"We've got a lot of killers," Trump said. "Boy, you think our country's so innocent? You think our country's so innocent?"
"I'm actually incredulous that the president would make a statement like that, "One could argue that's the most anti-American statement ever made by the president of the United States."
"To confuse American values with Putin, who's running a criminal oligarchy, who kills people abroad and at home, who imprisons journalists and takes away business property, who shares it with his former KGB agents, who invades and seizes Crimea and eastern Ukraine — this is an astonishing state of affairs."
-- Retired US Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey
Old but Slow wrote:Russell Wilson expressed doubt that Don will last 4 years. Has RW ever made a political comment in public prior to this?
c_hawkbob wrote:My biggest problem with him by far are his overt Russian sympathies and even outright admiration. It disgusts me that a sitting American President could openly profess to be a greater admirer of our enemy than our own country.
but he clearly is making this a religious test.
Like so many other things he's done, it was not well thought out and was implemented in a very haphazard manner.
burrrton wrote:I think I've made clear my disdain for DT, but this is *not* a religious test, and he's going to win when, inevitably, the 9th Circuit upholds the stay (as they predictably will) and the SCOTUS strikes it (as they so frequently do to the 9thC decisions- the 9C are frcking loons- but also for the reason described below).
You have to test for a religion for it to be a religious test, and he's simply putting a temporary hold on immigration from 7 countries marked as 'failed states' (at least as far as vetting refugees goes) by a previous administration- something so well within the Executive's power it's embarrassing it's come this far.
Also, even the adolescents at Vox acknowledge the 7 countries are not as purely "Muslim" as some of the leftist nuts describe.
It's gonna stand, and in 90 days the review will be over, and the world will continue to orbit the sun.
You may not *like* that he's able to do this, you may think it's a useless step and poorly implemented, but it's still within his authority to do it. Find something useful to hit him on.
I suppose one can rationalize the travel ban as non religious, but based on Trump's rhetoric and information from some pretty good sources, such as Rudy Giuliani, makes it very clear to me that the main motivation behind the ban was religious in nature.
They are undoubtedly predominantly Muslim, and that's the term I've heard used.
The main problem I have is the mean spirited and haphazard way in which this ban was implemented.
Yesterday he tweets an attack on Nordstrom's and accusing them of lying about why they dropped Ivanka's sh1++y line of cheap made in China products.
burrrton wrote:Aaaaand... the most predictable appellate court in the country upheld the stay. They're now making preparations for the Supreme Court to Yet Again reverse their decision, adding to their record number of reversals, and leading everyone to wonder why they bother ruling at all anymore.
Idiotic (as was Spicer's and Conway's defense of it), but: how the hell do you know Ivanka's stuff is sh*tty?? Nordstrom generally carries very, very nice stuff.
This is what I'm talking about. If you literally can't leave *anything* alone surrounding this goof, you're going to get another 4 years of him in 2020. No offense, but it's this type of bed-wetting that steeled middle-of-the-road people in his favor (wait- can you steel in favor of something???).
And yes, good people around him *can* affect him. In fact, Mattis already has, letting everyone know NATO is going nowhere, thank the heavens.
Crucify him when he deserves it, but don't overreact, and leave the little stuff alone (there is and will be enough big stuff to fret about).
burrton wrote:
This is just a temporary suspension of immigration from areas where reliable vetting has been considered difficult or impossible as a matter of US policy for many years.
The people sh*tting their pants over literally every move the guy makes are only making things easier for him, though.
There's no way you can tell me that those 7 countries were the only ones with holes in the way they issue passports.
If an individual or group of individuals really wanted to get into the US to commit terrorist acts, they could very easily side step these 7 countries and gain access to our country.
It was not well thought out
I'm not "sh*tting my pants" over every move he makes.
It may be legal and within his rights as POTUS to do so
burrrton wrote:Correct- Muslims can come here via other countries. Almost like they're not actually banned, huh?
That's the point. Trump's ban is very similar to gun control laws: The bad guys will figure their way around it while the good guys suffer one helluva lot of inconveniences. The ban, as in gun control laws, has no real effect on the problem it is supposedly trying to solve.
burrrton wrote:I don't think that is the point, RD. I agree it's mostly ineffective, an inconvenience at best for any terrorist set on getting here, and poorly implemented- a big sign that he goes off about half-cocked and worries about the details later.
The point is that it's not a ban on Muslims. He didn't dream up this list of countries, and if he really wanted to "ban Muslims", he could have *easily* done so to a much higher degree by including a number of other overwhelmingly Muslim countries.
"MUSLIM BAN" is great for bumper stickers and protest signs, and yeah, he's used the phrase as shorthand so he has no one else to blame, but if you look at what the EO actually is, it's nothing of the sort, and implemented/structured more intelligently, makes some sense (reviewing the vetting procedures in and of itself is not a bad idea).
If it is mostly ineffective, then what is the purpose of it?
burrrton wrote:Ostensibly to give us time to review the vetting policy- outrageous, I know.
I'm done defending this and him, but RD, respectfully, I think you're letting your opinion of the man color your judgment.
If it was the blatant "Muslim ban" you purport it to be, there wouldn't be a bipartisan consensus that the SCOTUS will uphold it. If he wanted to "ban Muslims", there are a million better ways he could have done it, even within the context of this EO. Quit being hysterical.
I'm out. Keep freaking the fck out over every misspelled word on Twitter and we'll have this @sshole until 2024.
c_hawkbob wrote:Looks like Putin's already testing the limits of that Russian connection. Yesterday the Captain of a US warship in the Black Sea revealed that on the 10th his ship was buzzed by 4 Russian jets ... interesting that we've heard nothing about it from the White House.
c_hawkbob wrote:I think that's a bit naive Dog, if you think these incidents aren't Putin's way of gauging the amount of leeway he's going to have with the current administration. Or just don't want to see it that way.
RiverDog wrote:
I suppose one can rationalize the travel ban as non religious, but based on Trump's rhetoric and information from some pretty good sources, such as Rudy Giuliani, makes it very clear to me that the main motivation behind the ban was religious in nature. It's sort of like implementing a poll tax as a means of preventing blacks from voting. Almost all blacks were poor, so let's set up a tax and use the fact that it applies to everyone to disguise its true intent. You know as well as I do that if Trump had his druthers, he'd kick every single Muslim out of the country, including native born citizens.
No one that I've heard, even on PMS-NBC that I watch during my workouts and is as liberal as Fox is conservative, that the 7 countries in Trump's travel ban are "purely Muslim." They are undoubtedly predominantly Muslim, and that's the term I've heard used.
The main problem I have is the mean spirited and haphazard way in which this ban was implemented. He cannot show that there was some sort of imminent danger that demanded immediate action. The vast majority of terrorists that have committed acts on US soil, including all of the 9/11 attackers, did not hail from any of those 7 countries. Honest question: Have any foreigners from the 7 banned countries committed a terrorist act on US soil? I don't disagree that there is a need to review our security policies regarding the granting of travel visas and work permits, especially from countries known to harbor terrorists in large numbers, but his actions were way overboard and completely uncalled for.
But I do agree that Trump will prevail in court. Other than stepping in and relieving the suffering of individuals that were in transit or had legitimate visas or green cards, I don't like the courts getting involved with an executive order that involves national security.
Largent80 wrote:The word "president" before Trump makes me ill.
Hawktawk wrote:Nixon is off the hook as the biggest crook to ever occupy the office and it aint even close. Chump is grabbing Americas P*ssy so hard it may never recover.
Now Comey is fired for supposedly bungling the Hillary Clinton E mail scandal? Never mind he was praised by Trump at the time as being "courageous".Even Clinton herself isn't buying this.
The unabashed revisionist history and bald faced fiction produced by Trump and his idiotic minions like Sean Spicer and the haggish haggard looking Kellyanne Conway is mind boggling.
Flat out lies about the rank and file FBI agents not supporting Comey are being manufactured. Almost to a person they have expressed shock and anger.
Its clear the Russian investigation that has Trump screaming at TV sets was the entire reason he personally asked to have Sessions and his deputy find a reason to fire Comey.
He couldnt stand that Comey refused to clear him with a public statement. Obviously because he wasn't in the clear. So gut the investigative agency is the strategy.
It doesn't matter to the 43% or whatever sheep who can see quote after quote directly in conflict with his current actions from this unsophisticated remorseless lying blowhard and still support him.
Its a sad time in America right now.I just hope we survive this jackass without being in total war and destruction before he is finished molesting this country.
RiverDog wrote:I don't think Trump fired Comey for bungling the Clinton email scandal. I believe he fired him because he thought he was getting too up close and personal into the Russian hacking scandal.
I don't like Trump anymore than I did before election day due more to his personality and less to his politics, but as I predicted, he has not had an easy time getting Republicans to line up behind each and every initiative of his. Plus although the numbers favor the R's holding onto the Senate, I fully expect them to lose the House in '18, which will put a crimp on his agenda. Heck, depending on who the D's put up as a candidate, I'm considering voting for no other reason than to give Trump a vasectomy.
RiverDog wrote:I don't think Trump fired Comey for bungling the Clinton email scandal. I believe he fired him because he thought he was getting too up close and personal into the Russian hacking scandal.
I don't like Trump anymore than I did before election day due more to his personality and less to his politics, but as I predicted, he has not had an easy time getting Republicans to line up behind each and every initiative of his. Plus although the numbers favor the R's holding onto the Senate, I fully expect them to lose the House in '18, which will put a crimp on his agenda. Heck, depending on who the D's put up as a candidate, I'm considering voting for no other reason than to give Trump a vasectomy.
Can someone explain why firing an FBI director who is investigating you after he rebuffed your pressure to be "loyal" and give you a preview of his sworn testimony isn't obstruction of justice?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest