Jump to content
gottaplan

The Trump Presidency

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, YABO713 said:

^I think Pence is very much worried that he may be ousted as running-mate in 2020. 

 

Heh.  Perhaps.  But considering the rather problematic prospects for Trump's reelection, especially if the economy cools off between now and next November, I'm not sure that it wouldn't be a blessing in disguise for Pence if he got the boot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/31/2019 at 10:39 PM, X said:

Also, you may think that picture looks like something that the gov't would release to prove a claim, but I suspect not.  As the article states, this picture appears to have been taken from airborne surveillance, not satellite.  Perhaps our military intelligence wouldn't have liked Iran or the international community to have confirmation that we are infiltrating Iranian airspace.

 

Or to disclose that our satellite surveillance is so good that it looks like airborne surveillance -- which would be another bit of no-longer-classified intelligence that is now known to the entire world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sounds like he gave him his two-Pence worth....

 

 

Edited by KJP

"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amateurs identify U.S. spy satellite behind President Trump's tweet

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/09/02/npr-amateurs-identify-u-s-spy-satellite-behind-president-trumps-tweet

 

Amateur satellite trackers say they believe an image tweeted by President Trump on Friday came from one of America's most advanced spy satellites.

The image almost certainly came from a satellite known as USA 224, .... The satellite was launched by the National Reconnaissance Office in 2011. Almost everything about it remains highly classified....

 

...The image tweeted by Trump... was so detailed that some experts doubted whether it really could have come from a satellite high above the planet. 

 

...Prior to the analysis, some experts suspected the image in Trump's tweet might have come from a drone or a spy plane.

....I imagine adversaries are going to take a look at this image and reverse-engineer it to figure out how the sensor itself works and what kind of post-production techniques they're using...

Edited by Jimmy Skinner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fly the friendly skies

 

 

Most expensive golf cart.jpg


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Alright Trumpers, this is either dementia or your leader is an idiot. Pick one.

 

.... BuT jOe BiDeN gEtS CoNfUsEd ToO... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Alright Trumpers, this is either dementia or your leader is an idiot. Pick one.

 

he did say re: cat 5  that "I know it existed," but when he said he's never "heard" of one I believe he meant that he's never heard of one hitting the US. The fact is that cat 5's are extremely rare and that probably a lot of people didn't know that classification even existed. 

Edited by eastvillagedon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, eastvillagedon said:

 

he did say re: cat 5  that "I know it existed," but when he said he's never "heard" of one I believe he meant that he's never heard of one hitting the US. The fact is that cat 5's are extremely rare and that probably a lot of people didn't know that classification even existed. 

 

Except that three Cat. 5's have hit US soil during his presidency alone...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, YABO713 said:

 

Except that three Cat. 5's have hit US soil during his presidency alone...

 

And I don't know anyone who doesn't know what a Cat 5 is.  In fact, it's a meme...

 

f6c6e74d59dc1e3d1cea2ecc94b5ede5.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, eastvillagedon said:

 

he did say re: cat 5  that "I know it existed," but when he said he's never "heard" of one I believe he meant that he's never heard of one hitting the US. The fact is that cat 5's are extremely rare and that probably a lot of people didn't know that classification even existed. 

 

That's the best you have?  The entire Puerto Rico debacle was based on a Cat 5.  Michael hit Florida a year ago.  There have been 5 of these since just 2016.  They're not that rare. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, eastvillagedon said:

he did say re: cat 5  that "I know it existed," but when he said he's never "heard" of one I believe he meant that he's never heard of one hitting the US. The fact is that cat 5's are extremely rare and that probably a lot of people didn't know that classification even existed. 

 

Ah,  yes, the "working man's President" has just "never heard" of Maria (2017), Irma (2017), Michael (2018), Katrina (2005), Rita (2005), Andrew (1992).  A real man of the people.  Maybe he meant he never "heard" of one hitting one of his properties, limiting his chances of committing more insurance fraud.

 

EDIT - glad you came out of the woodwork to prove you're still not a serious person.

Edited by DarkandStormy

Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, eastvillagedon said:

 

he did say re: cat 5  that "I know it existed," but when he said he's never "heard" of one I believe he meant that he's never heard of one hitting the US. The fact is that cat 5's are extremely rare and that probably a lot of people didn't know that classification even existed. 

 

 

The Rolling Stones did in the '70s and they're not even from a country that gets hurricanes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:
 

Alright Trumpers, this is either dementia or your leader is an idiot. Pick one.

 

Salesman and business owners and real estate guys and lawyers continually make sloppy and false statements.  If you get angry when Trump says something stupid, you lose.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

Salesman and business owners and real estate guys and lawyers continually make sloppy and false statements.  If you get angry when Trump says something stupid, you lose.  

 

Trump says something stupid every hour.  I'm not angry every hour.

 

Just wanted a peek into the hivemind of MAGA to see if anything has shifted since they've ceased posting here.  But, sadly, still the same cult.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

Hurricane Francis flooded my basement apartment in Athens.  

 

 

 

Remnants aren't hurricanes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

Remnants aren't hurricanes. 

 

The inland "remnants" often cause more damage than the coastal strike.  Just ask Houston.  

 

Frances dumped record single-day rainfall in many areas of Ohio and Pennsylvania.  Like the most rain in 24-hours in 100+ years of recorded history.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

The inland "remnants" often cause more damage than the coastal strike.  Just ask Houston.  

 

Frances dumped record single-day rainfall in many areas of Ohio and Pennsylvania.  Like the most rain in 24-hours in 100+ years of recorded history.  

 

 

It's actually very rare that that is the case.  And Harvey was still a named tropical system when it hit Houston.  In any case, this is all beside the point.  The point is that Trump couldn't remember that he has spent the last 2 years arguing with PR about his response to Maria.  Either he is going senile, or he cares so little about the disaster, that he's completely wiped it from his mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

It's actually very rare that that is the case.  And Harvey was still a named tropical system when it hit Houston.  In any case, this is all beside the point.  The point is that Trump couldn't remember that he has spent the last 2 years arguing with PR about his response to Maria.  Either he is going senile, or he cares so little about the disaster, that he's completely wiped it from his mind.

 

No he's just playing the same game that Pelosi did when she acted like she had just heard of the Green New Deal.  Politicians rise to power and stay there because they know that facts don't matter and those who hold facts and consistency dear are putty in their hands.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jimmy Skinner said:

....I imagine adversaries are going to take a look at this image and reverse-engineer it to figure out how the sensor itself works and what kind of post-production techniques they're using...

 

This seems like a pretty ridiculous claim. How would one go about reverse engineering an image sensor (and/or a lens) with nothing more than a cell phone picture (with flash) of another picture that was printed on foam board and allegedly taken by a camera on a satellite equipped with said image sensor? The person quoted here sounds like she was in a bit over her head and didn't really understand the questions. Amateur was a good word choice by MPR. A better choice would have been to toss those few quotes aside.

 

Generally speaking, the military doesn't release images like this one because they don't want adversaries to know what their capabilities are, not because someone can reverse engineer an image sensor based upon a picture of a picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, eastvillagedon said:

 

he did say re: cat 5  that "I know it existed," but when he said he's never "heard" of one I believe he meant that he's never heard of one hitting the US. The fact is that cat 5's are extremely rare and that probably a lot of people didn't know that classification even existed. 

 

We all knew.... did you not? The Google works really well. You have to wonder what his aides actually do to prep him for a news presser? Nothing? Hand him a bag of chips and a Pepsi and yell good luck sir. 

 

Thanks for the comedic relief EVD. You’re the best!

Edited by stpats44113

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

The inland "remnants" often cause more damage than the coastal strike.  Just ask Houston.  

 

Frances dumped record single-day rainfall in many areas of Ohio and Pennsylvania.  Like the most rain in 24-hours in 100+ years of recorded history.  

 

 

Don't forget Hurricane Ike. It brought Category 1 winds to Ohio. I remember that part of Grammer's burned down in a wind-caused electrical fire, and parts of the city were without power for weeks. There were nearly 1 million power outages in the Cincinnati metro. The storm caused over $1 billion in damages in Ohio alone.

Edited by Ram23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

 

Don't forget Hurricane Ike. It brought Category 1 winds to Ohio. I remember that part of Grammer's burned down in a wind-caused electrical fire, and parts of the city were without power for weeks. There were nearly 1 million power outages in the Cincinnati metro. The storm caused over $1 billion in damages in Ohio alone.

 

That Bengals game was wild.  The radio signal kept dropping and they had to get a holder for kickoffs.  

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

No he's just playing the same game that Pelosi did when she acted like she had just heard of the Green New Deal.  Politicians rise to power and stay there because they know that facts don't matter and those who hold facts and consistency dear are putty in their hands.  

 

EVERYTHING Trump says is laser-focused directly at hillbillies. If he picks up any other people with it, fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ram23 said:

Generally speaking, the military doesn't release images like this one because they don't want adversaries to know what their capabilities are

 

Generally speaking, the military doesn't release images like this one because they don't want adversaries to know what their capabilities are

 

Generally speaking, the military doesn't release images like this one because they don't want adversaries to know what their capabilities are

 

Generally speaking, the military doesn't release images like this one because they don't want adversaries to know what their capabilities are

 

I love how you can be so pedantic about a thing that doesn't matter that you admit the thing that does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kinda thought a lot of people knew about the satellite imagery. I even had the year 2011 in my head already. In the 2000s they had to bring the SR-71 back because they weren't able to get what they wanted from the satellites of the time, but they were able to park it again in 2012.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

No he's just playing the same game that Pelosi did when she acted like she had just heard of the Green New Deal.  Politicians rise to power and stay there because they know that facts don't matter and those who hold facts and consistency dear are putty in their hands.  

 

It's sad you still believe Trump is playing 34D chess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of us that get angry when Dems want to cut military spending... Trump Admin is diverting $3.6billion from the military project to fund the wall Mexico is going to pay for... 

 

But I'll just assume y'all are cool with that since Dear Leader is okay with it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, YABO713 said:

For those of us that get angry when Dems want to cut military spending... Trump Admin is diverting $3.6billion from the military project to fund the wall Mexico is going to pay for... 

 

But I'll just assume y'all are cool with that since Dear Leader is okay with it

Is this even remotely legal? I'm not an attorney but...

 

In the federal government of the United States, the power of the purse is vested in the Congress as laid down in the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 (the Appropriations Clause) and Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (the Taxing and Spending Clause).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Clvlndr in LV said:

Is this even remotely legal? I'm not an attorney but...

 

In the federal government of the United States, the power of the purse is vested in the Congress as laid down in the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 (the Appropriations Clause) and Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (the Taxing and Spending Clause).

 

What % of Trump initiatives are constitutional 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

 

What % of Trump initiatives are constitutional 

Fair point. So my question becomes can Congress fight this in the courts starting with an injunction?

What can they do to stop this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Clvlndr in LV said:

Is this even remotely legal? I'm not an attorney but...

 

In the federal government of the United States, the power of the purse is vested in the Congress as laid down in the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 (the Appropriations Clause) and Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (the Taxing and Spending Clause).

 

I am an attorney and even I could not answer this, because appropriations bills are a very dense and opaque process.

 

Congress has the first say and the final say.  But they do have ability to delegate--to an extent--that say when they want to set the general level of funding but not necessarily specify to the last dime what must be done with it.

 

There is an entire line of Supreme Court cases on the "non-delegation doctrine" regarding the extent that Congress can leave the specifics of its legislative functions in the hands of the executive.  The concern is that the executive could grow too powerful due to Congress actually wanting badly enough to offload responsibility that they offload power with it that they're really supposed to be exercising themselves--and being held accountable for themselves.  This doctrine has had ups and downs over the years because it involves the judiciary inserting itself into potential power struggles between the legislative and the executive.

 

Conservative justices have actually historically been more aggressive with the nondelegation doctrine, suggesting that Trump's own appointees might well be receptive to the argument that Congress cannot delegate to Trump enough discretion with the military budget to fund the wall without a specific clause in some appropriations bill somewhere authorizing the wall to be built.

 

Conservative justices have typically been more receptive to nondelegation doctrine arguments because the more normal circumstance in which they arise is when a regulatory agency takes a very aggressive view of its own mandate based on some general language of delegating authority from Congress, and the argument being presented is that the general delegation doesn't encompass the action in question and that Congress itself would need to authorize some major new rule that the agency wants to impose via delegated authority, without going through Congress.

 

Separate and apart from all that, Congress legislatively limited itself some years ago to restrict the use of earmarks, which were the most specific form of spending direction.

 

The bottom line: Without having looked at the relevant appropriations bills, I consider it likely that there is general, catch-all language applicable to at least some of this money that gives the executive a colorable claim to be able to redirect it in this fashion.  But there might well also be a legal argument, if a plaintiff with standing could be found, that Congress actually couldn't give the president that much authority to redirect funds even if it wanted.  And I literally have no clue how such an argument would turn out on its merits, even if such a case navigated the standing minefield to reach the merits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

I am an attorney and even I could not answer this, because appropriations bills are a very dense and opaque process.

 

Congress has the first say and the final say.  But they do have ability to delegate--to an extent--that say when they want to set the general level of funding but not necessarily specify to the last dime what must be done with it.

 

There is an entire line of Supreme Court cases on the "non-delegation doctrine" regarding the extent that Congress can leave the specifics of its legislative functions in the hands of the executive.  The concern is that the executive could grow too powerful due to Congress actually wanting badly enough to offload responsibility that they offload power with it that they're really supposed to be exercising themselves--and being held accountable for themselves.  This doctrine has had ups and downs over the years because it involves the judiciary inserting itself into potential power struggles between the legislative and the executive.

 

Conservative justices have actually historically been more aggressive with the nondelegation doctrine, suggesting that Trump's own appointees might well be receptive to the argument that Congress cannot delegate to Trump enough discretion with the military budget to fund the wall without a specific clause in some appropriations bill somewhere authorizing the wall to be built.

 

Conservative justices have typically been more receptive to nondelegation doctrine arguments because the more normal circumstance in which they arise is when a regulatory agency takes a very aggressive view of its own mandate based on some general language of delegating authority from Congress, and the argument being presented is that the general delegation doesn't encompass the action in question and that Congress itself would need to authorize some major new rule that the agency wants to impose via delegated authority, without going through Congress.

 

Separate and apart from all that, Congress legislatively limited itself some years ago to restrict the use of earmarks, which were the most specific form of spending direction.

 

The bottom line: Without having looked at the relevant appropriations bills, I consider it likely that there is general, catch-all language applicable to at least some of this money that gives the executive a colorable claim to be able to redirect it in this fashion.  But there might well also be a legal argument, if a plaintiff with standing could be found, that Congress actually couldn't give the president that much authority to redirect funds even if it wanted.  And I literally have no clue how such an argument would turn out on its merits, even if such a case navigated the standing minefield to reach the merits.

 

I wonder if the "I don't knows" and "may be fine" arguments would still exist if this were a Democratic president siphoning money from the military to fund Planned Parenthood.  I also wonder, since Republicans always seem to set the absolute worst of precedents, if they'd have any real standing to complain if something like that did happen. 

Edited by jonoh81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...