POTUS 2016

    Quote from (HP)

    2 hours ago, (HP) said: We now live in a world where NASA needs to create a separate twitter account because Trump's administration is censoring science. This isn't fiction guys, this isn't a joke, this is happening right here, right now in 2017, take a few seconds pause and let this sink in for a bit. This administration is also trying to censor National Park's voices, and non surprisingly Trump also institutes a media blackout at the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency).

    ...

    Quote from Vorontsov

    25 minutes ago, Vorontsov said: Aren't democrats mostly anti-guns?

    Definitely not, that's a misconception, the world is not black and white. Democrats and leftists at large usually call for gun control enforcement, not necessarily anti guns.

    Also, you can fight a revolution without the involvement of devices that eject fast moving projectiles, you know that right?

    Quote from Vorontsov

    37 minutes ago, Vorontsov said: Aren't democrats mostly anti-guns?

    Nope... nope nope nope nope nope. Go to the midwest, throw a stone at a group of democrats and you'll have a group of democrats with guns pointing at you. Source: Am Midwest liberal. @(HP) hit it on the nose though. Hopefully we can fight this without use of force. Escalation is never good for anyone.

    Quote

    Quote 'On Thursday, Hannity framed his questioning to suggest Muir was against it. Wholeheartedly agreeing with the president that waterboarding 'works' as a means of extracting information, Hannity said: 'If I had an opportunity to speak with David Muir, I'd say, OK, two guys go into your house, they kidnap your child, one guy gets away with your child, you tackle the other guy, that guy knows where your child is, would you not waterboard that guy?''

    Why do republicans all think they're in fucking diehard

    Quote from (HP)

    14 hours ago, (HP) said: Democrats and leftists at large usually call for gun control enforcement, not necessarily anti guns.

    Ask a republican and those two things are the same..

    I'm really fucking tired of Trump referring to the trade deficit with Mexico like we're LOSING that money. No, idiot, it does not mean that. It means that we have a higher standard of living, our currency is more valuable. The reason we have a trade deficit is because it is CHEAP to make things there because they A) don't get paid as much (lower standard of living) and B) their currency is weaker than ours (a USD buys more...). If you want our trade deficit to be gone, you need to drive our standard of living and value of our currency down to the point that it no longer makes sense to buy things from Mexico, because it is just as cheap to build it here!!!

    Which is sort of what he's proposing. Tariff Mexican goods, artificially inflating their price. Congratulations, you've just artificially weakened the USD. Now a $1 buys $0.80 worth of goods. Victory! Mexico is not going to pay for that - they can't. A Mexican widget costs what it costs to make. They won't/can't just eat a 20% cut to their costs - they'll just raise the price of the widget accordingly. A tariff will ultimately come through as a higher end cost for the consumer. You know, US citizens. Brilliant.

    Since we can't feasibly maintain the same quality of living AND produce everything here, we'll go to the next place. Further south, more to China and Indonesia. So what then? Now we'll have big scary trade deficits with them. Tariff 'em! Worked for Mexico! Keep going down that road, it'll turn out great.

    It's exactly like going to the god damn grocery store. You have a trade deficit with the store. You buy a lot more things from them than they buy from you. Sure, you could grow all your own food and raise livestock and fabricate your own toilet paper, but it is much fucking cheaper to TRADE your money for it from someone who can do all that work for less than you could yourself!

    First world countries do not get their high standard of living and powerful currency from raw manufacture of goods. It comes from STEM. Focus on specialized goods, things that are cutting edge and low-volume that we are expertly equipped to make, that still command a high price because there isn't the tech in Mexico or China or wherever to undercut it... and by the time there is, we've already innovated on that.

    As an engineer, this shit pisses me off. We're at a crossroads, and yes, it's painful. Bulk manufacturing is dying here because we are too good for it! I know it hurts, factory workers losing their jobs, etc... but it has to happen! Either we shoot ourselves in the foot to keep those jobs around a little longer, or we push forward, make sure our future generations are equipped to innovate and create. That's what made America a world leader in the first place. Manufacturing, we loved you, but I think its time we moved on.

    ^^ Not the first time they've tried it, wont be the last. Wont happen.

    All this hysteria about the "Muslim ban" that Trump supposedly invited, turns out he took what Obama put in place and toughtened it. There is no mention of Islam or any ethnicity, the only country mentioned is Syria...

    "I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12)"

    These are "countries of concern", already under restrictions according to the "Terrorist Travel Prevention Act" from 2015:

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-con…e-bill/158/text

    Last year four other countries were added to the bill.. Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.

    https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/1…-waiver-program

    Saudi Arabia, UAE, Lebanon and Egypt are not included it's true.. neither is Indonesia, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Pakistan and many other Islamic countries.. this is a long way off from a blanket ban on muslims that the media and some people are claiming (which would be completely unworkable anyway)...

    Yeah, I see a lot of Trump fans saying that @D3ads. Except, he changed it to exclude the countries he has business with of which several were actually responsible for terrorist attacks. Plus, why are some greencard holders hit as well?

    It's not a complete ban but it's not a smart on so many levels. Anyway, I'm more worried about his recent security council moves. Plus, Cali will never leave of course @Vorontsov, but it would be something. Maybe it would be better if red and blue separated :)

    Quote from Sprony

    2 hours ago, Sprony said: Yeah, I see a lot of Trump fans saying that @D3ads. Except, he changed it to exclude the countries he has business with of which several were actually responsible for terrorist attacks. Plus, why are some greencard holders hit as well?

    He hasn't excluded anything! They were never there in that bill in the first place! If anyone is saying that, it's a blatent lie. Look.. it's no surprise that Saudi Arabia isn't on there because they are unfortunately a US ally, I'm all for them being added but they're not. The countries listed also have specific problems like ongoing civil wars and/or big problems with terrorism in the country (in Iran's case, a known sponsor of Hezbollah, Hamas and others). I'm not sure why Sudan is on the list, other than Al Bashir is an asshole and they've had issues with terrorism in the past. On green cards, they've clearly got problems but now that the ban has been lifted by the judge, they can sort anything like that out so it doesn't happen again.

    [edit]His statement confirms everything I've said:

    [Blocked Image: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3XnoXHUkAAysvM.jpg]

    So my friend, who has a Dutch passport but is originally from Iran, cannot attend the funeral of his sister's husband because his country has been identified as a source of terror. That's a very clear message you are sending. Just because the Obama administration worked on a bill, doesn't mean you have to execute it like this. If it's really about terrorism, why are many other countries left out? Even if it wasn't intentional, do you honestly believe it's just mere coincidence that there's isn't a single country on that list which his business empire has ties to @D3ads? It's not his statement, but simply cleverly written damage control due to the outrage that's currently going on.

    It's also a nice distraction from the fact that he removed the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence from the National Security Counsel. Not only that, but he adds alt-right darling Steve Bannon. People can 'alternative' fact all they want, but I don't buy any of this. That also doesn't mean I turn a blind eye to the other side. But this is just spreading hatred and Jim Jefferies actually said it best (starts at 3:30 for the impatient):

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Your friend's circumstances are unfortunate, I'm sorry for that. Iran was "identified" as a source of terror long ago, it is the biggest global sponsor of terrorist groups with known proven links that are without question (unlike in SA) and the regime has long called for "Death to America" so it's no surprise it's on the list. Why are other countries not on the list? Same answer for your other question, only those that are already on the list of countries of concern are included. If we look at the list we can determine the most likely reasons why they are there:

    Syria - Ongoing civil war, major threat of terrorism from ISIS and Jabhat Fateh al-Sham

    Iraq - Major threat of terrorism from ISIS

    Libya - Tribal warfare and civil conflict, major threat of terrorism from ISIS

    Sudan - Not entirely clear...

    Somalia - Major threat of terrorism from al-Shabab

    Yemen - Ongoing civil war and terrorism from ISIS and AQAP

    Saudi Arabia is a US ally, you wont see them on such a list because of that, plus people like Mccain and Graham would have a fit about it. It is a coincidence. If you say it's just "damage control" then that's up to you, but it's funny how it echoes almost exactly what I said. In 2011, Obama stopped all Iraqi visas coming into the country when refugees in Kentucky were said to have possible links with AQ including certain people who had been working as interpreters, there was no moral outcry about that though...

    I don't know how removing the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence is a "distraction" for anything, since it happens each time a new administration arrives in the White House. Clapper and Dunford are out, Mattis and at some point Coats are in. Nothing ontoward...

    Bannon has done all sorts in his time, he used to be in the Navy, he was a banker, he worked on Biosphere 2, he's been involved in film making but of course pretty much all anyone talks about is Breitbart. Here's the thing about the alt-right.. there isn't really an "alt-right". It is a lazy buzzword in the media for things that the MSN doesn't get or everything the liberal left do not like. Shit heads like Richard Spencer might claim they came up with it, but really it's been around a long time before.

    Honestly "alt-right" for the most part is pretty much just 4chan on steroids, silly things like unpoliticially correct Pepe the frog memes that can be safely ignored and more right-wing views.. sure there are racist assholes in there and neo-nazis but it sure as Hell aint everyone. So Breitbart is like 4chan presenting the news /pol/ style, it's not exactly The Guardian but it isn't the Daily Stormer either... I sometimes read stuff on there, I don't believe in shying away from certain sources if there's information of value to be found somewhere amongst the garbage. I particularly enjoy Milo Yiannopoulos's professional trolling, the way he riles people up is hilarious.

    So, I'm not worried about Bannon personally...

    As for your video.. that's from July 2016, again the comedian repeats the rubbish that Trump called all Mexicans rapists and other things. Anyway, he's a comedian and his job is to entertain so he'll say whatever.

    Who's calling Obama a hero for bombing the middle east? please don't reduce these complex issues into two sentence memes to make cheap points. Let's not turn it into some facebook group echochamber

Participate now!

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

Register Yourself Login