to legally check the order before it was signed.
Own goal for Trump on that one, she got to send a great letter out too setting out why she was going to get fired for doing the right thing. Be interesting to see how vigoursly any of the team defend the cases that are coming.

The your for us or against us spiel it ratcheting up now along with the complete screwing of the timelines about whats going on.

I wonder if Delta fancy a defamation case for being accused of causing the disruption on Saturday when their computers went down on Sunday 🙂

This really does have the feeling of a totalitarian regime, now.

Meanwhile, on Twitter:

Journal of Alternative Facts

Not on Trump’s side but in this case he had no choice. The AG forced his hand

Of course he had a choice. He just chose to take the dictatorial route.

This is the swearing in oath that Trump took just eleven days ago:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.“

So he sacks someone who is holding him to that oath?

Note that her replacement is also an Obama appointee, Congress has yet to approve Trump’s nominee for the post.

She deliberately (and correctly) forced his had. He was not in control, she was. She is the winner there.

Hmm…

Sacking members of the judiciary who you don’t agree with.

I’m not sure what chapter of Fascism for Dummies that is from but its one of the first ones, its beside controlling the media I think.

Not bad after less than a fortnight in office

Meanwhile Hague & Johnson have said that it’s fine for the Queen to host Trump because she met Mugabe and Caucescu

As if that’s some kind of example that this is a good idea 😯

As if that’s some kind of example that this is a good idea

So neither Hague nor Johnson have very high opinions of The Doughnut either. 😆

it’s simply using the ninfan logic that everyone has done something so you can’t criticise anyone….

Scottish protesters getting a bit of humour in. He ain’t even been to Scotland as Potus yet.

Best signs
“Oi Trump – gonnae no do that” ( chewin the fat reference)
“Chapati tae yer heid ya bam” ( held by a chap of asian subcontinent descent)
“Yer Maw was an immigrant you absolute roaster”
“Bams against the ban”
“away and shite donald”
“Trumps heart is colder than Scotland”

A fine piece of whataboutery, which almost matches anything I’ve seen on FB (replied last night to somebody who was saying “give him a chance, and what about Watergate” 🙄 )

I was amused to see that boneheaded nitwit currently in charge of presenting to the press corps, whilst announcing that anybody who didn’t agree with Trump should “get with the programme”, sounded almost exactly like…

I was minded to think such talk was just hopeful but unrealistic, however having seen the way he is acting I now tend to agree with THP.

I’m thinking more of:

She deliberately (and correctly) forced his had. He was not in control, she was. She is the winner there.

Totall agree @thm. She made a great move with big impact. Yet again, shows he’s a total novice in this role.

All jokes aside though about him…he has the potential to create quite a nasty situation. I’ve even wondered if he’ll be ‘taken out’ (somehow) by his own nations security to avoid catastrophic problems. His actions could create seriously nasty responses from different areas of the world since he’s already playing into the hands of the anti-Amnerican propoganda machine.

And then there’s this…

Eeek

now we have the chief of LAPD police signalling his readiness to refuse Trumps instructions
http://usuncut.com/news/lapd-police-chief-just-openly-rebelled-trumps-immigration-orders/

A fine piece of whataboutery

Here’s a bit more whataboutery. If the UK was willing to join in the destabilizing of Iraq and the obviously unwinnable fight in Afghanistan purely to keep on the right side of the USA, why wouldn’t we grant a State visit to Trump?

Is keeping the States onside a sensible Foreign policy aim? If so we have to suck it up.

That’s a assuming a visit is desirable to either side given the protests.

If the UK was willing to join in the destabilizing of Iraq and the obviously unwinnable fight in Afghanistan purely to keep on the right side of the USA, why wouldn’t we grant a State visit to Trump?

As said before, we look at events now not the past. If you go back far enough you will be able to justify anything because somebody did something. Since that war the UK has had 3 PM’s and a few elections.

Nice vacuum to push your crazy ideas through

If the UK was willing to join in the destabilizing of Iraq and the obviously unwinnable fight in Afghanistan purely to keep on the right side of the USA, why wouldn’t we grant a State visit to Trump?

As said before, we look at events now not the past. If you go back far enough you will be able to justify anything because somebody did something. Since that war the UK has had 3 PM’s and a few elections.

I’m not justifying a state visit – I’m saying that if we look at the past we can predict that a state visit is probably going to happen unless Trump decides it’s too embarrassing to run the gauntlet of protests.

Nice vacuum to push your crazy ideas through

Isn’t it normal in the states to replace top Civil servants when the Administration changes?

If so, I think the UK system is better – the Civil servants are a-political and stay on.