Blank Discussion Topic

Go Beavers

jeffbr said:

My state's (Washington) Attorney General, Bob Ferguson, just announced that he is filing a lawsuit against the Trump Administration's immigration ban. I'm sure other AGs will join in. http://komonews.com/news/local/state-attorney-general-plans-major-announcement-on-trump-immigration-plan

My state's Governor, both senators, many representatives, and our attorney general have been very vocal in their opposition to Trump generally and this immigration ban in particular. So it is good to see some action. Trump certainly didn't waste any time getting himself and our country into a clusterfuck. Ferguson is the first AG in the country to sue Trump, but I'm sure won't be the last. If Congress and Trump's own party won't keep a check on him, then the states need to step up.

trump is no doubt creating a list of anyone and everyone who his cooperating with him and who is pushing back, and will be giving out respective rewards and punishments as he sees fit.

tbergs

JC29856 said:

tbergs said:

JC29856 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

JC29856 said:

The hypocrisy isn't necessarily directed at those in these forums, its directed at the media and journalists.
Example: Media hysteria over Trumps temporary ban (90 day) on immigrants from 1 country named in his EO, including immigrants from 6 countries named by the previous administration. Take the 2011 Iraqi 6 month refugee ban that the transparency president Obama put into place that wasn't reported by the media for two years. So, either the transparency president wasn't so transparent about the Iraqi refugee ban or the media knew about it but took two years to finally get around to report it.
Isn't it the medias job to inform the public about such racist policies of banning Iraqi refugees for 6 months fleeing their war torn homeland?

there's a big difference between announcing a refugee ban on a certain group for national security interests and stranding citizens with green cards and visas in countries they don't live in. seriously, I was reading an account of one university professor that has lived in the US for 6 years. he went to Iran to visit his family there. he heard about the impending ban, and immediately booked a flight back. he took a flight to dubai. then got on a plan to washington. he was on the plane, and TSA agents came and escorted him off. he has a home and a dog and a job and his fucking car is still at the airport. you think this is acceptable and can seriously be blamed on Obama?

I have already stated that the implementation of trumps ban was a disaster with respect to those close to or en route.
if you referring to me blaming obama, ive never blamed obama for this fiasco. my post was about the media hypocrisy in reporting obamas 6 month iraqi ban and trumps recent ban. i dont know if iraqis were stranded at aiports when obamas ban was put into place, i would assume not, but i dont know. the 2011 iraqi ban wasnt reported until two years after implementation, so how would i know. as i stated i know its convenient to blame the previous administration and its convenient for the previous administration supporters to mock by saying oh yeah its prev admins fault.

Maybe this will help.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/29/trumps-facile-claim-that-his-refugee-policy-is-similar-to-obama-in-2011/?utm_term=.db5a71cd9f89

From the article:

"Immigration authorities soon began rechecking all Iraqi refugees in America, reportedly comparing fingerprints and other records with military and intelligence documents in dusty archives. About 1,000 soon-to-be immigrants in Iraq were told that they would not be allowed to board flights already booked. Some were removed from planes. Thousands more Iraqi applicants had to restart the immigration process, because their security clearances expired when the program stalled. Men must now pass five separate checks, women four, and children three.”

As I said Im assuming not, we can only assume since its difficult to know if anyone were stranded in 2011 on 1.29.17. Anyway, the point isnt the stranding, its the hysterical reaction over the ban, like this bold racist order has never happened before in US history.
I already said its a terrible situation having nothing to do with Obama.

Read the article. You can't even compare what Trump did to what happened in 2011.

rgambs

BS44325 said:

rgambs said:

my2hands said:

How do the right wing sympathizers feel about the restructuring of the National Security Council that downgrades the Chair of The Joint Chiefs and National Intelligence Director while making white nationalist Steve Bannon a full member??? Don't forget kooky Mike "Fake News" Flynn, who Colin Powell felt had gone off the deep end, is running it

Pro military conservatives should be screaming the loudest right now... maybe they will just get in line like good little sympathizers

I am very interested in what you think about this move BS, foreign policy is one of the issues you hang your hat on and I wonder how this can be viewed in a positive light.

Not sure how I feel about this yet. Would like to know more. Bannon being in the room doesn't trouble me...he does have a navy background after all...still want more info on the "downgrading" of the Joint Chiefs though. Remember that it isn't just Trump and Bannon in the room. Sec. Mattis and soon to be Sec. Tillerson will be there as well. If the Sec. of Defense was a civilian as per usual then this would certainly be a troubling "downgrade" because nobody with actual military experience would be present. General Mattis however gives Trump that military knowledge that would be lacking so is the Joint Chiefs presence absolutely necessary? This is what I would want to know. The current reporting states that the Joint Chiefs would be called upon if needed. That might be ok and I think deferring to Mattis on this decision is acceptable. No need for my2hands to get hysterical...yet.

Oh gee, that's comforting! An oil CEO sure brings a much needed perspective to National Security!

Go Beavers

rgambs said:

BS44325 said:

rgambs said:

my2hands said:

How do the right wing sympathizers feel about the restructuring of the National Security Council that downgrades the Chair of The Joint Chiefs and National Intelligence Director while making white nationalist Steve Bannon a full member??? Don't forget kooky Mike "Fake News" Flynn, who Colin Powell felt had gone off the deep end, is running it

Pro military conservatives should be screaming the loudest right now... maybe they will just get in line like good little sympathizers

I am very interested in what you think about this move BS, foreign policy is one of the issues you hang your hat on and I wonder how this can be viewed in a positive light.

Not sure how I feel about this yet. Would like to know more. Bannon being in the room doesn't trouble me...he does have a navy background after all...still want more info on the "downgrading" of the Joint Chiefs though. Remember that it isn't just Trump and Bannon in the room. Sec. Mattis and soon to be Sec. Tillerson will be there as well. If the Sec. of Defense was a civilian as per usual then this would certainly be a troubling "downgrade" because nobody with actual military experience would be present. General Mattis however gives Trump that military knowledge that would be lacking so is the Joint Chiefs presence absolutely necessary? This is what I would want to know. The current reporting states that the Joint Chiefs would be called upon if needed. That might be ok and I think deferring to Mattis on this decision is acceptable. No need for my2hands to get hysterical...yet.

Oh gee, that's comforting! An oil CEO sure brings a much needed perspective to National Security!

Knowing how much oil we can take after an invasion is important info.

HughFreakingDillon

Go Beavers said:

rgambs said:

BS44325 said:

rgambs said:

my2hands said:

How do the right wing sympathizers feel about the restructuring of the National Security Council that downgrades the Chair of The Joint Chiefs and National Intelligence Director while making white nationalist Steve Bannon a full member??? Don't forget kooky Mike "Fake News" Flynn, who Colin Powell felt had gone off the deep end, is running it

Pro military conservatives should be screaming the loudest right now... maybe they will just get in line like good little sympathizers

I am very interested in what you think about this move BS, foreign policy is one of the issues you hang your hat on and I wonder how this can be viewed in a positive light.

Not sure how I feel about this yet. Would like to know more. Bannon being in the room doesn't trouble me...he does have a navy background after all...still want more info on the "downgrading" of the Joint Chiefs though. Remember that it isn't just Trump and Bannon in the room. Sec. Mattis and soon to be Sec. Tillerson will be there as well. If the Sec. of Defense was a civilian as per usual then this would certainly be a troubling "downgrade" because nobody with actual military experience would be present. General Mattis however gives Trump that military knowledge that would be lacking so is the Joint Chiefs presence absolutely necessary? This is what I would want to know. The current reporting states that the Joint Chiefs would be called upon if needed. That might be ok and I think deferring to Mattis on this decision is acceptable. No need for my2hands to get hysterical...yet.

Oh gee, that's comforting! An oil CEO sure brings a much needed perspective to National Security!

Knowing how much oil we can take after an invasion is important info.

well, trump did say we should have taken the oil during the iraq war. even after he was pressed about it being against all international law, he still claimed we should have taken it, because then we "wouldn't have ISIS", and we may get the opportunity again.

a president of the US telling a reporter in a televised interview he is interested in knowingly refuting international law.

I can't understand why people haven't been talking about this.

JC29856

HughFreakingDillon said:

Go Beavers said:

rgambs said:

BS44325 said:

rgambs said:

my2hands said:

How do the right wing sympathizers feel about the restructuring of the National Security Council that downgrades the Chair of The Joint Chiefs and National Intelligence Director while making white nationalist Steve Bannon a full member??? Don't forget kooky Mike "Fake News" Flynn, who Colin Powell felt had gone off the deep end, is running it

Pro military conservatives should be screaming the loudest right now... maybe they will just get in line like good little sympathizers

I am very interested in what you think about this move BS, foreign policy is one of the issues you hang your hat on and I wonder how this can be viewed in a positive light.

Not sure how I feel about this yet. Would like to know more. Bannon being in the room doesn't trouble me...he does have a navy background after all...still want more info on the "downgrading" of the Joint Chiefs though. Remember that it isn't just Trump and Bannon in the room. Sec. Mattis and soon to be Sec. Tillerson will be there as well. If the Sec. of Defense was a civilian as per usual then this would certainly be a troubling "downgrade" because nobody with actual military experience would be present. General Mattis however gives Trump that military knowledge that would be lacking so is the Joint Chiefs presence absolutely necessary? This is what I would want to know. The current reporting states that the Joint Chiefs would be called upon if needed. That might be ok and I think deferring to Mattis on this decision is acceptable. No need for my2hands to get hysterical...yet.

Oh gee, that's comforting! An oil CEO sure brings a much needed perspective to National Security!

Knowing how much oil we can take after an invasion is important info.

well, trump did say we should have taken the oil during the iraq war. even after he was pressed about it being against all international law, he still claimed we should have taken it, because then we "wouldn't have ISIS", and we may get the opportunity again.

a president of the US telling a reporter in a televised interview he is interested in knowingly refuting international law.

I can't understand why people haven't been talking about this.

You really want a discussion about US presidents and international law???

Halifax2TheMax

Obama weighs in.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/obama-weighs-in-on-president-trump-for-the-first-time/ar-AAmqflU?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp

Halifax2TheMax

As did the employer of the former Secretary of Energy.

To the members of the MIT community,

First, an update:

I was hoping to write to you today with some uplifting news. Yet, as I write, we continue to push hard to bring back to MIT those members of our community, including two undergraduates, who were barred from the US because of the January 27 Executive Order on immigration. We are working personally with each of the affected individuals we are aware of. If you know of others who are directly affected, please inform us immediately so we can try to help:

Over and over since the order was issued, I have been moved by the outpouring of support from hundreds across our community. I could not be more proud, and I am certain that you join me in thanking everyone inside and outside of MIT whose extraordinary efforts have helped us address this difficult situation. We hope we can welcome everyone back to MIT very soon.

MIT, the nation and the world
I found the events of the past few days deeply disturbing. The difficulty we have encountered in seeking to help the individuals from our community heightens our overall sense of concern. I would like to reflect on the situation we find ourselves in, as an institution and as a country.

MIT is profoundly American. The Institute was founded deliberately to accelerate the nation’s industrial revolution. With classic American ingenuity and drive, our graduates have invented fundamental technologies, launched new industries and created millions of American jobs. Our history of national service stretches back to World War I; especially through the work of Lincoln Lab, we are engaged every day in keeping America safe. We embody the American passion for boldness, big ideas, hard work and hands-on problem-solving. Our students come to us from every faith, culture and background and from all fifty states. And, like other institutions rooted in science and engineering, we are proud that, for many of our students, MIT supplies their ladder to the middle class, and sometimes beyond. We are as American as the flag on the Moon.

At the same time, and without the slightest sense of contradiction, MIT is profoundly global. Like the United States, and thanks to the United States, MIT gains tremendous strength by being a magnet for talent from around the world. More than 40% of our faculty, 40% of our graduate students and 10% of our undergraduates are international. Faculty, students, post-docs and staff from 134 other nations join us here because they love our mission, our values and our community. And – as I have – a great many stay in this country for life, repaying the American promise of freedom with their energy and their ideas. Together, through teaching, research and innovation, MIT's magnificently global, absolutely American community pursues its mission of service to the nation and the world.

What the moment demands of us
The Executive Order on Friday appeared to me a stunning violation of our deepest American values, the values of a nation of immigrants: fairness, equality, openness, generosity, courage. The Statue of Liberty is the “Mother of Exiles”; how can we slam the door on desperate refugees? Religious liberty is a founding American value; how can our government discriminate against people of any religion? In a nation made rich by immigrants, why would we signal to the world that we no longer welcome new talent? In a nation of laws, how can we reject students and others who have established legal rights to be here? And if we accept this injustice, where will it end? Which group will be singled out for suspicion tomorrow?

On Sunday, many members of our campus community joined a protest in Boston to make plain their rejection of these policies and their support for our Muslim friends and colleagues. As an immigrant and the child of refugees, I join them, with deep feeling, in believing that the policies announced Friday tear at the very fabric of our society.

I encourage anyone who shares that view to work constructively to improve the situation. Institutionally, though we may not be vocal in every instance, you can be confident we are paying attention; as we strive to protect our community, sustain our mission and advance our shared values, we will speak and act when and where we judge we can be most effective.

Yet I would like us to think seriously about the fact that both within the MIT community and the nation at large, there are people of goodwill who see the measures in the Executive Order as a reasonable path to make the country safer. We would all like our nation to be safe. I am convinced that the Executive Order will make us less safe. Yet all of us, across the spectrum of opinion, are Americans.

In this heated moment, I urge every one of us to avoid with all our might the forces that are driving America into two camps. If we love America, and if we believe in America, we cannot allow those divisions to grow worse. We need to imagine a shared future together, if we hope to have one. I am certain our community can help work on this great problem, too, by starting right here at home.

Sincerely,

L. Rafael Reif

PJfanwillneverleave1

Latest tweet folks,
Only 109 people out of 325,000 were detained and held for questioning. Big problems at airports were caused by Delta computer outage,protesters and the tears of Senator Schumer. Secretary Kelly said that all is going well with very few problems. MAKE AMERICA SAFE AGAIN! There is nothing nice about searching for terrorists before they can enter our country. This was a big part of my campaign. Study the world! If the ban were announced with a one week notice, the "bad" would rush into our country during that week. A lot of bad "dudes" out there! I have made my decision on who I will nominate for The United States Supreme Court. It will be announced live on Tuesday at 8:00 P.M. (W.H.) Where was all the outrage from Democrats and the opposition party (the media) when our jobs were fleeing our country?

HesCalledDyer

^
"The bad would rush into our country during that week."
So our President has decided to run the country on pure conjecture. What a swell guy.

Go Beavers

HesCalledDyer said:

^
"The bad would rush into our country during that week."
So our President has decided to run the country on pure conjecture. What a swell guy.

And he kept it hidden from people who actually have knowledge about their jobs who could've given inout on the legality of his plan.

HughFreakingDillon

a president who calls terrorists "bad dudes". did you all elect the Big Lebowski?

HughFreakingDillon

JC29856 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Go Beavers said:

rgambs said:

BS44325 said:

rgambs said:

my2hands said:

How do the right wing sympathizers feel about the restructuring of the National Security Council that downgrades the Chair of The Joint Chiefs and National Intelligence Director while making white nationalist Steve Bannon a full member??? Don't forget kooky Mike "Fake News" Flynn, who Colin Powell felt had gone off the deep end, is running it

Pro military conservatives should be screaming the loudest right now... maybe they will just get in line like good little sympathizers

I am very interested in what you think about this move BS, foreign policy is one of the issues you hang your hat on and I wonder how this can be viewed in a positive light.

Not sure how I feel about this yet. Would like to know more. Bannon being in the room doesn't trouble me...he does have a navy background after all...still want more info on the "downgrading" of the Joint Chiefs though. Remember that it isn't just Trump and Bannon in the room. Sec. Mattis and soon to be Sec. Tillerson will be there as well. If the Sec. of Defense was a civilian as per usual then this would certainly be a troubling "downgrade" because nobody with actual military experience would be present. General Mattis however gives Trump that military knowledge that would be lacking so is the Joint Chiefs presence absolutely necessary? This is what I would want to know. The current reporting states that the Joint Chiefs would be called upon if needed. That might be ok and I think deferring to Mattis on this decision is acceptable. No need for my2hands to get hysterical...yet.

Oh gee, that's comforting! An oil CEO sure brings a much needed perspective to National Security!

Knowing how much oil we can take after an invasion is important info.

well, trump did say we should have taken the oil during the iraq war. even after he was pressed about it being against all international law, he still claimed we should have taken it, because then we "wouldn't have ISIS", and we may get the opportunity again.

a president of the US telling a reporter in a televised interview he is interested in knowingly refuting international law.

I can't understand why people haven't been talking about this.

You really want a discussion about US presidents and international law???

sure, have at er. I think openly discussing stealing to profit from invasion is, um, like, pretty bad, dude.

rustneversleeps

HughFreakingDillon said:

a president who calls terrorists "bad dudes". did you all elect the Big Lebowski?

no interest in the horrific situation in canada?

HughFreakingDillon

sean spicer must be easily the most agressively defensive press sec I've ever seen.

HughFreakingDillon

rustneversleeps said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

a president who calls terrorists "bad dudes". did you all elect the Big Lebowski?

no interest in the horrific situation in canada?

no, I'm currently WAY too obsessed with america and my blind hatred of such.

rustneversleeps

HughFreakingDillon said:

rustneversleeps said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

a president who calls terrorists "bad dudes". did you all elect the Big Lebowski?

no interest in the horrific situation in canada?

no, I'm currently WAY too obsessed with america and my blind hatred of such.

tell me something i dont know....

HughFreakingDillon

rustneversleeps said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

rustneversleeps said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

a president who calls terrorists "bad dudes". did you all elect the Big Lebowski?

no interest in the horrific situation in canada?

no, I'm currently WAY too obsessed with america and my blind hatred of such.

tell me something i dont know....

I always find it so interesting that americans that hate when non-americans criticize, or even just discuss, american foreign policy issues, which, like it or not, effect the globe, seem to be the first to defend their government's right to get involved in all the world's business.

Kat

More Bullpucky from Drumpf.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-immigration-ban-order_us_588f4d12e4b0b065cbbd0588?0fdwcn7rtbm27w4s4i&

rustneversleeps

HughFreakingDillon said:

rustneversleeps said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

rustneversleeps said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

a president who calls terrorists "bad dudes". did you all elect the Big Lebowski?

no interest in the horrific situation in canada?

no, I'm currently WAY too obsessed with america and my blind hatred of such.

tell me something i dont know....

I always find it so interesting that americans that hate when non-americans criticize, or even just discuss, american foreign policy issues, which, like it or not, effect the globe, seem to be the first to defend their government's right to get involved in all the world's business.

you lost me. too many commas.