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

Christy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

What reasons?

I posted those links, because lol hypocrisy.

Trump said he's going to temporarily suspend people from terror regions where vetting procedures don't occur. Is it not his right to do this, or for a country to protect it's borders?

I don't get the hysteria, at all.

I don't know the exact reasons. Not to suspend all travel for people from those regions given Obama did not do that. Therefore a different region.

A country can absolutely protect its borders. Leaving refugees and American residents stranded like this as well as banning dual citizens from its allies (this was part of the measure at the start, the fact that Trump had to back peddle on this doesn't change anything)- not so much. Not all ways of protecting borders/limiting visas are equivalent which you don't seem to be willing to admit (how else could this measure be defended I suppose). Which of course leads me to my next point

Obviously you don't get the hysteria. You can't see any difference in tightening security on who gets a visa and leaving US residents stranded abroad. They are exceptionally different measures that are being talked about.

Bazzo

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

As from his campaign pdf, "Suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur", which would imply there is no solid information available, either from those countries refusing to dispose information, or lack of from the US intel resources.

Maybe you should stop believing the crap trump comes out with seeing as the majority of it is provably bull**** he uses to push his own agenda? There is an EXTREMELY stringent vetting process in place for immigration to the USA, particularly for refugees. Take a look:

What is the vetting process for refugees coming to the US?

Refugees are subjected to the highest level of screening of any traveler coming to the United States. The vetting of a refugee for resettlement to the United States requires a series of interviews and security checks that can often take up to two years.

The vetting process for each individual refugee involves:

Eight government agencies — including the National Counterterrorism Center, FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and State Department
Six security databases
Five separate background checks
Four biometric security checks — that means fingerprints, checked against databases
Three separate, in-person interviews
Two interagency security checks running data against criminal, intelligence, and terrorism databases

The process starts with a series of interviews with the UNHCR, whose officials determine if the person is, in fact, a “refugee” under the UNHCR definition. If the person crosses that threshold, the UN then chooses which resettlement country a refugee will be assessed for entry for; the refugee does not choose. That might be determined by family members already in a particular country, or other factors that would determine where a refugee might best integrate.

Only 1 percent of all refugees are recommended for resettlement globally. If the UN recommends a refugee for resettlement in the United States, the process continues with a series of interviews and security checks. It involves a first-round interview with a government-funded “Resettlement Support Center” (RSC) — basically a government contractor, such as the International Organization for Migration (IOM), Church World Services, and HIAS. The RSC collects data — documents, materials for biometric tests — and starts a file.

Then the refugee has screening interviews with a series of US government agencies, including the National Counterterrorism Center, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the State Department.

Refugees from Syria have an additional layer of screening, involving additional interviews with US intelligence agencies and the State Department. As Mostafa Hassoun, a Syrian refugee, described to Politico this week, every step of the way, a security officer checks to make sure the story told by the refugee matches the story he told the last officer.

At each point, a refugee must prove her case. At each point a refugee can be flagged and pulled out of the system, which brings an end to the application process. If any piece of information changes, the entire process starts all over again.

After all of those screenings, which normally take 18 months to two years in total, the UNHCR works with one of nine preapproved nongovernmental organizations, six of which are faith-based, to find jobs, a community to settle the refugee in, and other assistance — including cultural orientation and language training— to help the refugee better integrate into American culture.

Harika

Manic Moran wrote: »

So, conservative, yes. Someone the Democrats should fight tooth and nail over? I think it could have been much worse for them.

I think a lot of it has to do with the obstruction of the reps in the last eight years, but Elizabeth Warren makes a strong case against him.

President Trump had the chance to select a consensus nominee to the Supreme Court. To the surprise of absolutely nobody, he failed that test.
Instead, he carried out his public promise to select a nominee from a list drawn up by far right activist groups that were financed by big business interests.
Judge Neil Gorsuch has been on this list for four months. His public record, which I have reviewed in detail, paints a clear picture.
Before even joining the bench, he advocated to make it easier for public companies to defraud investors. As a judge, he has twisted himself into a pretzel to make sure the rules favor giant companies over workers and individual Americans. He has sided with employers who deny wages, improperly fire workers, or retaliate against whistleblowers for misconduct. He has ruled against workers in all manner of discrimination cases. And he has demonstrated hostility toward women’s access to basic health care.
For years, powerful interests have executed a full-scale assault on the integrity of our federal judiciary, trying to turn the Supreme Court into one more rigged game that works only for the rich and the powerful. They spent millions to keep this seat open, and Judge Gorsuch is their reward.
Every day, our new President finds more ways to demonstrate his hostility for our independent judiciary, our civil society, and the rule of law. Now more than ever, America needs Supreme Court justices with a proven record of standing up for the rights of all Americans – civil rights, women’s rights, LGBT rights, and all other protections guaranteed by our laws. We don’t need another justice who spends his time looking out for those with money and influence.
Based on the long and well-established record of Judge Gorsuch, I will oppose his nomination.

FreudianSlippers

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Disgusting comments above, but not unexpected from a group of people who still can't wrap their heads around the fact he won the election and is doing exactly what he said he would.

I don't stand in any way by the assassination comments, but impeachment/resignation isn't "disgusting" by way of a comment.

I just wonder what part of the US you reside in that feels so strongly about Trump?

As a liberal Hollywood Century City elite, I think we'd have a city-wide party if he was impeached or resigned... then all get depressed when Pence is like a thousand times worse.

Billy86

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Yes it does matter, because they're allies ( Saudis ). They exchange intel/import crude oils. You continue to ignore the fact that the same countries were outlined during the Obama administration as countries of terror, and agreed upon in congress hearings.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-administration-chose-the-7-countries/

Your stance is Trump didn't impose bans on other countries because he did business there. I agree with you that other countries should possibly be banned, and the Trump administration has said there will be countries added to the list in the future. Everything else as far as I can see, is conspiracy theory.




I have read it, and I see no mention of it as an attack on LGBT rights. From what I read it prevents the Government from attacking individuals and entities that follow their belief about marriage.

As pointed out, he can't criticise others for things and then go about doing exactly what they did, and it's more than disingenuous for him to go about trying to use the intel gathered from the previous administration that he spent over a year trying to paint as not having a clue about what they were up to. And it goes far beyond energy dependency, otherwise the other places that he lines his pockets with like the UAE, Turkey and Egypt would also be on the list. There's no conspiracy in pointing out that the places he does significant amounts of business in have mysteriously been left off the list - just fact.



If FADA were to do with religion and not to do with discriminating against gay people and single parents, you would not have literally thousands of American religious leaders across Christianity, Judasim and Islam coming out saying that it is nothing to with religion and all to do with discriminating against gay people and single parents. If a landlord is allowed to choose not to rent to someone solely on the basis of their sexuality, if a homeless shelter or drug treatment program is allowed to turn people away based on their sexuality (while receiving federal funding), if a hospital is allowed to deny visitation rights to a family member based on their sexuality, if government employees are allowed to deny social security or veterans services to someone based on their sexuality... all of those are horrible instances of discrimination.

rgossip30

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

As from his campaign pdf, "Suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur", which would imply there is no solid information available, either from those countries refusing to dispose information, or lack of from the US intel resources.

There was no detail given at the last press conference about visas and extra travel requirements to the US .Do these countries comply with passenger /visa details before travel . I assume some enter on false passports or have bribed an airport official .This happens in Ireland so the US is no different.


A transit visa is not required for Syrian,Yemen and Sudan citizens . Take Syria what's to stop a Syrian getting a flight to Ecuador no visa required with a stopover in Ireland then claim asylum . The Clare Byrne show made a vague reference to Charlie Flanagan who seemed taken by surprise .

demfad

Harika wrote: »

I think a lot of it has to do with the obstruction of the reps in the last eight years, but Elizabeth Warren makes a strong case against him.

I think myself Jeff Sessions as AT should be a far more serious concern for democrats with the upcoming investigations into Kremlin/campaign ties which could potentially bring Trump down.
Several leaks about the FISA FBI investigation indicate that Carter Page, Paul Manaford and Roger Stone (at least) are under investigation. Jeff Sessions was the one who introduced Carter page to the Trump campaign. Yesterday under questioning he would not commit to recussing himself from an investigation saying he hadn't 'read that memo'. A guhe red flag.
He has the power to slow walk or even shut down a legal investigation.

demfad

We can view the #muslimban execute order mess as a new administration with extreme views who ultimately mean well. We could also view it as a deliberate planed Machievellian move towards autocracy. Jake Fuentes explores the latter here.

https://medium.com/@jakefuentes/the-immigration-ban-is-a-headfake-and-were-falling-for-it-b8910e78f0c5#.h08umk67k

1. We launch a series of Executive Orders in the first week. Beforehand, we identify one that our opponents will complain loudly about and will dominate the news cycle. Immigration ban. Perfect.
   
2. We craft the ban to be about 20% more extreme than we actually want it to be — say, let’s make the explicit decision to block green card holders from defined countries from entering the US, rather than just visa holders. We create some confusion so that we can walk back from that part later, but let’s make sure that it’s enforced to begin with.
   
3. We watch our opposition pour out into the streets protesting the extremes of our public measure, exactly as we intended. The protests dominate the news, but our base doesn’t watch CNN anyway. The ACLU will file motions to oppose the most extreme parts of our measure, that’s actually going to be useful too. We don’t actually care if we win, that’s why we made it more extreme than it needed to be. But in doing so, the lawsuit process will test the loyalty of those enforcing what we say.
   
4. While the nation’s attention is on our extreme EO, slip a few more nuanced moves through. For example, reconfigure the National Security Council so that it’s led by our inner circle. Or gut the State Department’s ability to resist more extreme moves. That will have massive benefits down the road — the NSC are the folks that authorize secret assassinations against enemies of the state, including American citizens. Almost nobody has time to analyze that move closely, and those that do can’t get coverage.
   
5. When the lawsuits filed by the ACLU inevitably succeed, stay silent. Don’t tell the DHS to abide by the what the federal judge says, see what they do on their own. If they capitulate to the courts, we know our power with the DHS is limited and we need to staff it with more loyal people. But if they continue enforcing our EO until we tell them not to, we know that we can completely ignore the judicial branch later on and the DHS will have our back.
   
6. Once the DHS has made their move, walk back from the 20% we didn’t want in the first place. Let the green card holders in, and pretend that’s what we meant all along. The protestors and the ACLU, both clamoring to display their efficacy, jump on the moment to declare a huge victory. The crowds dissipate, they have to go back to work.
   
7. When the dust settles, we have 100% of the Executive Order we originally wanted, we’ve tested the loyalty of a department we’ll need later on, we’ve proven we can ignore an entire branch of government, and we’ve slipped in some subtle moves that will make the next test even easier.

We’ve just tested the country’s willingness to capitulate to a fascist regime.

FreudianSlippers

I will never get tired of correcting this poster's nonsense...

recedite wrote: »

No, her job is to give legal advice to the President and to conduct prosecution and defence cases on behalf of the govt.
Not to uphold the Constitution.wiki

As you point out, the job is to advise the President on matters of law - the main matter of law is the Constitution that the US AG will advise on; so it is by very definition their job to ensure the law (in this case Constitutional law) is upheld.

Somebody else challenged the executive order in court. Who is going to conduct the legal defence in this case, if not the AG?

With the exception of strict liability or reverse onus matters, a case really shouldn't be defended where the AG is not of the opinion that the case is defensible in line with the Constitution.

A lawyer does not have to believe their client is an angel in order to do their job.

Lawyers in the US and in Ireland are expressly prohibited by their respective associations and by law from misleading the court with regard to factual guilt.

If you were paying a barrister and she said to you "I'm not going to help you because I'd rather prosecute you" then obviously that is not a good barrister to have on your team. Regardless of what the case is about.

Barristers (i) are prohibited from passing on clients pursuant to the cab rank rule (ii) do not "decide" to prosecute, that is the job of the solicitor employed or representing the State.

wes

Donald Trump's closest advisor Steve Bannon thinks there will be war with China in the next few years


Donald Trump's closest advisor thinks that the US will be at war with China in the next few years.

The far-right figure, who has been given unprecedented power in the White House and has suggested in the past that he supports white supremacy, suggested that the two countries are headed towards war over the South China Sea.

“We’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years, aren’t we?” Mr Bannon said on his radio show in March 2016. “There’s no doubt about that. They’re taking their sandbars and making basically stationary aircraft carriers and putting missiles on those. They come here to the United States in front of our face — and you understand how important face is — and say it’s an ancient territorial sea.”

Click here for full story

Far Right lunatic, seemingly wants everyone to die, which is a rather likely thing to happen, in a war with China. The complete insanity of the Trump administrations is becoming clearer and clearer every day.

Nody

wes wrote: »

Far Right lunatic, seemingly wants everyone to die, which is a rather likely thing to happen, in a war with China. The complete insanity of the Trump administrations is becoming clearer and clearer every day.

But remember a vote for Trump was a vote for peace since Hilly would go to war with Russia. Now if I had the choice of war with Russia (ex. Superpower) with allies (Nato) vs. war with China (new superpower) with no allies I'm quite sure on which choice I'd make.

Professor Moriarty

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't stand in any way by the assassination comments, but impeachment/resignation isn't "disgusting" by way of a comment.

I just wonder what part of the US you reside in that feels so strongly about Trump?

As a liberal Hollywood Century City elite, I think we'd have a city-wide party if he was impeached or resigned... then all get depressed when Pence is like a thousand times worse.

Hank seems to think that discussing a president's chances of not completing his term by impeachment, resignation or illness is fine but assassination is "disgusting".

By that logic, one should never consider the possibility of a president being assassinated. Which is very silly considering every US president in the past 100 years has suffered an assassination attempt or there has been a plot to assassinate him. Trump himself was almost assassinated last summer.

Such is the tetchiness of some Trump supporters, that they mistake speculation on the possibility and chances of assassination as being wishing for Trump's death.

Regarding Pence, despite his ultra conservative views and his hypocrisy, at least he appears not to suffer from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. As POTUS, I can't imagine him tweeting every weird brainfart that occurs to him or childishly mocking people. Certainly, I doubt if he would use "bad dudes" when informing the public about the USA's foreign policy by tweet.

wes

Dollar takes a kicked, after he decides to attack allies again:

Dollar suffers worst January in 30 years after Donald Trump accuses rivals of currency exploitation


Trump seems intent on destabilizing the world, for some utterly insane reason. At this rate, the US will have no friends in the world.

Professor Moriarty

wes wrote: »

Dollar takes a kicked, after he decides to attack allies again:

Dollar suffers worst January in 30 years after Donald Trump accuses rivals of currency exploitation


Trump seems intent on destabilizing the world, for some utterly insane reason. At this rate, the US will have no friends in the world.

It's like handing the keys of a tank to a four year old.

wes

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It's like handing the keys of a tank to a four year old.

With a mass of people cheering it on, for some insane reason.

Professor Moriarty

wes wrote: »

With a mass of people cheering it on, for some insane reason.

Well, not according to the photographs...

rgossip30

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I will never get tired of correcting this poster's nonsense...

As you point out, the job is to advise the President on matters of law - the main matter of law is the Constitution that the US AG will advise on; so it is by very definition their job to ensure the law (in this case Constitutional law) is upheld.

The fact remains she was removed from her job and is entitled to oppose it in a court .

BuilderPlumber

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

As from his campaign pdf, "Suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur", which would imply there is no solid information available, either from those countries refusing to dispose information, or lack of from the US intel resources.

Trump is just a weak president completely under the thumb of Steve Bannon and the like. It is Bannon's idea to ban the migrants and it is typical of this idiotic racist who should not be in the White House inner circle at all.

wes

Republicans seem intent on wiping out all human life on earth:

US Republicans launch effort to abolish Environmental Protection Agency with new bill


Climate change is existential threat to the Human race, and these lunatics, want to abloish one of the agenciesin there country that is working to limits its impact on us.

Harika

wes wrote: »

Republicans seem intent on wiping out all human life on earth:

US Republicans launch effort to abolish Environmental Protection Agency with new bill


Climate change is existential threat to the Human race, and these lunatics, want to abloish one of the agenciesin there country that is working to limits its impact on us.

Maybe a positive step, that leads Europe and China to become grown ups and work against global warming together, even without the US.

Professor Moriarty

Harika wrote: »

Maybe a positive step, that leads Europe and China to become grown ups and work against global warming together, even without the US.

Indeed but the US is second only to China as a polluter so they'll be outside the tent pissing in. Anyway, the reality is that tipping point has already been reached so future agreements won't really make much difference.

Bazzo

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Indeed but the US is second only to China as a polluter so they'll be outside the tent pissing in. Anyway, the reality is that tipping point has already been reached so future agreements won't really make much difference.

Actually there were some studies suggesting recently that a turnaround in the next few years could have led to a long term reversal. That's down the pisser now, this above all else seriously pisses me off. Selfish beyond all belief. Thanks Obama trump.

Zubeneschamali

wes wrote: »

Climate change is existential threat to the Human race, and these lunatics, want to abloish one of the agenciesin there country that is working to limits its impact on us.

Well yes, but the Dow Jones hit 20,000 there for a little while! Deregulate the banks next, that's always good for a laugh!

Professor Moriarty

Bazzo wrote: »

Actually there were some studies suggesting recently that a turnaround in the next few years could have led to a long term reversal. That's down the pisser now, this above all else seriously pisses me off. Selfish beyond all belief. Thanks Obama trump.

Yeah but the turnaround would have to be on a scale not feasible. One of the downsides of democracies is that you often have to hide the real truth to get elected. For instance, no Indian politician will be re-elected on a policy that says "The West has been creating pollution for decades by driving cars but, now that we are catching up in terms of living standards, I want everyone to stop driving cars because the planet is dying."

Water John

Applying The Apprentice to the selection of a Supreme Court Judge is pathetic. Two candidates brought secretly to Washington. One sent home.

demfad

Nody wrote: »

But remember a vote for Trump was a vote for peace since Hilly would go to war with Russia. Now if I had the choice of war with Russia (ex. Superpower) with allies (Nato) vs. war with China (new superpower) with no allies I'm quite sure on which choice I'd make.

The 'war with Russia' was a trope of the Russian propaganda machine and the far-right in the US. Trump has openly wondered why the US doesn't use nukes seeing as it had so many.
Bannon is an anarcho-Capitalist. A Nazi would have some socialism within their so-called 'master race'. Bannon would be darwinian (rich people) within the white race. He wants to break down big government, unions of states and wants small ethno-clean, extreme right wing nations.
Remember the conservative group behind this admin is the Council National Protection who are Christian Statists. Set up by Richard DeVos (Betsy DeVos father in Law). Bannon, Conway, Bossie Eric Prince (Betsy deVos brother), the Mercers are all members.
The Government accountability Institute set up by Bannon and run by Rebekah Mercer was another key player. They produced the (semi-propaganda) book and film 'Clinton Cash' which was the origin of the 'crooked Hilary.'

demfad

Water John wrote: »

Applying The Apprentice to the selection of a Supreme Court Judge is pathetic. Two candidates brought secretly to Washington. One sent home.

There will be plenty of stuff like this. The Russian model of authoritarianism learned heavily from the Soviet model in that you cant keep the people bored.
The US will be similar. The admin will use television as one means to control the population.
They will even allow satire on the regime and artistic freedom, assured that there will be no political consequences.

wes

Harika wrote: »

Maybe a positive step, that leads Europe and China to become grown ups and work against global warming together, even without the US.

Climate change, is all hands on deck kind of situation, and while we could probably effect change, without some of the smaller nations, the US is far to large a contributer to be left out of any solution.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

wes

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well, seeing as the state closest to that ideal is Somalia, it doesn't really advertize you political philosphy so well.