President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Akrasia

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Yes i do believe immigrants from Yemen and Somali were allowed into the US if i am perfectly honest.

Yes, but the application process requires a lot of background checks and face to face interviews.

What is trump gonna do to verify their intentions that's not already being done?

Itssoeasy

Akrasia wrote: »

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Yes i do believe immigrants from Yemen and Somali were allowed into the US if i am perfectly honest.

Yes, but the application process requires a lot of background checks and face to face interviews.

What is trump Donna do to verify their intentions that's not already being done?

Yeah my brother went to america last summer and he was surprised by the number of questions he had to answer and other info he had to provide.

Wanderer78

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Yeah my brother went to america last summer and he was surprised by the number of questions he had to answer and other info he had to provide.

are the questions about the third reich still on the questionnaire? some really weird questions on those things

CalamariFritti

Wanderer78 wrote: »

are the questions about the third reich still on the questionnaire? some really weird questions on those things

Yes they are.

The questions are weird indeed. Not just the Nazi membership and war crime ones. My favourite is along the lines of 'are you a spy for a foreign government agency? Yes/No'

I mean unless you were actually in the process of defecting over to America how would anyone ever tick Yes here?

Itssoeasy

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Yeah my brother went to america last summer and he was surprised by the number of questions he had to answer and other info he had to provide.

are the questions about the third reich still on the questionnaire? some really weird questions on those things

Edit: it appears there are questions about the third reich there.

I don't know the questions but he did say there was a feck load of them.

Itssoeasy

Also how the hell is Steve bannon now part of the national security team ? I mean the mind boogles it really does.

Zubeneschamali

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I mean unless you were actually in the process of defecting over to America how would anyone ever tick Yes here?

The point is not to make you admit it, the point is to make you lie on your immigration form.

Then they can toss you out with no comebacks for lying on the form.

CalamariFritti

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Third reich ? Is that a joke or have I missed something ? Anyway I don't know the questions but he did say there was a feck load of them.

Its not a joke. There is a rake you have to tick yes/no for. Like what we have as in 'have you recently been in contact with live stock'.

Only their ones are like 'Have you ever been a member of the German Nazi party', 'Have you ever been convicted of war crimes?'. 'Are you a foreign spy?'

Can't remember the exact words but yes thats what they ask you.

CalamariFritti

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The point is not to make you admit it, the point is to make you lie on your immigration form.

Then they can toss you out with no comebacks for lying on the form.

Ye I kinda figured that it still makes for good joke tho.

Water John

Bannon and his unprecented access and influence, is really worrying.

MightyMandarin

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Also how the hell is Steve bannon now part of the national security team ? I mean the mind boogles it really does.

He's a smart guy, has the president's ear and was behind that dreadful inauguration speech. He also included a load of dog whistles to far-right white supremacist groups in there. He's a keen follower of Julius Evola's writings btw, read about him, he wrote some mad ****.

But basically the US have an actual racist in the NSC now(I don't actually think Trump is a racist, he's just like your average old man berating 'dem immigrants who took ur jerbs') and considering he's a smart man (you don't make Breitbart relevant without being smart) it's scary to think what could happen.

The other clown Trump put in, Jared Kushner, is your typical 'daddy's boy' who inherited a ton from his father (who's a tax evader and general scumbag-hired a prostitute to blackmail his brother to stop testifying) and also happens to be Ivanka's husband. He's just a walking conflict of interest (Chris Christie getting the boot had everything to do with him; he prosecuted his dad) but I'm not sure he'll do as much damage as Bannon could do. Bannon certainly had to do more to get to his position.

oscarBravo

rgossip30 wrote: »

So your solution is what , ban Saudi Arabia and forget about a co operation on safe zones not to mention the economic cost .
This is the present a different elected President .
Maybe you just have a desperate desire to see trump fail .

What's with the deflection? You asked for proof; I asked what you'd accept as proof, seeing as how the fact that Saudis are responsible for orders of magnitude more deaths on US soil than ISIS isn't good enough for you.

So I'll ask again: what proof would you accept?

Akrasia wrote: »

Trump tried to introduce a 'simple' measure to temporarily ban immigrants from 7 specific countries, but immediately this simple idea fell into chaos as the lack of clarity and detail led to different interpretations from different people and tens of thousands of innocent people stranded without any information and fearing for their future

The chaos was an inevitable consequence of the new administration's policy of refusing to seek input from the relevant stakeholders before drafting executive orders.

I've posted this link before, but it may have gotten lost in the noise.

The malevolence of President Trump’s Executive Order on visas and refugees is mitigated chiefly—and perhaps only—by the astonishing incompetence of its drafting and construction.

NBC is reporting that the document was not reviewed by DHS, the Justice Department, the State Department, or the Department of Defense, and that National Security Council lawyers were prevented from evaluating it. Moreover, the New York Times writes that Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, the agencies tasked with carrying out the policy, were only given a briefing call while Trump was actually signing the order itself. Yesterday, the Department of Justice gave a “no comment” when asked whether the Office of Legal Counsel had reviewed Trump’s executive orders—including the order at hand. (OLC normally reviews every executive order.)

This order reads to me, frankly, as though it was not reviewed by competent counsel at all.

[...]

Let’s start with the malevolence of the document, which Amira Mikhail summarized and Adham Sahloul analyzed earlier today. I don’t use the word “malevolence” here lightly. As readers of my work know, I believe in strong counterterrorism powers. I defend non-criminal detention. I’ve got no problem with drone strikes. I’m positively enthusiastic about American surveillance policies. I was much less offended than others were by the CIA’s interrogations in the years after September 11. I have defended military commissions.

Some of these policies were effective; some were not. Some worked out better than others. And I don’t mean to relitigate any of those questions here. My sole point is that all of these policies were conceptualized and designed and implemented by people who were earnestly trying to protect the country from very real threats. And the policies were, to a one, proximately related to important goals in the effort. While some of these policies proved tragically misguided and caused great harm to innocent people, none of them was designed or intended to be cruel to vulnerable, concededly innocent people. Even the CIA’s interrogation program, after all, was deployed against people the agency believed (mostly correctly) to be senior terrorists of the most dangerous sort and to garner information from them that would prevent attacks.

I actually cannot say that about Trump’s new executive order—and neither can anyone else.

[...]

Put simply, I don’t believe that the stated purpose is the real purpose. This is the first policy the United States has adopted in the post-9/11 era about which I have ever said this. It’s a grave charge, I know, and I’m not making it lightly. But in the rational pursuit of security objectives, you don’t marginalize your expert security agencies and fail to vet your ideas through a normal interagency process. You don’t target the wrong people in nutty ways when you’re rationally pursuing real security objectives.

When do you do these things? You do these things when you’re elevating the symbolic politics of bashing Islam over any actual security interest. You do them when you’ve made a deliberate decision to burden human lives to make a public point. In other words, this is not a document that will cause hardship and misery because of regrettable incidental impacts on people injured in the pursuit of a public good. It will cause hardship and misery for tens or hundreds of thousands of people because that is precisely what it is intended to do.

[...]

This document is the implementation of a campaign promise to keep out Muslims moderated only by the fact that certain allied Muslim countries are left out because the diplomatic repercussions of including them would be too detrimental.

[...]

How incompetent is this order? An immigration lawyer who works for the federal government wrote me today describing the quality of the work as “look[ing] like what an intern came up with over a lunch hour. . . . My take is that it is so poorly written that it’s hard to tell the impact." One of the reasons there’s so much chaos going on right now, in fact, is that nobody really knows what the order means on important points.

[...]

...it’s a very dangerous thing to have a White House that can’t with the remotest pretense of competence and governance put together a major policy document on a crucial set of national security issues without inducing an avalanche of litigation and wide diplomatic fallout. If the incompetence mitigates the malevolence in this case, that’ll be a blessing. But given the nature of the federal immigration powers, the mitigation may be small and the blessing short-lived; the implications of having an executive this inept are not small and won’t be short-lived.

ancapailldorcha

This isn't the place to dump pictures and memes. Any more will likely elicit mod action.

gormdubhgorm

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

This is absolutely hilarious...

http://www.hewillnotdivide.us/

Depressed people who have trouble accepting democracy and moving on chanting ''He will not divide us'' to a CCTV camera and mic installed on a wall on a street in New York. Very cult like behaviour. Repetitive chanting is a hallmark of cults. They are a parody of themselves. It's is like a real life episode of South Park.

I don't even get the "he will not divide us" name.

Surely it is a consequence of any election that the electorate will be divided?

If Hillary Clinton won would there be a "she will not divide us"site ?

Bazzo

You really can't figure out how the slogan "He will not divide us" might be relevant in the days following an executive order targetting large groups of people based on their country of birth and religion? Oh dear. :rolleyes:

rgossip30

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This isn't the place to dump pictures and memes. Any more will likely elicit mod action.

what's memes ?

rgossip30

oscarBravo wrote: »

What's with the deflection? You asked for proof; I asked what you'd accept as proof, seeing as how the fact that Saudis are responsible for orders of magnitude more deaths on US soil than ISIS isn't good enough for you.

So I'll ask again: what proof would you accept?

You don't like that Saudi is not on the ban list get over it .

ancapailldorcha

rgossip30 wrote: »

what's memes ?

They've been deleted. Please don't dispute mod warnings on thread.

ancapailldorcha

rgossip30 wrote: »

You don't like that Saudi is not on the ban list get over it .

Post more constructively please.

scruffy66

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I don't even get the "he will not divide us" name.

Surely it is a consequence of any election that the electorate will be divided?

If Hillary Clinton won would there be a "she will not divide us"site ?

While Donald Trump could end up being the worse president America has ever
had and has already shown very bad judgement with this immigrant ban and his decisions
on climate change.As far as Americas military actions around the world,he will have to go
along way to compete with the man of peace and Nobel Peace prize winner Barack Obama.
How come Obama couldn't attract these kind of protests.i guess the media as a whole have
done a great job of keeping Obama clean and not asking to many hard questions.
Just as they did in the run up to the first gulf war.

Guardian article on Obama

Most Americans would probably be astounded to realize that the president who has been painted by Washington pundits as a reluctant warrior has actually been a hawk. The Iran nuclear deal, a herculean achievement, and the opening of diplomatic relations with Cuba unfortunately stand alone as President Obama’s successful uses of diplomacy over hostility.

While candidate Obama came to office pledging to end George W Bush’s wars, he leaves office having been at war longer than any president in US history. He is also the only president to serve two complete terms with the nation at war.

President Obama did reduce the number of US soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, but he dramatically expanded the air wars and the use of special operations forces around the globe. In 2016, US special operators could be found in 70% of the world’s nations, 138 countries – a staggering jump of 130% since the days of the Bush administration.

Obama has handed a surveillance state and war machine to a maniac Trevor Timm

Looking back at President Obama’s legacy, the Council on Foreign Relation’s Micah Zenko added up the defense department’s data on airstrikes and made a startling revelation: in 2016 alone, the Obama administration dropped at least 26,171 bombs. This means that every day last year, the US military blasted combatants or civilians overseas with 72 bombs; that’s three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/america-dropped-26171-bombs-2016-obama-legacy

Frank Bullitt

So Trump has relieved Sally Yates of her duties, if you stand up to Trump then you can expect to lose your job.

This is a really scary time.

Bazzo

It turns out that the shooter in the Quebec mosque attack was a right wing nationalist and a Trump admirer (despite being Canadian). The White House tried to use the shooting to justify their Muslim ban last night.

I guess trump better add Canada to the list of banned nations.

wonderfullife

Bazzo wrote: »

It turns out that the shooter in the Quebec mosque attack was a right wing nationalist and a Trump admirer (despite being Canadian). The White House tried to use the shooting to justify their Muslim ban last night.

I guess trump better add Canada to the list of banned nations.

Or Canada better start asking US immigrants their opinions on Trump.

The Quebec incident really made me sit up and despair at social media and my own involvement in it.

Within an hour of the atrocity, left-leaning posters on Twitter had named 2 men as the perpetrators (both neo-nazis). Meanwhile, alt-righters named the perpetrators as Syrian refugees.

Both sides offered up 2 names each. Actual names with pictures attached.

The truth, of course, mattered zero on either side. It was about disseminating as much #fakenews as possible as quickly as possible. Get the narrative out fast.

It was really sad to see and I hope all 4 men named are suing somebody. It was also sad that I wanted it to be the White Nationalists because it suited my world view better if it was neo-nazis at fault.

At that point I closed my laptop and told myself I'm getting too involved.

CMOTDibbler

wonderfullife wrote: »

It was really sad to see and I hope all 4 men named are suing somebody. It was also sad that I wanted it to be the White Nationalists because it suited my world view better if it was neo-nazis at fault.

To be fair, it would have been extremely unusual had it not been the above. Trump's EO and his talk of 'bad dudes' has given legitimacy to these people to take matters into their own hands.

Akrasia

Gintonious wrote: »

So Trump has relieved Sally Yates of her duties, if you stand up to Trump then you can expect to lose your job.

This is a really scary time.

We saw this during the campaign trail. Trump fired everyone who didn't agree with his radical agenda. Steve Bannon took over and they were a match made in hades.

Bannon gave him free reign to say the things he wanted to say, and he wrote his speeches in a way that Trump could easily deliver them (lots of repetition, no big words)

Bannon is the Dick Cheney of the Trump administration. He's able to influence Trump by agreeing with him and steering him with positive feedback.

Anyone who directly challenges Trump will be replaced. It won't take long before his administration get the message.

Bazzo

The guy who supposedly has proof of these 3-5 million illegal votes for trump and will be releasing it in the next few months is registered to vote in 3 states. You couldn't make this **** up.

Akrasia

Bazzo wrote: »

The guy who supposedly has proof of these 3-5 million illegal votes for trump and will be releasing it in the next few months is registered to vote in 3 states. You couldn't make this **** up.

Just because someone is registered multiple times doesn't mean that they are voting multiple times, especially if those registrations are in different states.

I can see out of date electoral registers being the 'evidence' of widespread voter fraud, and this 'evidence' will be used for even more voter purging in the next election. Guess which names will be removed from the registers?

I was registered to vote in Kildare when I was in College. I don't remember if I called them to remove my name, I don't even know how I would do that.

Its possible I am registered in more than one place, but I only vote in my local polling station with my current voter registration.
According to Trump logic, I'm a heinous voter fraudster who would definitely have voted twice for Hillary if I was eligible to vote in US elections

Bazzo

Akrasia wrote: »

Just because someone is registered multiple times doesn't mean that they are voting multiple times, especially if those registrations are in different states.

I can see out of date electoral registers being the 'evidence' of widespread voter fraud, and this 'evidence' will be used for even more voter purging in the next election. Guess which names will be removed from the registers?

I was registered to vote in Kildare when I was in College. I don't remember if I called them to remove my name, I don't even know how I would do that.

Its possible I am registered in more than one place, but I only vote in my local polling station with my current voter registration.
According to Trump logic, I'm a heinous voter fraudster who would definitely have voted twice for Hillary if I was eligible to vote in US elections

Absolutely, however trump specifically said that he would be launching an investigation into voter fraud, including those registered in 2 states, as he considers it to be an issue.

I will be asking for a major investigation into VOTER FRAUD, including those registered to vote in two states, those who are illegal and even, those registered to vote who are dead (and many for a long time). Depending on results, we will strengthen up voting procedures!

FreudianSlippers

Requirements for residency vary vastly from State to State in the US and in most there is no requirement to inform the State if you have permanently moved away; so it's not illegal to be registered to vote in more than one State. Actually voting in more than one State is however illegal, as it is voter fraud.

CMOTDibbler

Akrasia wrote: »

Just because someone is registered multiple times doesn't mean that they are voting multiple times, especially if those registrations are in different states.

I can see out of date electoral registers being the 'evidence' of widespread voter fraud, and this 'evidence' will be used for even more voter purging in the next election. Guess which names will be removed from the registers?

I was registered to vote in Kildare when I was in College. I don't remember if I called them to remove my name, I don't even know how I would do that.

Its possible I am registered in more than one place, but I only vote in my local polling station with my current voter registration.
According to Trump logic, I'm a heinous voter fraudster who would definitely have voted twice for Hillary if I was eligible to vote in US elections

I believe if you're registered to vote in one area and you then register in another, it's done by change of address, so afaik you shouldn't ever have two or more polling places.