Opinion INTERNATIONAL Politics: Adelaide Board Discussion Part 6

[adelaidecrows]

You do know the origins of the word "dude" which you seem to have a penchant for calling folk?

And I'm about as far from being a dude as one can possibly be.

Twice you have responded with semantics. Don't waste time replying with dribble in future dude

 

[Mutineer]

Twice you have responded with semantics. Don't waste time replying with dribble in future dude

Coming from the sites number one dribbler that's a bit rich....Dude.

 

[Mutineer]

You seriously can’t be that delusional.

The US Supreme Court - do you even know who the current ones are and who appointed them?

If the Supreme Court is stacked with conservatives, which the current Supreme court is, they will vindicate the decisions as they have done. You literally can’t think that doesn’t happen. Then again.

And that's any different to the Democrats whrn they're in power?

Now be honest here.

 

[adelaidecrows]

Coming from the sites number one dribbler that's a bit rich....Dude.

All I read is number 1 poster

PS 3 times.

 

[adelaidecrows]

And that's any different to the Democrats whrn they're in power?

Now be honest here.

The difference is the democrats never had to seek presidential immunity or test the bounds of the constitution. Well not recently.

 

[jenny61_99]

The old saying " A little bit of information is Dangerous" is most apt here Jenny ......you're so gullible

Try applying commonsense .....Trump is a Billionaire b4 he was President ....so there's no motive for profiteering as you claim
Besides, he would make more money, by staying in private enterprise, than being President ......yes, you could claim it's ego driven, I'd support that claim, but the rest of your parroting is nonsense from an ill-informed person, seeing things from only one perspective

You do realise, the Democrats, on every decision Trump has taken, have initiated legal action, based on your premise of legality .....in part to try and slow the guy down
Even using state judges ruling on National matters (LOL)

In almost every case, the Supreme Court has vindicated the powers used as President .... making your claims a lie !

Inciting an insurrection you claim .....maybe you haven't heard of Nancy Pelosi's recantation .....seems you've copied Nancy's demeanour

I'm gullible? LMAO

 

[kirky]

And that's any different to the Democrats whrn they're in power?

Now be honest here.

You want an honest answer - there have been more Republican nominated judges on the Supreme Court than Democrat nominated judges - you have to go back to 1970 - since then Republican appointees have had a majority even during Carter, Clinton, Obama and Biden administrations.

It is a very conservative supreme court with currently a narcissist authoritarian in power. This conservative Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade.

Here is the current make up -

Thomas - appointed by G H Bush
Robert - appointed by G W Bush
Alito - appointed by G W Bush
Sotomayor - appointed by Obama
Kagan - appointed by Obama
Gorsuch - appointed by Trump
Kavanaugh - appointed by Trump
Barrett - appointed by Trump
Jackson - appointed by Biden

So at the moment it has a 6-3 conservative majority as it has been for the past 55 years (6-3 or 5-4).

Perhaps you need to educate yourself.

 

[kirky]

I'm gullible? LMAO

Yes, no much context on the last bit of that clip - who knows what Pelosi was referring to.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

Try applying commonsense .....Trump is a Billionaire b4 he was President ....so there's no motive for profiteering as you claim

 

[jenny61_99]

You're joking aren't you?

It would be a difficult exercise to find a President/Prime Minister/Leader that hasn't profited from their time in the big chair, you only need to look at the previous USA President and his family to blow that one out of the water.

Yes, but there's profiting and there's profiting. And I'm not saying others HAVEN'T done it (though there's far less evidence)... but we have a clear difference here (and not limited to):

• Foreign and domestic spending at Trump properties (Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses)
• Refusal to divest or use a blind trust
• Government and campaign spending at Trump businesses
• Branding and value enhancement (bibles, bitcoin and shit like that)
• Legal status (cases against him thrown out, NOT because he wasn't guilty, but because he won office)

Trump is the only modern U.S. president to monetise the office in real time through an ongoing private business. Let's not talk about the BILLIONS his daughter and son in law made from the Saudis.

Issue	Trump	Biden	Obama
Owned active businesses while president	Yes	No	No
Foreign govts spent money at president’s businesses	Yes	No	No
Refused blind trust	Yes	No	No
Used presidency to promote brand	Yes	No	No
Profited after leaving office	Yes	Yes	Yes
Profited during presidency	Yes	No evidence	No

Profiting after office may be distasteful to some, but it is legal.
Profiting during office - especially via foreign or government spending - is constitutionally fraught.

 

[kirky]

Yes, but there's profiting and there's profiting. And I'm not saying others HAVEN'T done it (though there's far less evidence)... but we have a clear difference here (and not limited to):

• Foreign and domestic spending at Trump properties (Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses)
• Refusal to divest or use a blind trust
• Government and campaign spending at Trump businesses
• Branding and value enhancement (bibles, bitcoin and shit like that)
• Legal status (cases against him thrown out, NOT because he wasn't guilty, but because he won office)

Trump is the only modern U.S. president to monetise the office in real time through an ongoing private business. Let's not talk about the BILLIONS his daughter and son in law made from the Saudis.

Issue	Trump	Biden	Obama
Owned active businesses while president	Yes	No	No
Foreign govts spent money at president’s businesses	Yes	No	No
Refused blind trust	Yes	No	No
Used presidency to promote brand	Yes	No	No
Profited after leaving office	Yes	Yes	Yes
Profited during presidency	Yes	No evidence	No

Profiting after office may be distasteful to some, but it is legal.
Profiting during office - especially via foreign or government spending - is constitutionally fraught.

All outlined here -

3 Ways Trump’s Wealth Has Soared Since He Returned to Offic

Trump has enriched himself while in office like no other President in U.S. history. Here's why his net worth grew by billions in 2025

time.com

No other president has been so blatant but this is what Trump does - grift!

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

What's illegal ?

Have you not been watching the news this week?

I habe already posted several articles in this thread explaining the capture of another country's president on their home soil is illegal under the UN.

 

[Mutineer]

Yes, but there's profiting and there's profiting. And I'm not saying others HAVEN'T done it (though there's far less evidence)... but we have a clear difference here (and not limited to):

• Foreign and domestic spending at Trump properties (Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses)
• Refusal to divest or use a blind trust
• Government and campaign spending at Trump businesses
• Branding and value enhancement (bibles, bitcoin and shit like that)
• Legal status (cases against him thrown out, NOT because he wasn't guilty, but because he won office)

Trump is the only modern U.S. president to monetise the office in real time through an ongoing private business. Let's not talk about the BILLIONS his daughter and son in law made from the Saudis.

Issue	Trump	Biden	Obama
Owned active businesses while president	Yes	No	No
Foreign govts spent money at president’s businesses	Yes	No	No
Refused blind trust	Yes	No	No
Used presidency to promote brand	Yes	No	No
Profited after leaving office	Yes	Yes	Yes
Profited during presidency	Yes	No evidence	No

Profiting after office may be distasteful to some, but it is legal.
Profiting during office - especially via foreign or government spending - is constitutionally fraught.

So AI is wrong, can you debunk any of this?







The question of which U.S. Presidents were "better off financially
from their time as President" can be interpreted in two ways: wealth accumulated during their term via salary, or wealth accumulated because of their status as a former president (e.g., book deals, speaking fees). Modern presidents have generally seen a massive increase in wealth in the years after leaving office.

Significant Post-Presidency Wealth Increases
For most modern presidents, the most substantial financial gains come after their term has ended, leveraging their status for lucrative opportunities. Presidents who fall into this category include:

• Bill Clinton: His net worth increased dramatically from an estimated $1.2 million before office to around $80–$120 million after leaving the White House, largely due to high-paying speaking engagements and a large book advance. The Clintons have reportedly earned over $250 million from various post-presidency activities.
• Barack Obama: Obama's net worth grew significantly, from approximately $1.3 million before his presidency to an estimated $70 million after leaving office. This was driven by a multimillion-dollar joint book deal with Michelle Obama and a production deal with Netflix, in addition to six-figure speaking fees.
• George W. Bush: He nearly doubled his fortune after leaving office, growing his net worth from approximately $20 million to $40 million, primarily through book deals and paid speeches.
• Richard Nixon: Nixon's net worth also grew substantially after he left office, from $1.5 million before his presidency to around $15 million, as he pursued book deals and other private ventures.
• Gerald Ford: Ford was a pioneer in monetizing the post-presidency, significantly increasing his net worth through paid speeches and corporate board memberships.

Presidents Who Accumulated Wealth from Salary/Assets While in Office
In earlier history, George Washington was among the wealthiest presidents due to his large land holdings and his substantial presidential salary (which was 2% of the U.S. budget at the time).
In modern times, the presidential salary of $400,000 per year makes it possible to build a significant estate, though not on the scale of post-presidency deals. Harry Truman, for example, used his presidential salary to build a comfortable estate, with an inflation-adjusted net worth of over $6.6 million after leaving office, prompting Congress to create a presidential pension for former commanders-in-chief.
Donald Trump is a unique case: a billionaire before taking office, his net worth fluctuated and reportedly decreased during his term, but then rebounded significantly afterwards through his business ventures, including his social media company and golf properties.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Trump doesn't think either USA or UN rules apply to him... but he's not the only world leader.

Venezuela attack, Greenland threats and Gaza assault mark the collapse of international legal order

Successful American action in Venezuela and threats against Greenland suggest the rules-based international order that emerged following the Second World War is now on life support.

theconversation.com

 

[kirky]

So AI is wrong, can you debunk any of this?







The question of which U.S. Presidents were "better off financially
from their time as President" can be interpreted in two ways: wealth accumulated during their term via salary, or wealth accumulated because of their status as a former president (e.g., book deals, speaking fees). Modern presidents have generally seen a massive increase in wealth in the years after leaving office.

Significant Post-Presidency Wealth Increases
For most modern presidents, the most substantial financial gains come after their term has ended, leveraging their status for lucrative opportunities. Presidents who fall into this category include:

• Bill Clinton: His net worth increased dramatically from an estimated $1.2 million before office to around $80–$120 million after leaving the White House, largely due to high-paying speaking engagements and a large book advance. The Clintons have reportedly earned over $250 million from various post-presidency activities.
• Barack Obama: Obama's net worth grew significantly, from approximately $1.3 million before his presidency to an estimated $70 million after leaving office. This was driven by a multimillion-dollar joint book deal with Michelle Obama and a production deal with Netflix, in addition to six-figure speaking fees.
• George W. Bush: He nearly doubled his fortune after leaving office, growing his net worth from approximately $20 million to $40 million, primarily through book deals and paid speeches.
• Richard Nixon: Nixon's net worth also grew substantially after he left office, from $1.5 million before his presidency to around $15 million, as he pursued book deals and other private ventures.
• Gerald Ford: Ford was a pioneer in monetizing the post-presidency, significantly increasing his net worth through paid speeches and corporate board memberships.

Presidents Who Accumulated Wealth from Salary/Assets While in Office
In earlier history, George Washington was among the wealthiest presidents due to his large land holdings and his substantial presidential salary (which was 2% of the U.S. budget at the time).
In modern times, the presidential salary of $400,000 per year makes it possible to build a significant estate, though not on the scale of post-presidency deals. Harry Truman, for example, used his presidential salary to build a comfortable estate, with an inflation-adjusted net worth of over $6.6 million after leaving office, prompting Congress to create a presidential pension for former commanders-in-chief.
Donald Trump is a unique case: a billionaire before taking office, his net worth fluctuated and reportedly decreased during his term, but then rebounded significantly afterwards through his business ventures, including his social media company and golf properties.

Trump has significantly increased his wealth in his first year of this presidency thru his various business ventures (new ones).

It isn’t difficult to grasp, most of the others gained wealth (as you would expect with speaking engagements, books etc) after they were president.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

WTF? You think Europe will hand him Greenland???

Ok. While I was concerned of this scenario (provoking a war to invoke emergency powers or declare martial law) it apparently cannot kill midterms.

According to ChatGPT and other sources (so I'm not sure it's 100% accurate):

1. The Constitution controls elections — not the president​

• Federal election dates are set by Congress (by statute).
• The Constitution requires regular elections for Congress.
• A president has no constitutional power to suspend or alter those requirements.

Martial law or state of emergency does not override the Constitution.

2. Martial law has no magic “cancel elections” switch​

• Martial law is not clearly defined in U.S. law and has only been used locally and temporarily, usually during disasters or rebellions.
• Courts have repeatedly ruled that civil courts and civilian government must operate wherever possible.
• Using martial law to halt elections would be immediately unconstitutional.

3. Elections are run by the states​

• States administer elections.
• A president cannot order state officials to stop elections.
• Governors, secretaries of state, and state courts would still be legally bound to proceed.

4. Congress doesn’t vanish​

Even under a national emergency:

• Congress remains in session
• Courts remain open
• Laws remain enforceable

There is no legal mechanism for a president to dissolve Congress or freeze elections.

5. The courts would stop it​

Any attempt to suspend elections would:

• Trigger instant lawsuits
• Reach federal courts within hours
• Almost certainly be blocked by injunctions

The Supreme Court has been clear: martial law cannot replace civilian rule when courts are functioning.

What can happen (and what can’t)​

Can:

• Deploy National Guard (usually at governors’ request)
• Declare a national emergency
• Use federal troops for limited, lawful purposes

Cannot:

• Cancel or delay elections
• Extend presidential or congressional terms
• Rule by decree
• Override state election law

Bottom line

Yeah, the EU are not going to just roll-over & give Greenland to the USA.

Greenland allies vow action if Trump moves to seize world’s largest island

A German government source told the Reuters news agency that Berlin was 'closely working together' with other allies.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[adelaidecrows]

Yeah, the EU are not going to just roll-over & give Greenland to the USA.

Greenland allies vow action if Trump moves to seize world’s largest island

A German government source told the Reuters news agency that Berlin was 'closely working together' with other allies.

www.aljazeera.com

WTF? You think Europe will hand him Greenland???

Ok. While I was concerned of this scenario (provoking a war to invoke emergency powers or declare martial law) it apparently cannot kill midterms.

I dont think the EU will just cave and give Trump Greenland unless they feel an attack from Russia could be imminent.

Thats what I am getting at. And I wouldnt put it past Trump to coordinate with Putin. So that the EU cant fight on both fronts.

If this does happen that just as the USA is amassing ships off the coast of Greenland and Putin starts assembling troops en mass at the Russian border never under estimate the want to pick your battles.

 

[ADL9798]

These people are sick in the head.

 

[ADL9798]

 

[adelaidecrows]

These people are sick in the head.



View attachment 2507208

The big common misconception is they have authority to even hold US citizens and detain them. They actually dont have legal authority. Its not in their charter. You can look this up. So no matter what this lady was doing, she was merely annoying them. they do not have legal authority to act like police in this situation. 100% they just were trying to waste this womens time, proxy arrest her pretending they could then she would have been released after a few hours. This is why there is no talk of the lady resisting arrest, they are trying to use the domestic terrorism argument to justify the killing and thats to hide the fact they shouldnt have even been talking to her.

This is the clever narrative by the white house. Instead of anyone bothering to look up the law and understanding ICE actual powers, they have everyone discussing domestic terrorism.

 

[adelaidecrows]

Trump supporters are hilariously hypocritical.

they abuse, attack, insult anyone who goes against them but cry like a ****ing baby when its flipped around.

 

[kirky]

Trump supporters are hilariously hypocritical.

they abuse, attack, insult anyone who goes against them but cry like a ****ing baby when its flipped around.

Much like the Trump supporters/fan bois on here.

Cut from the same cloth.

 

[adelaidecrows]

On January 8, 2026, the U.S. Senate voted 52–47 to advance a bipartisan war powers measure that would require Congressional approval before President Trump — or any future president — can undertake further military hostilities against Venezuela.

The rumours of congress rebelling against Trump could be true. I suspect this could mean Greenland is on the cards next and it will prevent Trump from waging war. The only issue is Trump may simply not listen. Does the senate have the stomach to enforce it or will they cave and merely be a toothless tiger.

 

[StonesThrow]

To bring some context .....I'd be more worried about the actions of Europe currently ..... Britain & France sending troops into Ukraine is madness

People worry about Trump .....I can't trust the motives of a professional actor is Zelenskyy .....who's getting rich

People need to understand where Trump is coming from .....in negotiating terms he's approaching matters on two fronts:
a) He keeps opponents off guard by making extra-ordinary statements .....designed to frustrate, confuse, and often diversionary to his real agenda

b) He's the fastest moving President in history ....again matching the above tactic with the pace of his agenda ....and his opponents are continually off-guard, not knowing which fire to put out first

Negotiation is about reading your opponent, and how they're likely to react ....much like playing poker
Good luck trying to get predictability out of Trump

Lastly .....in most things Trump has addressed, Democrats have at stages in history supported Trumps POV's .....and at the end of the day, Trump will be judged on Economic indicators .....everyone thinks with their pockets

Does Trump stick his foot in his mouth sometime .....of course ...but everyone has

I mean this sentence just goes to show how we all seem to be living in different realities. It's dystopian.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

I mean this sentence just goes to show how we all seem to be living in different realities. It's dystopian.

How so .....can you explain how an actor in Zelenskyy has accumulated so much land in America ?

BTW do you actually know the meaning of dystopian ....because you've used it incorrectly & out of context