POTUS 2016

[Sprony]

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

[D3ads]

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:

Edited January 29, 2017 by D3ads

[Sprony]

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):

 

[D3ads]

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.

Edited January 30, 2017 by D3ads

[Pampers]

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

[Sprony]

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.  

[Vorontsov]

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.

[Vaya]

wonder if trump will ban morocco now. if I was wanting to double down and piss off people on purpose that's what I'd be doing.

[Sigma]

@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.

[twiz]

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?

[Sprony]

@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

*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. 

[-HP-]

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/trial-balloon-for-a-coup-e024990891d5#.hvyhrq5en

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

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.

 

[Sigma]

@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.

[Sprony]

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!

[twiz]

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.