JAG

Any brave soul care to analyse and assign a grade to this offering?

I understand that the complaints from the food and restaurants sector are being led by Taco Bell! Rumour has it that they have suspended his loyalty programme membership. McDonald's, in a show of solidarity, are considering similar actions - oh the horror!

And no doubt lay off many staff. But no doubt the stable genius has factored that in!

The buses in Washington DC are on a bit of a roll at the moment! Since RFK Jnr was appointed to a senior government position, and has the use of a chauffeur driven car, they, or more properly their riders, no longer are bothered by the prospect of the classic "nutter on the bus" making his way up the aisle, eyes fixed on the vacant seat next to them! It would be a shame to spoil that!

We'll take that as a "no" then shall we!

I think biologically he is human, I am not sure that he is bothered by concepts of "humanity".

I'd go for "Heydrich", sometimes described as "The man with the iron heart".

I presume you can provide a link to the material which you allege @spidermike007 copied and pasted? After all, what is it they say, sunlight is the best antiseptic? Come on, reach down from the moral high ground!

Oh he is certainly a great, one might say, persuader! He has managed to persuade a significant proportion of the population of the US ( "con" is the slang term) and persuade (bully) much of the establishment and media that a fat, narcissist, compulsive liar with limited understanding of economic and international affairs, subject to wild mood swings and a total ignorance of, or contempt for, the rule of law and matters constitutional is the solution to any and all of the United States many problems. Through his buffoonery, incompetence and narcissm, (tariffing penguins and boasting that International leaders are queuing up to "kiss his arse") he has managed to remove the US as a powerful player in world trade. He has dismantled much of the federal government which existed for the benefit of the country, and to help many of its poorer and less fortunate people's. He has co-opted the agencies of the state in an attempt to suppress and intimidate his political opponents. He has alienated many allies. In summary he has managed to massively diminish the United States in so many ways, and in a remarkably short time. So yes, in these respects he is a "great man", although perhaps not in the way some, and he himself, would consider!

Gary Lineker was "forced out" for repeatedly, unapologetically and very openly breaking the rules. I am really not interested in football, and therefore by extension Gary Linaker's pontifications on football. However he was the countries pre-eminent commentator, (and very well paid for it); he used that privileged position as a platform for his private political views. That was breaking the rules, and he did so deliberately and repeatedly.

Given his recent public pronouncements about world leaders kissing his arse (oh the dignity of The Office of President!) I can certainly understand the concerns in certain circles.

Could that be the fly in the ointment? Three constitutions in twenty years! That and of course mistaking holding elections with "managing" the results.

I think someone needs their medication adjusting!

January to May: 7 solo engagements and 19 joint with her husband. Don't forget she is the active mother of 3 young children.

After all, he has done it before, several times! You may recall, his phone has the same mysterious electronic ailment which affects taxi meters at airports - so he has never been able to produce photographic evidence, but I for one have no reason not to believe him. Until next year then "Bob"!

Oh, she is still around.

Thank you. Your post was really quite illuminating. It is useful for us ignorant foreigners to receive such nuanced guidance to at least one side of the situation in California!

Oh don't worry, I'm sure that is in the plan. You will likely have the bodies on the streets you yearn for!

Not to mention the worst of the worst, the absolute scoundrels looking for jobs (jobs that no-one else would do) in "Home Depot"! Such hardened scoundrels were these job seakers that it was necessary for the ICE to be heavily armed, mounted in armoured vehicles and clad in military fatigues, to raid the car park of "Home Depot"! It is pretty clear that ICE were exactly " just cruising the streets of LA looking for brown people to harass." Why? Because the Trump administration was looking to pick a fight! An excuse to put troops on the streets. The volatile and immigrant (Latino) rich community of Los Angeles being the most fertile ground for that fight. Accumulating and moving those numbers of ICE personnel and that equipment to Los Angeles must have been a significant logistical operation, long in the planning and would have taken some time. I somehow doubt that those personnel and that equipment are "barracked" in the City! This was, is, a planned campaign. And it worked, Trump has got his riots, his excuse to deploy troops, he has evaded, ignored, any legal constraints. Most eyes are off the economic clusterf#@* he has created over the last months with his wild unpredictable swings on tarrifs, little notice has been taken that his budgetry bill has been kicked out by the Senate. He has moved it on! Where next is the question? He has put troops, including the regular armed forces into a State which is politically diametrically opposed to him politically, and which voted against him at his election. He will be loath to withdraw them. Interesting that we now hear talk of arresting Governor Newsom

I have never made any secret of where I am from, I am from the United Kingdom. England (the South West - Somerset to be precise). Now back to my question, when since Alabama in 1965 (60 years ago) has a President deployed a State National Guard in opposition to that States Governors wishes? We will perhaps leave out any further questions about calling for or threatening the arrest of that Governor!

No I am not from the US. Now how about referencing these precedents you claim?

I understand it has happened once, 60 years ago, during the 1965 desegregation marches from Selma to Montgomery in Alabama. President Johnson deployed them to prevent the police and vigilantes from attacking the marchers. Given that it has happened once, in 60 years, in very different circumstances, perhaps it is rather new? Oh, and Johnson was very open about what he planned to do, and doing it. Unlike Trump, where the troops were deployed with no warning or announcement.

Returning, no doubt briefly, to the original "premise" of deploying troops (both Californian National Guard and USMC) into Los Angeles, has Mr Trump invoked, and announced publicly that he has invoked any of the Laws and Acts which may authorise him to do so? If he hasn't, then what is their and his, lawful position?

"Has anyone seen that damned puppy?"

I hope so, UK experience rather highlights the problems which arise from putting troops who are trained, and believe themselves, to be "shock troops" on the streets in an Internal Security scenario.