The Trump Presidency – 2016

[digamma]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

He also tweeted deep criticism of the Washington Post's coverage of his Korean "diplomacy."

Then, in a 100% unrelated move, a half hour later tweeted his thoughts about antitrust actions against Amazon.

Totally normal.

Throw in some factually incorrect complaining about FISA warrants, and maybe some talk about Fox and Friends and you've got a full morning of EXECUTIVE TIME.

[Edward64]

(This didn't seem to fit in the school shooting thread so putting it in here as we've talked about gun control)

I'm all for being able to protect yourself with your weapon in your home. I'm also good with in public if necessary to protect yourself or others.

This was not a justified shooting (not using legalese wording) from what I see in the video. McGlockton pushed Drejka to the ground. Drejka took out his weapon to protect himself, and McGlockton backed away. If McGlockton stepped towards Drejka, it would be pretty clear case.

Relevant video at about the 1 min mark.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/victims-gi...ry?id=56751894

Jacobs, who witnessed the shooting along with the couple’s 5-year-old son, said she and her two small children were waiting in the car for her boyfriend, Markeis McGlockton, while he ran into a convenience store in Clearwater, Florida. Onlooker Michael Drejka got out of his parked car and began “harassing” her about being parked in a handicap space, she said.

Surveillance video showed McGlockton exiting the store and shoving Drejka to the ground. Drejka then drew a handgun and shot and killed McGlockton.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

(This didn't seem to fit in the school shooting thread so putting it in here as we've talked about gun control)

I'm all for being able to protect yourself with your weapon in your home. I'm also good with in public if necessary to protect yourself or others.

This was not a justified shooting (not using legalese wording) from what I see in the video. McGlockton pushed Drejka to the ground. Drejka took out his weapon to protect himself, and McGlockton backed away. If McGlockton stepped towards Drejka, it would be pretty clear case.

Relevant video at about the 1 min mark.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/victims-gi...ry?id=56751894

When the guy backs off you're no longer standing your ground. You're committing murder.

If the roles were reversed the shooter would be headed to prison.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

When the guy backs off you're no longer standing your ground. You're committing murder.

I do think there are situations where even backing off there could be a threat (e.g. he had a weapon) but in this specific video, there didn't seem to be a need to shoot.

The cops apparently don't agree. Not sure I understand why.

[molson]

Remember Florida has no proportionality requirement for self-defense. That was a big point of contention and confusion in the Zimmerman/Martin case. If you're afraid you're going to be beat up by an unarmed man, you can use deadly force in response.

For the state to win they'd have to prove either that the shooter wasn't afraid of getting beat up and being injured, or that his belief was unreasonable. Was it reasonable to be afraid of being beat up after you've already been shoved to the ground, but after you draw a gun and your attacker takes a step or two back? Sounds like a case by case thing and something for a jury to decide, and could turn on all kinds of stuff we don't know like what words were exchanged and whether the shooter hit his head on the way down, but, Florida, unlike my state as one example, has specifically passed these statutes with the purpose of not "leaving it to the jury", and to dissuade prosecutors from bring charges in the first place in close cases. My state intentionally keeps the self-defense statutes vague so that cases can be dealt with more on a case-by-case basis based on general concepts of reasonableness, including the proportionality of the force used in self defense v. the force threatened.

Oddly, and he's not being charged either way so it doesn't matter, but under Florida law, it would have been even better for the shooter if he pulled his gun and shot immediately without giving the attacker a chance to react. It'd be pretty tough for the state to prove that the shooter weren't reasonably afraid at that point, right after he's shoved down.

[PilotMan]

Theoretically, couldn't the now deceased have come out and simply blown the other guy away feeling he was threatening his wife and kids and he was defending them?

[molson]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Theoretically, couldn't the now deceased have come out and simply blown the other guy away feeling he was threatening his wife and kids and he was defending them?

Depends on what words were exchanged. I think it's probably more reasonable to be afraid of being beat up after you've already been shoved to the ground than it is during a heated argument (edit: and harassment) about a parking space. But if the shooter credibly threatened the other guy with violence, and the other was legitimately scared, than sure.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Theoretically, couldn't the now deceased have come out and simply blown the other guy away feeling he was threatening his wife and kids and he was defending them?

Yes - in a simple nutshell the laws in Florida are totally FUBAR and pretty much sponsored by the NRA.

(once my eldest son has left University here its incredibly likely I'll relocate to a state where someone can't just shoot me because I'm tall and they thought I looked scary ... seriously running at night around my neighborhood that is a thought I have when I come across another runner, I can see the police now being told "I was out walking the dog and I saw this dark figure running towards me and shot in self defense")

[PilotMan]

Would the fact that word comes out that the shooter has harassed others at this place before, or that these 2 had previously had run ins? Or is all that circumstantial and irrelevant to this case?

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Would the fact that word comes out that the shooter has harassed others at this place before, or that these 2 had previously had run ins? Or is all that circumstantial and irrelevant to this case?

Totally irrelevant from my understanding of Florida law. But it does paint a picture of someone spoiling for a confrontation. It was released that he even threatened to kill someone in that parking lot in a previous incident.

Poetic justice here would have been the girlfriend shooting this overzealous cop wanna be because she felt threatened by him approaching her car.

The Florida law is way too loose and should have been tweaked after the Zimmerman incident. It basically gives license to guys with short dick syndrome to pick a fight and then commit murder.

I was having a convo with a woman who lives in Florida earlier and she explained something interesting about this. If the shooter was deemed physically able to defend himself (She used her husband as an example since he is larger and physically fit) the defense may not have worked. In other words, it is entirely possible that if the shooter and victim were reversed they could have brought charges against the shooter since he was way more physically imposing than Drejka.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

So Trump on the warpath this morning with Iran for some reason:


Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump


To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!

He just trusts that his base has no perception of what is a statement and what a threat. Or understand who it is adressing. So for him the iranian president daring to speak the W-word is enough to make it personal.

Imagine someone 10/15/20 years ago telling you that your own President might just be the greatest risk to american national security. I certainly hope your checks and balances are ready for a stress test, especially if he gets a 2nd term and then wants to build a 'legacy' or if he decides to go out with a bang when re-relections seems impossible.

[PilotMan]

White House says Trump wants to revoke security clearances for former intelligence officials critical of him over Russia

Wapo has the story

President Trump plans to revoke the security clearances of a handful of former officials who have been critical of his rhetoric and actions toward Russia, the White House announced Monday, in a move that immediately prompted claims of political retaliation.

This is very average, normal stuff to expect. Very typical in a liberal democracy. Move along.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

Totally irrelevant from my understanding of Florida law. But it does paint a picture of someone spoiling for a confrontation. It was released that he even threatened to kill someone in that parking lot in a previous incident.
:
The Florida law is way too loose and should have been tweaked after the Zimmerman incident. It basically gives license to guys with short dick syndrome to pick a fight and then commit murder.

I do think he was spoiling for a confrontation for sure. Not sure about "murder" though.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I do think he was spoiling for a confrontation for sure. Not sure about "murder" though.

There's a lot to be said about heat of the moment, emotions, power and control, and guns and the mindset that goes with all that.

If this guy has a knife, no way he comes up aggressively stabbing if the guy goes to get in his car. Doesn't that speak more to the gun debate, rather than assuming that he's going in spoiling for 'murder'?

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Atocep

When the guy backs off you're no longer standing your ground. You're committing murder.

If the roles were reversed the shooter would be headed to prison.

1) The shooter is an ass.

2) If you are not handicapped, don't use the handicap spot. It might not have mattered in this case, but if he had not parked there, would this have started? Heck, looking at the video, there are other parking spots, why take the handicap spot?

3) It does not look as though any words were exchanged between the shooter and the victim, it appears the victim saw what was going on and just shoved the shooter to the ground. Had he taken the time rather than reacting, would he have been shot?

4) I do not care what the commentators are saying, watch the video (I actually first watched it with the audio off), the victim shoved the shooter down, follows up the push, and does not back off until he realizes the shooter is reaching for something.

5) Rather than argue the gun laws, I think this once again goes back to mental health issues. Based upon what we know about the shooter, there seems to be some mental issues there, I will be interested to see if we find anything else out.

6) If this did not cross racial lines, would this make the national news? A similar thing happened in Memphis 10 years ago, white on white, shooter got 18 years.

7) Based upon how the law is written in Florida, the shooter should get off, however, morally he is at fault.

8) It is never worth it to be killed over a parking spot.

[corbes]

James Comey on Twitter: "Democrats, please, please don’t lose your minds and rush to the socialist left. This president and his Republican Party are counting on you to do exactly that. America’s great middle wants sensible, balanced, ethical leadership."


+1

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

2) If you are not handicapped, don't use the handicap spot. It might not have mattered in this case, but if he had not parked there, would this have started? Heck, looking at the video, there are other parking spots, why take the handicap spot?

I wonder if the violator will be sent a fine.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

1) The shooter is an ass.

2) If you are not handicapped, don't use the handicap spot. It might not have mattered in this case, but if he had not parked there, would this have started? Heck, looking at the video, there are other parking spots, why take the handicap spot?

3) It does not look as though any words were exchanged between the shooter and the victim, it appears the victim saw what was going on and just shoved the shooter to the ground. Had he taken the time rather than reacting, would he have been shot?

4) I do not care what the commentators are saying, watch the video (I actually first watched it with the audio off), the victim shoved the shooter down, follows up the push, and does not back off until he realizes the shooter is reaching for something.

5) Rather than argue the gun laws, I think this once again goes back to mental health issues. Based upon what we know about the shooter, there seems to be some mental issues there, I will be interested to see if we find anything else out.

6) If this did not cross racial lines, would this make the national news? A similar thing happened in Memphis 10 years ago, white on white, shooter got 18 years.

7) Based upon how the law is written in Florida, the shooter should get off, however, morally he is at fault.

8) It is never worth it to be killed over a parking spot.

My list:

1) If neither had a gun, the odds of this ending in death are almost zero.


That's my whole list.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

White House says Trump wants to revoke security clearances for former intelligence officials critical of him over Russia

Wapo has the story


This is very average, normal stuff to expect. Very typical in a liberal democracy. Move along.

Former officials usually don't keep their clearance. If they get a job, they have to reapply for clearance. Comey got offered it temporarily to read the IG report and turned it down.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Radii

My list:

1) If neither had a gun, the odds of this ending in death are almost zero.

That's my whole list.

True.

I do wonder if it would have ended with the shooter being beaten more severely? I'm okay with him pulling out a gun to make sure the beating doesn't continue but it doesn't sit well with me that there didn't seem to be an imminent threat after he pulled the gun and the other guy pulled back.

I recall reading that one of the factors why George Zimmerman got off was because it was shown he was on the ground and Martin was on top of him. Zimmerman wasn't right to pursue Martin but once he was on the ground, I do think that was a justified shooting.

EDIT: Looking at the video, I do wonder if shooter saw the step back? The perspective may be different when you are on the ground (especially after having been violently pushed to the ground).

[cuervo72]

Doubtful. This looked like a man who saw some guy screaming at his significant other, and acted on instinct to defend her. It's basically what men are TAUGHT that they should do (if the're really a "man").

Once the guy was down, the message was sent.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by corbes

James Comey on Twitter: "Democrats, please, please don’t lose your minds and rush to the socialist left. This president and his Republican Party are counting on you to do exactly that. America’s great middle wants sensible, balanced, ethical leadership."


+1

There really isn't a "great middle" in the country. Are Democrats supposed to target all those people who voted for Jeb Bush? Come on.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Doubtful. This looked like a man who saw some guy screaming at his significant other, and acted on instinct to defend her. It's basically what men are TAUGHT that they should do (if the're really a "man").

Once the guy was down, the message was sent.

A better video. At 2:40'ish is the start of the confrontation. Two things I saw

1) The shover did advance after the shove
2) The shover took at least 2-3 steps back as the gun was drawn

No arrest in fatal shooting during argument over handicap parking space

[Thomkal]

Paul Manafort trial delayed until the 31st and judge gave immunity to five people who will testify and announced names-mostly accountants it looks like.



Meanwhile Trump is looking to revoke the security clearances of his "enemies"-Clapper, Comey, Rice, Brennan, McCabe , and others.



https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/23/polit...ces/index.html

[RainMaker]

Dumb question but why would you keep a security clearance if you no longer work for the government? Genuinely curious. I was surprised they even had it unless they were some kind of consultant.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Dumb question but why would you keep a security clearance if you no longer work for the government? Genuinely curious. I was surprised they even had it unless they were some kind of consultant.

Talks about it a little bit in the article-some keep it to consult with those who follow in their jobs and some to get jobs in consulting field in the private sector.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Doubtful. This looked like a man who saw some guy screaming at his significant other, and acted on instinct to defend her. It's basically what men are TAUGHT that they should do (if the're really a "man").

Once the guy was down, the message was sent.

I agree with him reacting to defend the girlfriend, the push was completely unnecessary. Again, we do not know what, if anything was said, but based upon the reaction, there was no time to say anything.

I also believe there is reason to believe that the victim may have done more harm to the shooter if the gun was not pulled.

What would be great was if there was an instigator law. The shooter clearly started the situation. If he starts the confrontation, he should be exempt from the protection of the stand your ground law.

[TCY Junkie]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Doubtful. This looked like a man who saw some guy screaming at his significant other, and acted on instinct to defend her. It's basically what men are TAUGHT that they should do (if the're really a "man").

Once the guy was down, the message was sent.

If your girl needs defending you hit the guy hard enough to knock him out.

[CU Tiger]

I'm as pro gun as you will find.
Legally duder probably walks.
Morally that's not a justified shooting. Ethically that's not a gun situation.


Just a whole bunch of stupid in this video.
I wish it were legal to beat, but not kill, morons who park in handicap spaces. Caring for a wheelchair bound relative for a number of years makes me sensitive to that issue.
Cop wannabes should be beaten as well. Yeah dude is an ass for parking in the HC spot, but who made shooter God to enforce that. Make a snarky comment and move along.
Still talking to the girlfriend didn't justify the shove. That needlessly escalated things.
The shove didnt justify the shot. Even more needlessly escalated.
Can we just accept that parking idiot is dead and sacrifice the shooter and call it better for the common good? (joking. sort of.)

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

What would be great was if there was an instigator law. The shooter clearly started the situation. If he starts the confrontation, he should be exempt from the protection of the stand your ground law.

Conceptually I like this idea. I'm not sure its practical though, probably a lot of grey in defining the "instigator".

[JPhillips]

Lawyers: Would the shooter be more at jeopardy if he had pulled the gun, but didn't fire? How do stand your ground laws work in that scenario?

[NobodyHere]

Stormy Daniels is back on the market fellas!

Stormy Daniels and husband Glendon Crain file for divorce, lawyer Michael Avenatti says | Fox News

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Dumb question but why would you keep a security clearance if you no longer work for the government? Genuinely curious. I was surprised they even had it unless they were some kind of consultant.

Simple answer. Because you may work for the government or more likely for a defense contractor in the future. Stripping someone of an active clearance forces a defense contractor to pay for a new clearance investigation.

[jeff061]

There are many jobs that require you already have clearance before they will hire you.

[SackAttack]

My mother has never worked for the government, to my knowledge, but she was required to have a security clearance in the last job she had before she became a stay-at-home parent.

My guess is they had a government contract of some kind.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Simple answer. Because you may work for the government or more likely for a defense contractor in the future. Stripping someone of an active clearance forces a defense contractor to pay for a new clearance investigation.

Correct. An active clearance is good for 7 years. You must have a reinvestigation completed before your current clearance expires. If you have an active clearance and work in a job that does not use it then it becomes inactive after 2 years.

There are many, many government jobs that require security clearances. Keeping an active clearance makes you more hirable because it will cost less to bring you in.

[Edward64]

The chess (or checkers?) moves continues. There seems to be some progress after the summit.

The article implies the bold move of a peace treaty as the next move. I've always thought it was NK that did not want to formally end the war and do a peace treaty. The US should welcome those talks.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/23/polit...hae/index.html

New images published Monday by the prominent monitoring group 38 North indicate North Korea has begun dismantling key facilities at the Sohae Satellite Launching Station -- a move analysts say represents "an important first step towards fulfilling a commitment" made by Kim Jong Un during his summit with President Donald Trump in Singapore.
:
Trump pushed back against that suggestion Monday, tweeting that he is "very happy" with the progress with North Korea, noting a lack of rocket launches and nuclear tests in recent months.
:
And while Monday's images may amount to a "confidence building measure" by the North Koreans, it appears that they expect the US to reciprocate if talks are to continue.
:
CNN reported on Monday that continued negotiations between the two sides hinge on Washington's willingness to make a "bold move" and agree to a peace treaty with Pyongyang, according to an official with close knowledge of North Korea's position on the matter.

If the US is unwilling to replace the armistice agreement that ended the Korean War with a permanent peace that would ensure the survival of Kim's regime, Pyongyang will likely not proceed further with denuclearization talks, the source said.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Stormy Daniels is back on the market fellas!

Stormy Daniels and husband Glendon Crain file for divorce, lawyer Michael Avenatti says | Fox News

I love this, a porn star marries another porn star, and files for divorce and lists adultery as the reason for the divorce...

[miami_fan]

The other thing about the security clearance to keep in mind is just because someone has a security clearance that does not mean that they automatically have access to all information within their clearance classification. At the very least, there is still a “need to know” standard that must be met.

[JPhillips]

The Trump administration is planning to ease fears of a trade war by announcing later Tuesday billions of dollars in aid to farmers hurt by tariffs, according to two sources familiar with the plan.

Tariffs are great!

Subsidies are great!

How long until price controls are great?

[lungs]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Tariffs are great!

Subsidies are great!

How long until price controls are great?

Hopefully I can get a welfare payment even though I quit farming!

[whomario]

This has to be the low point in crisis management and it's beyond sad it might not even have an effect:

I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 24. Juli 2018

[AlexB]

No president has been tougher on Russia?

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by AlexB

No president has been tougher on Russia?

yeah so tough when he just sat there meekly and didn't throw Mueller's indictments in Putin's face like your staff wanted.

[MIJB#19]

That tweet deserves one particular smilie:

[Ksyrup]

It's like a game. This is one of dozens of Trump tweets that you can read as a sarcastic tweet from a Trump hater. But no - it's actually him tweeting it.

[Thomkal]

Ivanka's fashion line closing up shop:


https://www.wsj.com/articles/ivanka-...9?redirect=amp

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by whomario

This has to be the low point in crisis management and it's beyond sad it might not even have an effect:

I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 24. Juli 2018

This is to set up his attempts to discredit and deflect from the Russia investigation after midterms. If Dems flip house and/or senate he's going to start screaming for an investigation into Russian interference.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Ivanka's fashion line closing up shop:


https://www.wsj.com/articles/ivanka-...9?redirect=amp

Hmmmm... who will get the blame here?

Bezos 3-2
Democrats generally 8-5
Obama 4-1
Hillary 8-1
Schumer and/or Pelosi 10-1
Bernie 15-1
Crappy product 300-1

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by whomario

This has to be the low point in crisis management and it's beyond sad it might not even have an effect:

I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 24. Juli 2018

Originally Posted by Atocep

This is to set up his attempts to discredit and deflect from the Russia investigation after midterms. If Dems flip house and/or senate he's going to start screaming for an investigation into Russian interference.

This is spot on and says all you need to know about the "genius" of Trump. It's just highly humorous for him to tweet how tough he has been when he basically came off as Putin's Cuckold post summit.