The Future President, Donald Trump

So he's (by admission) not going to be any kind of father to his own children.

I find that rather disconcerting.

How is it that exit polls can be so far off the mark? Here's one for Parados.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53nL_aQe_ek

Thanks. My partner's curiosity was in regards to the timing of the executive order. It's seven months early, in Obama's case. Usually happens a lot later. Like two or three months

Late edit; this is my partner's response; this statement does not agree with what your people said about the EO ...
A presidential transition or presidential interregnum refers to the period of time between the end of a presidential election and the inauguration of a new President of a country. During this time the incoming President usually designates new government personnel, including selecting new Cabinet positions and government department or agency heads.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/106172.pdf


seems about right - looks like they started a year in advance in some cases - had to get that budget item <nods>

Thanks.... makes me wonder if we have a similar setup in the westminster system.

We have transition teams in Canada when there are changes in ruling party.

It's been revealed that our former (ousted) PM Abbott's chief of staff (unelected) was not only deciding policy, but formed a personal relationship with Abbott, meaning sleeping with him.

So, I'm guessing that there's a similar arrangement here, with unelected positions behind the elected ones.

Like I said. You don't have a clue what it is like to be poor in America.

Educated Cubans arriving in the US are not the poor in America. They have advantages over the poor. Speaking Spanish is hardly a handicap when you arrive in a Spanish speaking part of the country.

This may be the funniest thing I've read today, considering this comes from an avowed Bernie Sanders supporter.

You do know that Bernie Sanders isn't a Democrat, right? He just plays one during primary season.

Do I understand this clearly? A number of non-Americans are trying to determine the significance of an EO coming out 7 months prior to an election? As to your partner remarks about transition, the incoming President ALWAYS picks the members of his administration. Occasionally an incoming President may choice to retain a member of the prior administration. That happens rarely, but it happens. Please explain to your partner that there is zero significance to the timing of the EO, because it really isn't permanent until after the election when a new President is elected. Perhaps the Presidents staff is getting the mundane things out of the way to allow the President to pursue other issues. We need to appoint a Justice for the Supreme Court, and perhaps the Republicans might be incentivized to cooperate with Obama who will still be President until the next inauguration which actually happens in late January 2017. Whoever is elected can make all the plans they wish, but they can't enact anything until the inauguration. That the way the American Government operates, and has operated as long as I've been alive and many years prior.

All this non-stop politicking for months on end seems ever so complicated and must be really quite tiring for everyone.

Over here, the Civil Service take all that hassle away and sort it all out for us over lunch......

"We" being the people? Or the party?

My partner's curiosity was aroused in this instance by a report that the white house was in lockdown shortly after the announcement by China's admin that they would no longer be accepting US dollars in exchange for the yuan.

This is rather off-topic, so I apologise for that.

My curiosity is also aroused. Had not heard even a rumor.

Americans vote every November--it's only the quadrennial lunacy which raises this malodorous a stench.

When our media is so closely controlled by a select few, it's tough to know what's going on out there, Roger.

http://www.ibtimes.com/china-russia-currency-agreement-further-threatens-us-dollar-248338

It is absolutely false that executive orders are subject to any time restraints. In fact, presidents issue executive orders on a regular basis. Executive orders may be based on the constitution, or acts of Congress. As an example, the President may issue an executive order to implement legislation passed by Congress, and in fact legislation passed prior to the inauguration of that individual as President. Presidents may also issue executive orders pursuant to their constitutional powers. One of the most famous examples of this was the desegregation of the United States armed forces by Harry Truman in 1948. The President is empowered by the constitution as commander in chief, so there was no realistic possibility of judicial review of Truman's decisions. Secretary Royall, Secretary of the Army after 1947, was legally forced into retirement because he had refused to comply with the order. Foot dragging and stubborn resistance on the part of military personnel of high rank lead to a great many forced retirements, and most of the effective implementation of the order was accomplished during Eisenhower's first administration. There was never any question of the legality of Truman's order, however. Article Two, Section Two of the constitution begins with this statement: The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; . . .

It is always hilarious to me when people who are not either Americans, or long-time residents of the United States, make pronouncements on the government of the United States. I am also always dismayed that so many Americans don't know how to respond because they, apparently, know as little about the government and how it works.

Presidents can also exercise power by failing to issue executive orders for months or even years. Even the threat of that can be powerful. The two most striking examples are from Dwight Eisenhower and Jimmy Carter. In 1953, the CIA and what was then called MI6 in the UK organized a coup against Mohammed Mossedegh, the prime minister of Iran, who had nationalized the oil fields, most of them "owned" by BP, formerly the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. Eisenhower was newly sworn-in as president, and he never trusted the CIA or the Brits again. In 1956, the Egyptians seized the Suez Canal, and France and Britain dropped paratroopers on the canal, thinking to present Eisenhower with a fait-accompli which would force his hand. At the same time, the Israelis sent IDF units to occupy the Gaza strip, and the Sinai peninsula. Eisenhower had sense enough to see that this might drive the Arab nations into the arms of the Soviet Union, so he called on Congress to block private aid to Israel, and flatly told the Israelis that he would disburse no foreign aid funds to them while IDF units remained on Egyptian territory. The Senate, lead by Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson refused to comply, so Eisenhower made a radio address to the nation, and Johnson eventually backed down. Eisenhower blocked private American aid to Israel along with refusing to disburse funds to Israel. After acting like a bunch of drunken cowboys, the IDF withdrew on orders from Tel Aviv.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter essentially offered the same terms to Menachem Begin, play it my way or lose American foreign aid, and Begin caved in and came to Camp David for talks with Anwar El Sadat, leading to a peace initiative which has held up for 40 years now.

People who don't actually know anything about how the American government works would be well advised not to make pronouncements on it.

That would include about 98% of Americans, so you can you can go root your own boot, dude. Unless, of course, you think you know how it works. Then you can give us all a run-down, state by state, right?

I didn't think so.

Sure, right after you tell your partner that he or she doesn't know what the hell he or she is talking about . . . Dude.

It is useful to remember that 85% of all statistical claims are made up on the spot.