POTUS 2016

    There's was no moral outcry because Obama paused the approval of refugee applications from Iraq and he didn't do it out of the blue or this harshly. But I agree, Trump's crackdown only includes those seven countries because of Obama’s policy (who's no hero in my book). Trump’s decision to go beyond it and increase the Obama policy harms refugees, but it only increases an existing discriminatory policy, it doesn’t invent it. Which further debunks the theory that this is tied to his business empire. That's why I like these intelligent discussions @D3ads, without people getting all upset or defensive. There's so much fake news out there and even media reports are most disingenuous, so there's a lot of bullshit to filter through.

    Having said that though, I understand where it's coming from. Trump's rhetoric is in line with what's he's doing now. People have debated his exact words and their meaning for months, but I hope that we can all agree that his behavior didn't exactly portray tolerance or subtlety. So if you act like an asshole, people are going to treat you like one. I think Obama got away with a lot of things because his demeanor and public image was way better.

    A lot of innocent people were fucked over from that decision, not sure how many terrorists they actually stopped from the middle east. I don't recall the US having a middle east terrorist problem like Europe has.

    @D3ads and @Sprony There is certainly some legal justifications that may be used to support the ban, but here's why it is unsupportable.

    1. There was no input provided from the agencies that are now directly involved in dealing with this (law enforcement at both the federal and local levels).

    2. There was no congressional input from either the Gang of 8 or a larger group.

    3. The Governor's who would be most likely impacted (Washington, California, Georgia, New York, Texas, Illinois) were not given notice or input as to how to deal with this. It was just simply dropped on them.

    4. This is the biggie - the ban includes persons with Permanent Legal Residence status (meaning they had immigrated LEGALLY and already had passed the US immigration vetting process, which oh by the way is one of the single toughest vetting processes in the world for legal immigration purposes).

    5. There was no plan made for persons already en-route and how to address their needs (e.g., necessary medications, food, housing, sanitary needs, etc . . .).

    On Bannon's permanent position to the National Security Council:

    You're correct in that it has been precedent for the Chief of Staff to be promoted with clearance on an as needed basis to the NSC meetings. This in and of itself is not horribly concerning (although based on political viewpoints, it certainly is from my perspective). Rather, the concern stems from the removal of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Director of National Intelligence unless they have issues specific to their areas of expertise to address - whereas Bannon is now a constant member. Furthermore, the removal of the Ambassador to the UN is an additional impediment that must now be overcome. This move, regarded widely by experts as a mistake, demonstrates a lack of objectivity that will become a cornerstone of USA's international relations and military action if it is not addressed. Imagine military action being taken on the basis of politics from the strongest military in the world, as opposed to national (truly national, not one demographic) and international interests, and human rights interests. When the US suddenly expands military presences in the Middle East to steal oil (even though we have plenty of production within our own nation; but that is another topic altogether), further destabilizing those regions and countries that will negatively impact the world by increasing the sheer number of refugees - anyone in the vicinity of those areas (namely Russia, Western Asia, Africa, and Europe) will experience the effects of such unilateral (and unwise) actions.

    The Bannon promotion and NSC actions is not the distraction, that is the meat of it - whereas the Muslim ban is the distraction.

    Agreed with Sigma.

    They've apparently walked back their green card holder ban a bit. So that is something.

    The completely reckless manner they went thru with this executive order is horrific. It is either brutal incompetence to not seek adequate council or issue a grace period, or it was deliberate to cause chaos. See the Bannon promotion.

    What he did with the NSC changes is posturing against the Chairman - he is only there if Trump wants him to be there. If he says things to contradict Trump or Bannon, do you think he'll be invited to the next meeting? With Trump's fragile ego and twisted world view, I doubt it. Consolidation of power.

    I do not think there is any coincidence that the countries on his ban list were already on a list from Obama. I'm sure he would have rather banned more, but to give him someone else to pin the blame on, he stuck with the list created under Obama.

    Regardless of the list, the ban is idiotic. There is no significant reason to do this. There are not any significant terrorist attacks in the US perpetrated by anyone from those countries. Our vetting process is already extremely tough. Regardless if HE didn't call it a "Muslim ban" (although he's used those exact words before), it sure looks and feels like it, especially to the people it effects.

    Do you think this ban encouraged or discouraged hatred of the US? Do you think the net will be positive or negative? Since the vast majority of our terrorist attacks are carried out by our own residents, do you think that increasing the hatred of our country by banning people from crossing our borders will increase the propensity for another US citizen to slip into radicalization?

    @Sigma, did you tag me because you are agreeing with me and you wanted to share more information (which I appreciate) or are you under the impression that I fully agreed with @D3ads?

    Anyway, I came across this article. Here's a quote:

    Quote

    Quote *Bonus: Obama’s “seven countries” taken out of context: Trump’s claim that the seven countries listed in the executive order came from the Obama administration is conveniently left unexplained. A bit of background: soon after the December 2015 terror attack in San Bernadino, President Obama signed an amendment to the Visa Waiver Program, a law that allows citizens of 38 countries to travel to the United States without obtaining visas (and gives Americans reciprocal privileges in those countries). The amendment removed from the Visa Waiver Program dual nationals who were citizens of four countries (Iraq, Iran, Sudan, and Syria), or anyone who had recently traveled to those countries. The Obama administration added three more to the list (Libya, Somalia, and Yemen), bringing the total to seven. But this law did not bar anyone from coming to the United States. It only required a relatively small percentage of people to obtain a visa first. And to avoid punishing people who clearly had good reasons to travel to the relevant countries, the Obama administration used a waiver provided by Congress for certain travelers, including journalists, aid workers, and officials from international organizations like the United Nations.

    Plus, no way of verifying and most likely fake AF , but I've been really enjoying this Twitter account.

    It's beyond me... It baffles me... It stuns me... It appalls me that people support this fucking monster and his regime, specially after what happened this weekend. History was made and not very positive one:https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger…91d5#.hvyhrq5en

    I honestly believe we're witnessing a coup d'etat here.

    Quote

    Quote That is to say, the administration is testing the extent to which the DHS (and other executive agencies) can act and ignore orders from the other branches of government. This is as serious as it can possibly get: all of the arguments about whether order X or Y is unconstitutional mean nothing if elements of the government are executing them and the courts are being ignored. Yesterday was the trial balloon for a coup d’état against the United States. It gave them useful information.

    Quote from Sigma

    2 minutes ago, Sigma said: @Sprony I did not think you wholly agreed with him. I admit, I am skimming a little as I live this s*** day-in and day-out due to its possible consequences on my job.

    No worries, I was just a bit confused because you repeated what I said (but much more detailed). Best of luck man!

    Quote from Sprony

    44 minutes ago, Sprony said: Plus, no way of verifying and most likely fake AF , but I've been really enjoying this Twitter account.

    At least a couple things check out....

    They tweeted:

    "Word is Mexican Pres. cancelling upcoming meeting. POTUS plans twitter announcement to make it sound like his idea."

    at 6:12 AM on January 26.

    At 8:51 AM, DJT tweeted just such an announcement:

    "The U.S. has a 60 billion dollar trade deficit with Mexico. It has been a one-sided deal from the beginning of NAFTA with massive numbers...of jobs and companies lost. If Mexico is unwilling to pay for the badly needed wall, then it would be better to cancel the upcoming meeting."

    Then at 11:48 AM, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto tweeted:

    "This morning we informed the White House that I won’t attend the work meeting scheduled for next Tuesday with @POTUS"

    I can't verify that Rogue POTUS Staff was the first to leak that the meeting was cancelled or that POTUS was planning to pre-empt Pena Nieto about it, but it at least lines up awfully nicely.

    Quote from Vorontsov

    12 minutes ago, Vorontsov said: @(HP) Sadly there wasn't a viable alternative to support (We all know there was, to both, but they appear to be too sane of a choice to be elected, eh.)

    This only exacerbates the problem of a bipartisan political system, you're either red or blue, and the world is a little bit more shaded and colorful than that.

    I really like "our" mayor.

    The content cannot be displayed because it is no longer available.

    I wonder what's gonna happen, what if many countries close the doors to him? Will/can US get isolated?

    How long will he last, I can't see him lasting a full term.

    And I see why Putin is playing friend with the douche, if US isolates itself, Russia can really do what they want.

    Quote from (HP)

    4 hours ago, (HP) said: What's the difference between this and fascism again?

    I don't disagree with the sentiment - but there are still legal recourse left available to redress these grievances with this government. In that sense, we have not reached fascism (yet).

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!

Register Yourself Login