The Reign of Trump

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
Raw Shark
Stunt Driver / Babysitter
Posts: 8039
Joined: 2005-11-24 09:35am
Location: One Mile Up

Re: The Reign of Trump

Post by Raw Shark »

bilateralrope wrote: 2025-03-21 05:04pm If the attempt to remove Trump fails, he will want revenge against all the Republicans and his appointees who went on record trying to get rid of him. Is that a better outcome ?
Maybe? I wouldn't exactly object to watching them eat themselves.
Ralin wrote: 2025-03-22 08:01am Been saying for awhile now. President Vance means all of Trump's worst policies coupled with the ability to shut up, listen and follow simple instructions. And that is not something any of us should want.

Plus I tend to think that only way he's ever getting elected president on his own is if he's already president.
Listen up, kids, because you won't hear this often: I agree with Ralin. Ralin is right. I have nothing to add here.

"Do I really look like a guy with a plan? Y'know what I am? I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it! Y'know, I just do things..." --The Joker
User avatar
Solauren
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10460
Joined: 2003-05-11 09:41pm

Re: The Reign of Trump

Post by Solauren »

Trumps now using executive orders for Extortion...

and it's WORKING

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump- ... wtab-en-us
Legal community shaken by a powerful law firm's decision to give in to Trump's demands

President Donald Trump rescinded his executive order targeting Paul Weiss — after the law firm agreed to certain conditions.

March 21, 2025, 8:32 PM EDT
By Ryan J. Reilly and Lawrence Hurley


WASHINGTON — On Thursday, the powerful law firm Paul Weiss caved.

It agreed to give Donald Trump’s administration $40 million in free legal work for causes the president supports and, according to a social media post from Trump, get rid of any internal diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

In response, Trump rescinded his executive order that targeted the firm and could have cost it significant business.

The agreement shocked many in the legal community, and for Rachel Cohen, an associate at another large firm — Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP — it was the final straw.

On Thursday night, Cohen fired off an email to her firm that said she was giving her two-weeks’ notice, unless leaders there agreed to a number of conditions that would, in effect, stand up to the Trump administration — including by refusing to cooperate with the targeting of DEI programs.

“This is not what I saw for my career or for my evening, but Paul Weiss’ decision to cave to the Trump administration on DEI, representation and staffing has forced my hand,” Cohen wrote in her firmwide email, which went viral on social media after she shared it publicly. “We do not have time. It is now or it is never, and if it is never, I will not continue to work here.”

Representatives for Paul Weiss, Skadden and the White House did not immediately return requests for comment.

Cohen told NBC News on Friday that her calculus wasn’t whether her letter was going to backfire, nor was it whether she was going to be fired. (Cohen said her email access was suspended soon after she sent her letter.)

Her key question was: “Is this going to be unhelpful to the aim that I am working towards, which is the protection of not just my colleagues, but the rule of law in the United States of America? Because the stakes really are that high.”

Cohen said she consulted with a family member and had a close friend from law school look over her draft. And then she pushed send.

One of the challenges, Cohen said, is that this administration is able to inflict permanent damage before the court system has a chance to catch up.

“They move so quickly that you have to make judgment calls — that can cost you a lot — off of what you think is going to happen next, because you do not have time to wait it out and see what happens next, you will be too far behind,” she said.

Cohen said she didn’t want to be in this position and wishes she weren’t. She believes “a coup” is happening in America right now. She wishes the most powerful attorneys in the country had immediately banded together and decided to send a clear message that Trump’s actions were unacceptable.

“We are in this moment where the president is testing what he can get away with and whether the structures that we have in this country that are supposed to prevent us from having a dictator will hold,” she said. “We are not the first or the biggest line of defense. The big law firms are not going to save us, but we are a brick in a wall, and we’re pretty close to the bottom.”

Cohen’s message highlighted conversations that are happening behind the scenes at law firms and within the Justice Department in the chaotic two months since Trump took office.

Trump has directly targeted corporate law firms by issuing executive orders that either strip lawyers of security clearance or prevent them from working with the federal government.

The decision by Paul Weiss sent shockwaves through the corporate legal world, with lawyers worrying that it emboldens the administration to take similar action against more firms.

One lawyer with a large firm in Washington said the move by Paul Weiss to make a deal was “as craven and despicable a decision as you will find.”

The agreement “will make other law firms more scared” and less likely to publicly stand up for the profession, said the lawyer, who, like others in this article, requested anonymity out of fear of retribution.

Any joint effort by firms to make a public stand against Trump has so far fizzled, although there is an ongoing discussion among firms over filing an amicus brief in a case brought by Perkins Coie against an executive order Trump issued targeting that firm, the lawyer said. Reluctance about speaking up is driven mostly by commercial interests, namely the fear of losing clients, the lawyer added.

“The conversations are happening at the firms. The people that I know in the law will say out loud, ‘This is what is happening.’ And they are just scared, and they’re hiding behind notions of fiduciary duty,” Cohen said.

A lawyer at another major law firm said the justification their firm has used for keeping its head down is that it needs to keep its management team happy — not look out for the welfare of the country. The lawyer said the Trump administration’s goal appeared to be to bankrupt several of the big law firms.

George Conway, a frequent Trump critic and a former partner at a major law firm, told NBC News that firms need to look beyond the bottom line.

“They have a moral duty to defend the very system that has allowed them to make the kind of money that they make. These law firms are now basically so profit-driven that they are putting their own economic interests...above the system,” Conway said. “That to me is not only morally appalling and morally fraught and just contemptible, but at the end of the day, self-defeating.”

Asked by NBC News what message she had for those in positions of power who are staying quiet, Cohen said: “Their silence is not only not going to protect them, it is going to kill people.”

At the Justice Department — with lawyers being fired or reassigned if they worked on cases or in areas that are not what the Trump administration wants — lawyers looking for the exits are finding a tough job market.

“Everyone is now constantly looking over their shoulder, wondering if they say the wrong thing to the wrong person or in a monitored chat they could lose their job,” a Justice Department attorney said. “If they don’t work cases that are ‘aligned with Trump’s priorities’ they could lose their job. If they touch a case against a person with certain political affiliations or connections to the White House, they could lose their job.”

Mark Zaid, a Washington attorney with a focus on national security law, said that he had a “wave of emotions” over the Paul Weiss decision, from “intense anger to intense sadness about how pathetic” he thought the decision was.

Zaid said the targeting of law firms reminded him of a line from Shakespeare’s “Henry VI,” in which a character named Dick the Butcher says, “Let’s kill all the lawyers.”

“Everybody always looks at that statement as if it is an assault, attack, insult against lawyers,” Zaid said. “It’s actually quite the opposite, because Dick the Butcher was an authoritarian who was trying to take power, and he had to kill all the lawyers because the lawyers were the only ones who could get in his way and stop him. And I think what Trump is doing is exactly that.”
I've been asked why I still follow a few of the people I know on Facebook with 'interesting political habits and view points'.

It's so when they comment on or approve of something, I know what pages to block/what not to vote for.
bilateralrope
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6281
Joined: 2005-06-25 06:50pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Reign of Trump

Post by bilateralrope »

The situation there is unclear:

Trump And A Powerhouse Law Firm Are Telling Different Stories About Their Shocking Agreement
Paul Weiss buckled under Trump’s threats — but the firm’s chair circulated a different version of the “agreement” Trump published online.

By Matt Shuham
Mar 21, 2025, 02:10 PM EDT
|Updated Mar 21, 2025


The chair of the powerhouse legal firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP sent an email to thousands of employees Thursday evening announcing an agreement with the Trump administration: The White House would withdraw an executive order targeting the firm, the chair said, and in return the firm would agree to a series of commitments that he said were consistent with its statement of principles.

“With this behind us, we can devote our complete focus — as we always do — to our clients, our work, our colleagues, and our Firm,” the firm’s chair, Brad Karp, wrote in an email obtained by HuffPost.

But the version of the “agreement” Karp emailed Paul Weiss employees Thursday night is substantially different from the version President Donald Trump posted online. The internal memo is different in several places, leaving out key pledges the White House claims the firm made.

The primary differences are additions in Trump’s version: After the firm commits to merit-based hiring, promotion and retention, Trump’s version adds: “and will not adopt, use, or pursue any DEI policies” — a reference to “diversity, equity and inclusion” initiatives that Trump has targeted throughout government and the private sector.

Later, Paul Weiss says it will dedicate the equivalent of $40 million for pro bono legal services on various initiatives. The firm’s internal version refers to “these initiatives,” while Trump’s version refers to “the Administration’s initiatives.” Both versions list “assisting our Nation’s veterans, fairness in our justice system, the President’s Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, and other mutually agreed projects.” (Trump’s version refers to “the Justice System.”)

Finally, Trump’s version includes a statement from the White House, which says, in part, that Karp “acknowledged the wrongdoing of former Paul, Weiss partner, Mark Pomerantz, the grave dangers of Weaponization, and the vital need to restore our System of Justice.”

There’s no version of that sentiment from Karp in the internal version sent to firm employees. Pomerantz left Paul Weiss in 2021 to work with the Manhattan district attorney’s office, which eventually filed criminal charges against Trump. That case resulted in the only criminal conviction of the president to date. (Pomerantz told The New York Times on Thursday: “I engaged in no wrongdoing by working as a prosecutor to uphold the rule of law.”)

While the agreements are mostly the same — both say that Paul Weiss will engage “mutually agreed upon” experts to audit its employment practices, for example — the differences between the two versions of the agreement suggest that either a change was made to the agreement by one of its parties, or that both sides arranged for a different version of the “agreement” to be circulated internally at Paul Weiss, versus externally on the president’s social media page.

Neither Paul Weiss nor the White House immediately responded to questions about the multiple discrepancies.

Trump’s targeting of prominent law firms that he says have wronged him personally is now a pattern. He first issued a similar executive order targeting the prominent firm Covington & Burling, instructing the attorney general and others to suspend the security clearances of any employees who assisted Jack Smith — the former special counsel who investigated Trump and brought federal charges against him twice. The order also instructed budget officials to “review all Government contracts” with the firm.

Trump similarly targeted the firm Perkins Coie, which represented Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. Rather than reach an agreement with Trump, the firm called the order “an affront to the Constitution.” A federal judge has paused the order, saying if allowed to stand, it would be understood as “an effort to intimidate” attorneys who may advocate on behalf of clients counter to Trump’s interests, NPR reported.

The announcement of an agreement between Paul Weiss and the White House has shaken the legal profession, raising fears about diversity initiatives in hiring and pursuing pro bono work that helps any cause that could be seen as antagonistic toward the administration.

Lawyers saw the agreement Trump announced as Paul Weiss “capitulating to Mr. Trump over an executive order that is likely illegal,” the Times wrote.

The Times was also first to report that “the wording of the statement changed, including a reference to the fact that the firm would ‘not adopt, use, or pursue any DEI policies.’” The paper cited two unnamed sources.

Anna Bower, senior editor at the website Lawfare, independently obtained a copy of the firm’s internal email and its attached agreement, both of which matched HuffPost’s version.

Using the website Diffchecker, it’s easy to see the differences between the two versions of the agreement. (The internal Paul Weiss version is on the left.) Notably, in his email to Paul Weiss employees, Karp referred to his version of the agreement as “the final agreement.” A document he attached with the text of the agreement began with the header “Statement by the White House.”
The article has a side by side comparison of both statements at the bottom. Only Trump's version has any mention of DEI.

The Paul Weiss version seems much more reasonable.
User avatar
Solauren
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10460
Joined: 2003-05-11 09:41pm

Re: The Reign of Trump

Post by Solauren »

He still used an Executive Order to effectively extort a Legal Firm to do work for him for free.
I've been asked why I still follow a few of the people I know on Facebook with 'interesting political habits and view points'.

It's so when they comment on or approve of something, I know what pages to block/what not to vote for.
vakundok
Jedi Knight
Posts: 756
Joined: 2003-01-03 06:03pm
Location: in a country far far away

Re: The Reign of Trump

Post by vakundok »

Freedom was a given so long that it lost its value. Their lawyers are not an masse standing up and leaving the company, are they? State and "loyal" company legal affairs will be directed to the "cooperating" law firms, they will soar, the others will slowly go out of business (or not so slowly, hostile takeover is much smoother when backed up by the state).
bilateralrope
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6281
Joined: 2005-06-25 06:50pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Reign of Trump

Post by bilateralrope »

Pete Hegseth Sent Secret War Plans to Journalist by Accident: Report
Published Mar 24, 2025 at 1:55 PM EDT
Updated Mar 24, 2025 at 2:18 PM EDT


Trump administration officials accidentally included a high-profile journalist in a group chat in which they discussed sensitive U.S. military plans for strikes against Yemen earlier this month.

That's according to Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, who wrote that he'd "never seen a breach quite like this" in a piece for the magazine published Monday.

Newsweek reached out to the Pentagon for comment via email.

Why It Matters

The Atlantic story about the apparent security breach is making waves across Washington, with members of Congress and former national security staffers taking to social media to blast it as "incompetence" and "amateur hour."

"If House Republicans won't hold a hearing on how this happened IMMEDIATELY, I'll do it my damn self," wrote Representative Pat Ryan, a Democrat from New York who sits on the Armed Services Committee, in a social media post.

What To Know

Goldberg wrote that the conversation in the Signal group chat culminated in Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth sharing highly sensitive and classified details about the Pentagon's plan to carry out military air strikes against the Houthis, who have been launching attacks on Western commercial vessels in the Red Sea for more than a year.

It started on Tuesday, March 11, Goldberg wrote.

Two days later, on March 13, Goldberg said he was inadvertently added to a Signal group chat called "Houthi PC small group."

Someone identified on Signal as "Michael Waltz" sent the following message to the group, according to Goldberg: "Team – establishing a principles [sic] group for coordination on Houthis, particularly for over the next 72 hours. My deputy Alex Wong is pulling together a tiger team at deputies/agency Chief of Staff level following up from the meeting in the [Situation Room] this morning for action items and will be sending that out later this evening."

Mike Waltz is President Donald Trump's national security adviser.

A minute after "Michael Waltz" sent the message, a Signal user identified as "MAR" wrote, "Mike Needham for State." Trump's secretary of state is Marco Antonio Rubio.

Another user identifed as "JD Vance" chimed in with who would represent the "VP," and one minute later, someone with the initials "TG" wrote, "Joe Kent for [the Director of National Intelligence]."

Trump's DNI is former Hawaii Representative Tulsi Gabbard.

Shortly after, a Signal user identified as "Pete Hegseth," Trump's secretary of defense, wrote that someone named Dan Caldwell would be in for "DoD," referring to the Pentagon.

Several other users also replied with the names of people who would represent the Treasury secretary, the National Security Council and the CIA.

Goldberg wrote that he was deeply skeptical at first that the group chat was legitimate because he couldn't fathom that senior U.S. national security officials, Cabinet secretaries and the vice president would be so reckless as to accidentally include a journalist in the message chain.

The officials discussed specific plans being drawn up to bomb Houthi targets in Yemen over the next two days, debating the pros and cons of carrying out the strikes. The user identified as Vice President Vance, notably, deviated from Trump's position on the strikes and said he thought the administration was "making a mistake."

He said he wasn't sure Trump was "aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now," per The Atlantic.

The vice president went on to say he was "willing to support the consensus of the team" and keep his concerns to himself, but added that he felt there was a "strong argument for delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the economy is, etc."

Hegseth disagreed, writing that delaying the bombing campaign would "not fundamentally change the calculus."

He went on to write that if the administration waited on launching the strikes, there was a risk that the plan could leak and that "we look indecisive."

"We are prepared to execute, and if I had final go or no go vote, I believe we should," Hegseth wrote, according to Goldberg. "This [is] not about the Houthis. I see it as two things: 1) Restoring Freedom of Navigation, a core national interest; and 2) Reestablish deterrence, which [former President Joe Biden] cratered. "But, we can easily pause. And if we do, I will do all we can to enforce 100% [operations security]."

Operations security, or OPSEC, refers to the process of concealing critical information about a person, plan or conversation in order to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive data.

On Friday, March 15, at 11:44 a.m. ET, the user identified as Hegseth sent a "team update" in which he disclosed what Goldberg described as "operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing."

They went on to say that the first explosions in Yemen would be heard two hours later, at 1:45 p.m. ET., according to Goldberg. At 1:55 p.m. ET, Goldberg saw reports of explosions being heard in the capital city of Sanaa.

What People Are Saying

Brian Hughes, a spokesperson for the NSC, confirmed the veracity of the Signal group text to Goldberg: "This appears to be an authentic message chain, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain. The thread is a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between senior officials. The ongoing success of the Houthi operation demonstrates that there were no threats to troops or national security."

A spokesperson for Vance said the vice president is in lockstep with Trump, telling Goldberg: "The Vice President's first priority is always making sure that the President's advisers are adequately briefing him on the substance of their internal deliberations. Vice President Vance unequivocally supports this administration's foreign policy. The President and the Vice President have had subsequent conversations about this matter and are in complete agreement."

Leon Panetta, former CIA director and former Secretary of Defense, told CNN: "It's obviously a very serious mistake on the part of whoever included Goldberg in this highly classified chain-of-command messaging that went on that involved war plans. To have had somebody from The Atlantic on that chain, without question, was a serious mistake. And I hope the White House takes this seriously because the last thing you want to do when you're talking about war plans is to have a serious leak like this that could undermine the war plans but also jeopardize lives. So, I hope they take this seriously."

Panetta added that the Trump administration should conduct a "full investigation as to who included this name on that chain involving the highest officials in national security, ... how the name of a journalist was added to that list. This is just a serious blunder and not only could violate the espionage laws, but more importantly, could undermine our national security."
Well, that's a new incompetence.
User avatar
Solauren
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10460
Joined: 2003-05-11 09:41pm

Re: The Reign of Trump

Post by Solauren »

vakundok wrote: 2025-03-23 09:30am Freedom was a given so long that it lost its value. Their lawyers are not an masse standing up and leaving the company, are they? State and "loyal" company legal affairs will be directed to the "cooperating" law firms, they will soar, the others will slowly go out of business (or not so slowly, hostile takeover is much smoother when backed up by the state).


Problem with that - Lawfirms often have their employees and partners, etc, sign non-disclosure agreements about the firm, or anything they learn at the firm (which may include reasons for leaving it). It's an extension of the client-solicitor relationship. After all, C/S is useless if your lawyers co-workers can't be trusted.

Therefore, it's extremely unlikely we'd hear anything about that unless the firm itself commented or mentioned it. None of the departing lawyers would want to risk violating that contract, as that would open them up to breach-of-contract lawsuits, and damage their professional image.
I've been asked why I still follow a few of the people I know on Facebook with 'interesting political habits and view points'.

It's so when they comment on or approve of something, I know what pages to block/what not to vote for.
vakundok
Jedi Knight
Posts: 756
Joined: 2003-01-03 06:03pm
Location: in a country far far away

Re: The Reign of Trump

Post by vakundok »

Solauren wrote: 2025-03-25 06:29pm Problem with that - Lawfirms often have their employees and partners, etc, sign non-disclosure agreements about the firm, or anything they learn at the firm (which may include reasons for leaving it). It's an extension of the client-solicitor relationship. After all, C/S is useless if your lawyers co-workers can't be trusted.

Therefore, it's extremely unlikely we'd hear anything about that unless the firm itself commented or mentioned it. None of the departing lawyers would want to risk violating that contract, as that would open them up to breach-of-contract lawsuits, and damage their professional image.
Good point, thank you. Let's hope I am just overly pessimistic.
bilateralrope
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6281
Joined: 2005-06-25 06:50pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Reign of Trump

Post by bilateralrope »

vakundok wrote: 2025-03-23 09:30am Freedom was a given so long that it lost its value. Their lawyers are not an masse standing up and leaving the company, are they? State and "loyal" company legal affairs will be directed to the "cooperating" law firms, they will soar, the others will slowly go out of business (or not so slowly, hostile takeover is much smoother when backed up by the state).
Hostile takeovers work on publicly traded companies owned by shareholders. Simply offer the shareholders enough money to sell their shares.

But law firms are typically owned by the partners. That is, the highest placed lawyers in the firm. If they don't want to sell their share of the firm, they don't sell.

But if the partners all agree to sell, that gives them a good chunk of money and they can easily find work elsewhere. Especially if their clients follow them.
User avatar
LadyTevar
White Mage
White Mage
Posts: 23584
Joined: 2003-02-12 10:59pm

Re: The Reign of Trump

Post by LadyTevar »

And THE ATLANTIC Posted the FULL TEXT of the conversation, to prove it happened, especially since Trump's Admin said it was "UnClassified"....

The Atlantic Article
Image
Nitram, slightly high on cough syrup: Do you know you're beautiful?
Me: Nope, that's why I have you around to tell me.
Nitram: You -are- beautiful. Anyone tries to tell you otherwise kill them.

"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP" -- Leonard Nimoy, last Tweet
User avatar
Solauren
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10460
Joined: 2003-05-11 09:41pm

Re: The Reign of Trump

Post by Solauren »

Something Trump did that I actually DON'T Disagree with (at least the major part of it)

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/electi ... wtab-en-us

Simply put, he's put out an executive order, that, amongst other things, requires you to provide proof of citizenship when you register to vote.

That's not something I have a problem with. As it is, you have to show a government issued PHOTO ID up here in Canada whenever you vote. A current one. So while a drivers license will work, an expired one will not.

So, I honestly don't see what the big deal would be in the States. (Someone would have to explain that one to me).

What Government IDS can citizens get that non-Citizens can not?
I've been asked why I still follow a few of the people I know on Facebook with 'interesting political habits and view points'.

It's so when they comment on or approve of something, I know what pages to block/what not to vote for.
bilateralrope
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6281
Joined: 2005-06-25 06:50pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Reign of Trump

Post by bilateralrope »

Solauren wrote: 2025-03-26 10:36pm Something Trump did that I actually DON'T Disagree with (at least the major part of it)

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/electi ... wtab-en-us

Simply put, he's put out an executive order, that, amongst other things, requires you to provide proof of citizenship when you register to vote.

That's not something I have a problem with. As it is, you have to show a government issued PHOTO ID up here in Canada whenever you vote. A current one. So while a drivers license will work, an expired one will not.

So, I honestly don't see what the big deal would be in the States. (Someone would have to explain that one to me).

What Government IDS can citizens get that non-Citizens can not?
The problem is that every hurdle put in the way of voting drives people away from voting. Especially if the required IDs cost money. A quick google says that drivers licenses cost between $10 and $85, depending on the state, and not everyone can get one.

A passport costs $165. Which is going to be a big expense for a lot of people. Especially people who have no plans to travel overseas.

From the article:
Roughly half of Americans had U.S. passports last year, according to the State Department, and a birth certificate is not listed as an acceptable proof of citizenship under the order. Some of the other eligible ID records Trump's executive order suggests — like REAL IDs and military identification cards — do not always show citizenship, either.
Are there any free IDs that qualify under this executive order ?

The article states that this risks "disenfranchising tens of millions of Americans", and I don't think that's an exaggeration. All to stop something that barely happens. How is that a good move ?


Then there is the question of if Trump has the authority to issue this order when the states administer election.
User avatar
Solauren
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10460
Joined: 2003-05-11 09:41pm

Re: The Reign of Trump

Post by Solauren »

Ah, thank you for the clarification.

So the problem isn't so much the concept, but it's going to be the execution.

i.e I don't have my drivers license, and probably never will. I do have a photo government id. That's accepted at voting. It's also legally acceptable for anyone or anyplace that requires photo of id/age/etc.

It cost me $20 (I think. I don't remember, and the price has probably changed in the last 5 years).

The IDS that "Trump has listed"/"might qualify", assuming Trump has the authority for this order, all cost alot more, and in some cases are not that common.

Thank you.
I've been asked why I still follow a few of the people I know on Facebook with 'interesting political habits and view points'.

It's so when they comment on or approve of something, I know what pages to block/what not to vote for.
bilateralrope
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6281
Joined: 2005-06-25 06:50pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Reign of Trump

Post by bilateralrope »

Solauren wrote: 2025-03-27 07:18am Ah, thank you for the clarification.

So the problem isn't so much the concept, but it's going to be the execution.

i.e I don't have my drivers license, and probably never will. I do have a photo government id. That's accepted at voting. It's also legally acceptable for anyone or anyplace that requires photo of id/age/etc.

It cost me $20 (I think. I don't remember, and the price has probably changed in the last 5 years).

The IDS that "Trump has listed"/"might qualify", assuming Trump has the authority for this order, all cost alot more, and in some cases are not that common.

Thank you.
It sounds like you're one of the people who will be prevented from voting with this executive order.


Birth certificates being excluded should clue in on the real reason. A birth certificate to show that someone was born in the US, plus a photo ID to show that the person is the one named on the birth certificate, should be enough to show citizenship. By excluding it, whoever wrote this executive order is saying that they don't want poor people to vote.
User avatar
Solauren
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10460
Joined: 2003-05-11 09:41pm

Re: The Reign of Trump

Post by Solauren »

bilateralrope wrote: 2025-03-27 04:15pm
Solauren wrote: 2025-03-27 07:18am Ah, thank you for the clarification.

So the problem isn't so much the concept, but it's going to be the execution.

i.e I don't have my drivers license, and probably never will. I do have a photo government id. That's accepted at voting. It's also legally acceptable for anyone or anyplace that requires photo of id/age/etc.

It cost me $20 (I think. I don't remember, and the price has probably changed in the last 5 years).

The IDS that "Trump has listed"/"might qualify", assuming Trump has the authority for this order, all cost alot more, and in some cases are not that common.

Thank you.
It sounds like you're one of the people who will be prevented from voting with this executive order.


Birth certificates being excluded should clue in on the real reason. A birth certificate to show that someone was born in the US, plus a photo ID to show that the person is the one named on the birth certificate, should be enough to show citizenship. By excluding it, whoever wrote this executive order is saying that they don't want poor people to vote.
Would be, if I was in the US. I'm Canadian, eh?
I've been asked why I still follow a few of the people I know on Facebook with 'interesting political habits and view points'.

It's so when they comment on or approve of something, I know what pages to block/what not to vote for.
bilateralrope
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6281
Joined: 2005-06-25 06:50pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Reign of Trump

Post by bilateralrope »

Democrats win two special elections in Pennsylvania, flip district Trump easily won in November
By Richard Eberwein – 3/26/25

Democratic candidates emerged victorious in two special elections held in Pennsylvania on Tuesday, which filled vacancies in both chambers of the state legislature.

Former law enforcement officer Dan Goughnour won the race House District 35, giving the Democrats a 102-101 majority and breaking a tie in the state House of Representatives.

In the state Senate race for District 36, the Democrats scored a major upset victory with James Andrew Malone winning by 482 votes. According to AP News, President Donald Trump carried the district, which is located in and around the town of Lancaster, with 57% of the vote during the 2024 presidential election last November.

AP also reported that a Democrat hasn’t been elected to represent the district in 136 years. The Republicans still control the state Senate, but their majority has shrunk to a 27-23 advantage. Malone cited Trump’s chaotic first two months in office — where he and his party has taken aim at health care and medical research and blamed diversity, equity and inclusion efforts for plane crashes — as a major boost to his campaign.

“If President Trump were trying to accomplish his agenda in a very methodical and cohesive and by-the-book way, we wouldn’t have as much vitriol as we do right now,” Malone said in an interview.
I give Trump full credit for these Democrat wins.

As for Trump's response:

Elise Stefanik's nomination to be U.N. ambassador withdrawn, Trump says
By Jennifer Jacobs, Gabrielle Ake
Updated on: March 27, 2025 / 5:02 PM EDT / CBS News


Washington — Rep. Elise Stefanik's nomination to be U.N. ambassador has been withdrawn, President Trump confirmed Thursday, with the president saying he's asked her to remain in Congress.

The president's decision to pull her nomination ends two months of limbo for the New York Republican.

"As we advance our America First Agenda, it is essential that we maintain EVERY Republican Seat in Congress," Mr. Trump wrote on Truth Social. "We must be unified to accomplish our Mission, and Elise Stefanik has been a vital part of our efforts from the very beginning. I have asked Elise, as one of my biggest Allies, to remain in Congress to help me deliver Historic Tax Cuts, GREAT Jobs, Record Economic Growth, a Secure Border, Energy Dominance, Peace Through Strength, and much more, so we can MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. With a very tight Majority, I don't want to take a chance on anyone else running for Elise's seat."

Earlier Thursday, CBS News reported her nomination was in jeopardy as GOP pressure mounted for her to back away from the position.

Multiple sources told CBS News there were ongoing discussions about whether she should withdraw from consideration. Stefanik had not resigned from her seat in Congress, and with the narrow majority in the House, Republicans need all the votes they can muster. House Speaker Mike Johnson was aware of some of the conversations about Stefanik that took place Thursday.

Republicans hold just 218 seats in the House, while Democrats hold 213 seats. There are currently four vacant seats. After the president's announcement, Johnson acknowledged the Republicans' slim majority on social media as he hailed Stefanik's "selfless decision."

"It is well known Republicans have a razor-thin House majority, and Elise's agreement to withdraw her nomination will allow us to keep one of the toughest, most resolute members of our Conference in place to help drive forward President Trump's America First policies," Johnson said on social platform X, calling Stefanik "a great leader and a devoted patriot."

The speaker said he would invite Stefanik to return to the House Republicans' leadership team immediately.

Democrats pounced on the withdrawal, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries noting Mr. Trump's margin of victory in Stefanik's district during November's presidential election.

"Donald Trump won the Elise Stefanik district by 21 points in November 2024. He withdrew her nomination to be U.N. Ambassador because the extremists are afraid they will lose the special election to replace her," Jeffries said in a statement. "The Republican agenda is extremely unpopular, they are crashing the economy in real time and House Republicans are running scared. What happened to their so-called mandate?"

In the Senate, there was little doubt Stefanik would have the votes to be confirmed. Her nomination was advanced by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Jan. 30.

Republicans had discussed waiting to take further action on Stefanik's nomination to see how the Florida special elections go on April 1 for two vacant GOP seats. Both are expected to remain in Republican control.

Stefanik did not immediately respond to CBS News' request for comment.

Stefanik has been among President Trump's most faithful allies and was the second nominee he announced for a Senate-confirmed position after the 2024 election. She was elected to Congress in 2014 and rose to House GOP leadership to be the highest-ranking Republican woman in the House.

Stefanik attended a Cabinet meeting at the White House late last month.
Republicans currently have 218 in Congress to the dems 213, with 4 vacant*. It seems that the Pennsylvania results weren't something Trump could ignore.


*Does anyone know when those special elections will be held ?
User avatar
Raw Shark
Stunt Driver / Babysitter
Posts: 8039
Joined: 2005-11-24 09:35am
Location: One Mile Up

Re: The Reign of Trump

Post by Raw Shark »

The Article wrote:Stefanik has been among President Trump's most faithful allies and was the second nominee he announced for a Senate-confirmed position after the 2024 election. She was elected to Congress in 2014 and rose to House GOP leadership to be the highest-ranking Republican woman in the House.
That's kind of like saying, "...rose to be the highest mouse in the pantry, with competition that thinks Jews start forest fires from space and that does handjobs in front of kids," in that crowd. Orange Julius Ceasar just decided he needs a Stepford Patsy in the House more than at the UN right now. The UN has proven that they can safely be ignored; he could appoint Homer Simpson and it wouldn't change anything.

"Do I really look like a guy with a plan? Y'know what I am? I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it! Y'know, I just do things..." --The Joker
User avatar
Solauren
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10460
Joined: 2003-05-11 09:41pm

Re: The Reign of Trump

Post by Solauren »

Oh, look who's benifitting from the Automotive Tariffs.... MUSK

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/27/nx-s1-53 ... wtab-en-us

Trump's new tariffs on imported cars could have a clear winner: Tesla
March 27, 20257:36 PM ET
By Scott Neuman


President Trump's newly announced 25% import tariffs on foreign cars will increase vehicle prices by thousands of dollars for cars coming from Germany, Japan, and South Korea, as well as for the U.S.-assembled autos that use foreign-made parts, according to most auto industry experts.

However, one company likely to fare better than others is Tesla, the electric vehicle manufacturer led by close Trump administration adviser Elon Musk, industry analysts say.

Trump's latest move, set to take effect on April 2, is part of a broader global trade war launched as one of the opening acts of his second term. When announcing the new tariffs on Wednesday, he said: "What we're going to be doing is a 25% tariff on all cars that are not made in the United States. If they're made in the United States, it is absolutely no tariff."

By that standard, it would stand to reason that Tesla, which makes all the cars it sells in the U.S. in Texas and California, might be immune to effects of the tariffs. But Musk posted Wednesday on X that it wasn't so.

"Important to note that Tesla is NOT unscathed here. The tariff impact on Tesla is still significant," he wrote.

Even so, according to auto industry analyst Daniel Ives of Wedbush Securities, "Tesla is the one least impacted" among U.S. carmakers.

That's welcome news for Tesla, whose vehicle sales have taken a hit in recent months amid consumer anger over Musk's central role in helping the president slash and dismantle government agencies. That's led to massive protests at Tesla dealerships, and even vandalism aimed directly at the company's vehicles, chargers and storefronts — which U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has referred to as "domestic terrorism."


Tesla's first quarter sales in the U.S. are expected to be down 14.5% from the final three months of 2024, according to a report released this week by Cox Automotive, although it also shows that Tesla has been losing market share against EV competitors since 2020.

Sales of Teslas have dropped even more sharply across Europe, falling in February a whopping 76% in Germany, more than 50% in France, Italy and Portugal and nearly as much in Norway and Denmark, according to data from the European Automobile Manufacturers Association. This dip occurred even as overall EV sales across the region increased by nearly a third.

Tesla's share price has also experienced a precipitous drop, losing about 45% between its December peak and the market close on Thursday.


Teslas have 'substantially more U.S. content'
As Musk has suggested, Tesla won't be entirely spared from the tariffs. But the company's Model Y sport utility vehicle and Model 3 sedan — bestsellers in the American market — have faced increasingly stiff competition from vehicles that could be harder hit by the import tariffs, such as the Ford Mustang Mach-E, assembled in Mexico, and Hyundai's Ioniq 5, made in South Korea as well as the U.S.

Still, foreign-made auto parts would also be subject to the new tariffs, and Teslas contain 30% to 40% foreign-sourced components, according to Ives.

"Finding a truly U.S. manufactured car with all U.S. parts is a fictional story," he says.

Patrick Anderson, principal and CEO of Anderson Economic Group, or AEG, agrees that there's basically no such thing as a truly U.S.-produced vehicle. "All the cars we consider American cars are assembled from parts, subassemblies, engines, transmissions and other components that have been built in Canada and Mexico as well as in other countries," he says.

But Tesla's cars have "substantially more U.S. content than others," Anderson acknowledges.

Retaliatory tariffs would drive prices up further
Prior to the announcement of import tariffs on automobiles this week, AEG estimated in February that 20% tariffs imposed by the Trump White House on Chinese steel and aluminum could increase the cost of some electric vehicles by as much as $12,000, Anderson says.
A car carrier trailer drive to cross to the U.S. at Otay Commercial port in Tijuana, Mexico on January 31. President Donald Trump's threatened tariffs on Mexico and Canada, set to go into effect on Tuesday, would hurt the Mexican economy — but also hurt auto plants in the U.S.

But another hit for U.S. automakers could be lurking right around the corner if the tariffs go ahead as planned, Ives says. "Retaliatory is the biggest concern," he says, referring to probable counter-tariffs from Europe and Asia.

On the news of the latest U.S. tariffs, European stocks on Thursday took a beating, erasing billions of euros in gains for the year and hitting shares of the continent's automakers especially hard.

Germany's economic affairs Minister Robert Habeck remarked ominously on Thursday, "It needs to be clear that we will not take this lying down." And in a statement issued this week, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called the U.S. tariff move "bad for businesses, worse for consumers."
So, completely 'made in the USA' Telsa cars, owned by Chief Advistor/Cocksucker #1, are not going to be seriously impact (odds are Telsa will jack the price), and in fact end up cheaper then most other cars.
I've been asked why I still follow a few of the people I know on Facebook with 'interesting political habits and view points'.

It's so when they comment on or approve of something, I know what pages to block/what not to vote for.
bilateralrope
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6281
Joined: 2005-06-25 06:50pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Reign of Trump

Post by bilateralrope »

JD Vance moans 'it's cold here and nobody told me' after landing in Greenland's subzero zone
Vice President JD Vance's trip has been scaled back from original plans to tour the island more widely after a row with the governments of Greenland and Denmark over a lack of invitation

By Christopher Bucktin US Editor
12:16 ET, MAR 28 2025Updated13:58 ET, MAR 28 2025


JD Vance complained he was as “cold as s---” after arriving in Greenland on the first trip by a US vice-president to the territory.
The American travelled to the US military’s Pituffik Space Base for a briefing on national security.

“It’s cold as s--- here. Nobody told me,” Vance said as he walked in, raising eyebrows from troops.

But his comment about the cold quickly sparked ridicule online, with critics questioning how the vice president could be surprised by freezing temperatures in the Arctic. One social media user said: “It’s literally Greenland. Did he think he was going to Miami?”

Others pointed out that a senior government official, particularly one engaged in discussions about Arctic security, should have at least a basic awareness of the region’s climate.

Despite the awkward start, Vance attempted to refocus on the purpose of his visit, stating that Trump “is really interested in Arctic security, as you all know, and it’s only going to get bigger over the coming decades.”
Nobody told Vance about how cold Greenland is. That says a lot about problems any invasion attempt will have.
User avatar
EnterpriseSovereign
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4441
Joined: 2006-05-12 12:19pm
Location: Spacedock

Re: The Reign of Trump

Post by EnterpriseSovereign »

bilateralrope wrote: 2025-03-29 04:53pm JD Vance moans 'it's cold here and nobody told me' after landing in Greenland's subzero zone
Vice President JD Vance's trip has been scaled back from original plans to tour the island more widely after a row with the governments of Greenland and Denmark over a lack of invitation

By Christopher Bucktin US Editor
12:16 ET, MAR 28 2025Updated13:58 ET, MAR 28 2025


JD Vance complained he was as “cold as s---” after arriving in Greenland on the first trip by a US vice-president to the territory.
The American travelled to the US military’s Pituffik Space Base for a briefing on national security.

“It’s cold as s--- here. Nobody told me,” Vance said as he walked in, raising eyebrows from troops.

But his comment about the cold quickly sparked ridicule online, with critics questioning how the vice president could be surprised by freezing temperatures in the Arctic. One social media user said: “It’s literally Greenland. Did he think he was going to Miami?”

Others pointed out that a senior government official, particularly one engaged in discussions about Arctic security, should have at least a basic awareness of the region’s climate.

Despite the awkward start, Vance attempted to refocus on the purpose of his visit, stating that Trump “is really interested in Arctic security, as you all know, and it’s only going to get bigger over the coming decades.”
Nobody told Vance about how cold Greenland is. That says a lot about problems any invasion attempt will have.
I can imagine Denmark demanding that the USA remove their military base in Greenland in the very near future.
bilateralrope
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6281
Joined: 2005-06-25 06:50pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Reign of Trump

Post by bilateralrope »

EnterpriseSovereign wrote: 2025-03-29 07:39pm I can imagine Denmark demanding that the USA remove their military base in Greenland in the very near future.
With the way DOGE is cutting costs, it seems likely that Musk would make them stop paying for heating.
User avatar
Solauren
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10460
Joined: 2003-05-11 09:41pm

Re: The Reign of Trump

Post by Solauren »

In Vance's defense....

There is a big difference from hearing how cold/hot someplace is, and actually experiencing it.


That being said, the temperature there right now is usually between -15 and -10.

So, against Vance: WUSS
I've been asked why I still follow a few of the people I know on Facebook with 'interesting political habits and view points'.

It's so when they comment on or approve of something, I know what pages to block/what not to vote for.
Ralin
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4641
Joined: 2008-08-28 04:23am

Re: The Reign of Trump

Post by Ralin »

Video isn't loading for me. Anyone able to see it and tell if maybe he was joking?
EnterpriseSovereign wrote: 2025-03-29 07:39pm I can imagine Denmark demanding that the USA remove their military base in Greenland in the very near future.
Maybe they could ask the Cubans how well that works.
User avatar
EnterpriseSovereign
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4441
Joined: 2006-05-12 12:19pm
Location: Spacedock

Re: The Reign of Trump

Post by EnterpriseSovereign »

Does the USA have a similarly worded treaty with Denmark to what they have with Cuba?

In 1934, the newly revised Cuban–American Treaty of Relations reaffirmed Article 2's provision of the previous treaty of leasing Guantánamo Bay Naval Base to the United States. Article 3 of the treaty states:
Until the two contracting parties agree to the modification or abrogation of the stipulations of the agreement in regard to the lease to the United States of America of lands in Cuba for coaling and naval stations signed by the President of the Republic of Cuba on February 16, 1903, and by the President of the United States of America on the 23d day of the same month and year, the stipulations of that agreement with regard to the naval station of Guantanamo shall continue in effect. The supplementary agreement in regard to naval or coaling stations signed between the two Governments on July 2, 1903, also shall continue in effect in the same form and on the same conditions with respect to the naval station at Guantanamo. So long as the United States of America shall not abandon the said naval station of Guantanamo or the two Governments shall not agree to a modification of its present limits, the station shall continue to have the territorial area that it now has, with the limits that it has on the date of the signature of the present Treaty.
User avatar
Solauren
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10460
Joined: 2003-05-11 09:41pm

Re: The Reign of Trump

Post by Solauren »

Nice bit of politics there.

No expiry date, making it a lease until both say it's not. Meaning that Cuba can't legally kick them out without violating the entire treaty.

Sneaky.
I've been asked why I still follow a few of the people I know on Facebook with 'interesting political habits and view points'.

It's so when they comment on or approve of something, I know what pages to block/what not to vote for.
Post Reply