• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trump administration 2024-2028

Ironic that the US system was purposefully set up to guard against that very thing.
And that's kinda my point. Observers say the US system of checks and balances can be to the point of gridlock, but everybody seems to be sitting on their hands. I read somewhere that he is basing the scope of his EOs on some 'national emergency' legislation the Executive was granted some years ago. If so, be careful what you wish for.

The opposing party doesn't have a veto-proof majority in both bodies. If Democrats won't join Republicans to curb Democratic presidential overreach, no-one should expect Republicans to reciprocate.
Understood, but I'm not hearing about anything about EOs being debated, confirmed or whatever, even if they are ultimately passed. Maybe they are and I'm just not seeing it.

If anyone was wondering about the Presidential Address don't worry you are missing nothing. Going exactly as expected, an old dude rambling and Republicans going absolutely feral over every word.

Unironically this has manifested into reality:
Most at least try to give some appearance or nod to some manner of bipartisan cooperation, even if they don't mean it.
 
And that's kinda my point. Observers say the US system of checks and balances can be to the point of gridlock, but everybody seems to be sitting on their hands. I read somewhere that he is basing the scope of his EOs on some 'national emergency' legislation the Executive was granted some years ago. If so, be careful what you wish for.


Understood, but I'm not hearing about anything about EOs being debated, confirmed or whatever, even if they are ultimately passed. Maybe they are and I'm just not seeing it.


Most at least try to give some appearance or nod to some manner of bipartisan cooperation, even if they don't mean it.
EOs aren’t subject to any debate or legislative review. They’re simply the President, in a formal way, issuing written direction purporting to be based on existing executive authority. The challenge is when EOs exceed that lawful authority, and that’s where we see matters go to the courts. The EO claiming to eliminate birthright citizenship, for instance, s immediately attracted court challenges on 14th amendment grounds.

Congress doesn’t directly enter into it a specific EO. They could conceivably legislate constraints to executive powers in many cases.
 

The timeline keeps getting darker. It's insane that it's only been 44 days, only 1342 more to go.
 
And that's kinda my point. Observers say the US system of checks and balances can be to the point of gridlock, but everybody seems to be sitting on their hands. I read somewhere that he is basing the scope of his EOs on some 'national emergency' legislation the Executive was granted some years ago. If so, be careful what you wish for.
See here. Presidents have been (arguably) misusing emergency declaration powers since the 1976 act was passed. It's a known problem; there are articles out there by people arguing for reform.
Understood, but I'm not hearing about anything about EOs being debated, confirmed or whatever, even if they are ultimately passed. Maybe they are and I'm just not seeing it.
A guest on a news show recently emphasized that all you need to produce an EO is "a piece of paper and a sharpie". That understates the research and preparation done beforehand, but his point was that compared to the legal effort of challenging an EO, producing one is nothing. Then the opposing team goes judge-shopping for stays and nationwide injunctions (another power, this time of the courts, that some reformers want to curb). Eventually matters trickle through courts and are decided on the merits. Another point he made was that these processes explain what we observe: administrations launch a barrage of EOs early knowing that most will take time to resolve, but that they are going to win some - many, if their research is good - of them. A third point was that the stays and injunctive relief mean very little despite the braying of media that the executive is being pwned by the courts. What matters is what eventually happens in the higher courts, particularly the USSC.
 
If anyone was wondering about the Presidential Address don't worry you are missing nothing. Going exactly as expected, an old dude rambling and Republicans going absolutely feral over every word.

Unironically this has manifested into reality:
In case you're interested, text of The Speech here (also archived here) ....
... and Chat GPT's assessment of Russian disinfo/misinfo influence in the text
Assessment of Potential Russian Disinformation or Misinformation Influences:

Rating:
7/10

Indicators of Potential Russian Disinformation:
  1. Narrative Alignment with Russian Objectives:
    • The text includes claims about the Ukraine war, suggesting massive casualties ("millions of Ukrainians and Russians have been needlessly killed or wounded") and pushing the idea that the U.S. involvement is misguided or manipulated. This aligns with Russian disinformation strategies aimed at reducing Western support for Ukraine and promoting a negotiated settlement favorable to Russia.
  2. Undermining Western Leaders and Institutions:
    • The text contains heavy criticism of the Biden administration and European allies, particularly around military and financial support to Ukraine. This aligns with Russian messaging designed to sow discord among NATO and Western countries.
  3. Promoting Specific Political Figures as Peace Negotiators:
    • The portrayal of "TRUMP" as the only viable leader to bring peace to Ukraine and to negotiate with Russia could be interpreted as an effort to influence American politics. Russian disinformation has previously aimed to bolster certain political figures perceived as more favorable to Russian interests.
  4. Claims of Corruption and Missing Funds:
    • The assertion that half of U.S. funds sent to Ukraine are “MISSING” is a frequent Russian propaganda theme. It reinforces narratives of corruption in Ukraine and seeks to reduce public support for aid.
  5. Exaggerated or False Claims:
    • Statements about the "golden age" of America and wildly optimistic claims of economic and political successes could serve to contrast with the alleged failures of current Western policies, a tactic often used in disinformation to create polarized perceptions.
Other Notable Elements:
  • Polarizing Language: The text employs divisive language, positioning political opponents as enemies, which is a known strategy to amplify societal divisions.
  • Emotional Manipulation: Stories of violence and tragedy are used to appeal to fear and resentment, which is often a tactic in propaganda to shift public opinion.
Overall Conclusion:The text is highly politically charged and contains elements that align with known Russian disinformation strategies. The likelihood of influence or alignment with Russian disinformation narratives is high, though the extensive length and broad range of topics also suggest it is tailored to a specific political agenda beyond just foreign influence.
 
The speech seemed pretty sketchy to me...

On one side of the room, the crowd mindlessly cheers for Trump, it doesn't matter what he says, the yes men stay in line cheering all the way.

The other side of the room, a bunch of people sit quietly, looking like they are about to cry, but also, doing basically nothing, while being belittled and mocked by Trump. One person speaks up, they are quickly removed, there is clearly little support for them.

It seems like each one of these events the US looks more and more like it's a very serious crisis... If nothing else, the country is completed divided with no common ground, it seems like they are long past compromising and working with each other at this point. Completely different and incompatible visions.
 
Don't forget Kennedy's influence:

Look at it this way -- when we are all wiped out down here by small pox and crippled by Polio - the CAF can pick up a shit ton of high end military gear - and make us the 13th Province.
 
What's interesting is comparing Canada’s and Mexico's approaches when dealing with the Trump Administration.


IMO, Mexico is looking to steal Canadian business and jobs. I believe their tactics for dealing with the Trump Administration will be far more effective.
 
What's interesting is comparing Canada’s and Mexico's approaches when dealing with the Trump Administration.


IMO, Mexico is looking to steal Canadian business and jobs. I believe their tactics for dealing with the Trump Administration will be far more effective.
She is going this route because the ‘facts’ are not in her side - fentanyl is pouring into the US from Mexico. Trumps thumping of the chest about this issue is real when it concerns Mexico. They have to take the quiet, meek approach because they don’t have a leg to stand on.
We, Canada need to point out the incredible stupidity of Trumps approach with us.
The two cases are not comparable in my humble opinion.
 
She is going this route because the ‘facts’ are not in her side - fentanyl is pouring into the US from Mexico. Trumps thumping of the chest about this issue is real when it concerns Mexico. They have to take the quiet, meek approach because they don’t have a leg to stand on.
We, Canada need to point out the incredible stupidity of Trumps approach with us.
The two cases are not comparable in my humble opinion.
# of seizures is not necessarily a reflection of how large or small a problem is. Rather, it's a reflection of how many resources have been allocated to tackling the problem.

Canada has been an organized crime haven for ages, it's well documented:


It's just that not much has been done about it.


That being said, this isn't really about Fentanyl though. In our case, it's about getting rid of the Libs and getting the Chinese influence out of the Canadian Government. The Americans want a change of political direction in Ottawa and they are going to Squeeze Canadians to do it.
 
# of seizures is not necessarily a reflection of how large or small a problem is. Rather, it's a reflection of how many resources have been allocated to tackling the problem.
And seizures are a US responsibility. They haven’t really redirected anything north. That should tell everyone how serious this problem really is at our border.
Canada has been an organized crime haven for ages, it's well documented:


It's just that not much has been done about it.
And aside from mentioning cartels operating inn Canada they haven’t made much noise about that either. The goal posts keep moving.
That being said, this isn't really about Fentanyl though. In our case, it's about getting rid of the Libs and getting the Chinese influence out of the Canadian Government. The Americans want a change of political direction in Ottawa and they are going to Squeeze Canadians to do it.
I don’t think they give a f**k about our political direction. Trump hasn’t really been flattering to the CPC. He could care less who is in power.

I can buy the Chinese Angle but even then.
 
And seizures are a US responsibility. They haven’t really redirected anything north. That should tell everyone how serious this problem really is at our border.
Why would the US spend their own resources when they can coerce us to? The entire Trump Admin argument is that they shouldn't be be spending money subsidizing others security so in what World would it make more sense for them to spend more and allocate more resources if that's their objective?

And aside from mentioning cartels operating inn Canada they haven’t made much noise about that either. The goal posts keep moving.
The Americans have been making noise about this and other security issues for years/decades. We have been long considered Defence & Security laggards and our actions have always been reactionary and doing the absolute bare minimum.

We aren't in sync with them with a number of security issues and it's not just fentanyl either. Arctic Security, BMD, Military Spending, Foreign Policy, etc.

I don’t think they give a f**k about our political direction. Trump hasn’t really been flattering to the CPC. He could care less who is in power.
That's because every Party in Canada is complicit in the above. Our intransigence to their concerns is universal and isn't a Liberal or Conservative or NDP issue.

I can buy the Chinese Angle but even then.
You should buy it, it's a major dissatisfier in Washington.
 
Why would the US spend their own resources when they can coerce us to? The entire Trump Admin argument is that they shouldn't be be spending money subsidizing others security so in what World would it make more sense for them to spend more and allocate more resources if that's their objective?
Again. That argument shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the border works. If they think there is such a massive amount coming in they should be allocating more resources to the northern border but they are not. Because they know we are not the problem. Securing their border is there responsibility if that is the case. The border issue is just an excuse to be able to declare an emergency to get his tariffs out legally.
The Americans have been making noise about this and other security issues for years/decades. We have been long considered Defence & Security laggards and our actions have always been reactionary and doing the absolute bare minimum.
Sure. That isn’t the argument though.
We aren't in sync with them with a number of security issues and it's not just fentanyl either. Arctic Security, BMD, Military Spending, Foreign Policy, etc.
I’ve said it before. It does not matter what we do. These tariffs were happening regardless of any of that.
That's because every Party in Canada is complicit in the above. Our intransigence to their concerns is universal and isn't a Liberal or Conservative or NDP issue.
That’s not what your premise was or what you said. You said it was about getting rid of the libs.
You should buy it, it's a major dissatisfier in Washington.
I said I buy it. But it is likely not enough of a reason to declare an emergency legally
 
Again. That argument shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the border works. If they think there is such a massive amount coming in they should be allocating more resources to the northern border but they are not. Because they know we are not the problem. Securing their border is there responsibility if that is the case. The border issue is just an excuse to be able to declare an emergency to get his tariffs out legally.

Sure. That isn’t the argument though.

I’ve said it before. It does not matter what we do. These tariffs were happening regardless of any of that.

That’s not what your premise was or what you said. You said it was about getting rid of the libs.

I said I buy it. But it is likely not enough of a reason to declare an emergency legally
Don't try to put logic or reality into what Trump says or does.
He says whatever jumps into his head - then doubles down on it.
 
Back
Top