Jump to content
MadonnaNation.com Forums
I Don’t Search I Find

Trump / US politics thread 🚽

Recommended Posts

The more things change, the more they stay the same :america:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jazzyjan said:

He is shocking indeed.  He is such an egomaniac and is just self serving.  The frightening part is also who he is giving power too.,   Pence is just as dangerous as is the far right wing people that he is giving power too,  I think though that people are aware of this now and are not going to be silent no more.  Maybe his combative and obnoxious way may be a blessing in disguise- getting more people to hopefully notice what is going on.  That is if people notice what he is doing and implementing and not just concentrating on his vile personality and nature.   

Nah Amerduh loves their Kmart/fart Prez! lol Primal or whatever they're facing and embracing what has always been most (not all) but most of their true fiber.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LSD said:

The more things change, the more they stay the same :america:

 

 

Will the western media finally start talking about the massacre in Yemen now that their god-like nobel peace prize winner Obama is out of office?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, elijah said:

Yazidis are definitely NOT Christian, they are religious sect different to Christians and Muslims. They worship the abrahamic god (shared by muslims and christians) and are really despised by the muslims as "devil worshippers" since according to their religion god created the most important archangel called Tawûsê Melek, who is often identified by Muslims and Christians with Shaitan (Satan). When God created Adam, he asked the archangels to bow to Adam and all did except for Tawûsê Melek. In answer to God, Tawûsê Melek replied, "How can I submit to another being! I am from your illumination while Adam is made of dust." Then, God praised him and made him the leader of all angels and his deputy on the Earth. (This probably furthers what some see as a connection to the Islamic Shaytan, as according to the Quran, he too refused to bow to Adam at God's command, though in this case it is seen as being a sign of Shaytan's sinful pride.)

is member of the Coptic Church, one of the oldest christian churches in the world, established by Marc himself (or so they say). The Copts are the most numerous christian population in the Arabic world and used to be the majority in Egypt till 12 century. The Copts are among the biggest christian churches still. But in a majorly muslim Egypt villages, churches of the Copts get attacked. No matter that their church/religion is centuries older that the muslim one.

Wow. This is why this conversation is important. Than you for the clear explanation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Donald the Unready

Betsy DeVos, whom Donald Trump has nominated as education secretary, doesn’t know basic education terms, doesn’t know about federal statutes governing special education, but thinks school officials should carry guns to defend against grizzly bears.

Monica Crowley, selected as deputy national security adviser, withdrew after it was revealed that much of her past writing was plagiarized. Many other national security positions remain unfilled, and it’s unclear how much if any of the briefing materials prepared by the outgoing administration have even been read.

Meanwhile Rex Tillerson, selected as secretary of state, casually declared that America would block Chinese access to bases in the South China Sea, apparently unaware that he was in effect threatening to go to war if China called his bluff.

Do you see a pattern here?

It was obvious to anyone paying attention that the incoming administration would be blatantly corrupt. But would it at least be efficient in its corruption?

Many Trump voters certainly thought they were choosing a smart businessman who would get things done. And even those who knew better may have hoped that the president-elect, his ego finally sated, would settle down to running the country — or at least delegate the boring business of governing America to people actually capable of doing the job.

But it’s not happening. Mr. Trump hasn’t pivoted, matured, whatever term you prefer. He’s still the insecure, short-attention-span egomaniac he always was. Worse, he is surrounding himself with people who share many of his flaws — perhaps because they’re the sort of people with whom he is comfortable.

So the typical Trump nominee, in everything from economics to diplomacy to national security, is ethically challenged, ignorant about the area of policy he or she is supposed to manage and deeply incurious. Some, like Michael Flynn, Mr. Trump’s choice as national security adviser, are even as addicted as their boss to internet conspiracy theories. This isn’t a team that will compensate for the commander in chief’s weaknesses; on the contrary, it’s a team that will amplify them.

Why does this matter? If you want a model for how the Trump-Putin administration is likely to function (or malfunction), it’s helpful to recall what happened during the Bush-Cheney years.

People tend to forget the extent to which the last Republican administration was also characterized by cronyism, the appointment of unqualified but well-connected people to key positions. It wasn’t as extreme as what we’re seeing now, but it was striking at the time. Remember “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job”? And it caused very real damage.

In particular, if you want some notion of what Trump governance is likely to look like, consider the botched occupation of Iraq. People who knew anything about nation-building weren’t wanted; party loyalists — and corporate profiteers — took their place. There’s even a little-known connection: Betsy DeVos’s brother, Erik Prince, founded Blackwater, the mercenary outfit that, among other things, helped destabilize Iraq by firing into a crowd of civilians.

Now the conditions that prevailed in Iraq — blind ideology, contempt for expertise, effective absence of any enforcement of ethics rules — have come to America, but in a far more acute form.

And what will happen when we face a crisis? Remember, Katrina was the event that finally revealed the costs of Bush-era cronyism to all.

Crises of some kind are bound to occur on any president’s watch. They appear especially likely given the crew that’s coming in and their allies in Congress: Given the stated priorities of the people about to take charge, we could very well see collapsing health care, a trade war and a military standoff with China just in the next year.

But even if we somehow skirt those dangers, stuff always happens. Maybe there will be a new economic crisis, helped along by the rush to undo financial regulation. Maybe there will be a foreign affairs crisis, say over adventurism in the Baltics by Mr. Trump’s good friend Vladimir. Maybe it will be something we’re not thinking about. Then what?

Real crises need real solutions. They can’t be resolved with a killer tweet, or by having your friends in the F.B.I. or the Kremlin feed the media stories that take your problems off the front page. What the situation demands are knowledgeable, levelheaded people in positions of authority.

But as far as we know, almost no people meeting that description will be in the new administration, except possibly the nominee for defense secretary — whose nickname just happens to be “Mad Dog.”

So there you have it: an administration unprecedented in its corruption, but also completely unprepared to govern. It’s going to be terrific, let me tell you.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/20/opinion/donald-the-unready.html?mc=aud_dev&mcid=fb-nytimes&mccr=JanIntlMidMC&mcdt=2017-01&subid=JanIntlMidMC&ad-keywords=AudDevGate

This is fucking scary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, elijah said:

Yazidis are definitely NOT Christian, they are religious sect different to Christians and Muslims. They worship the abrahamic god (shared by muslims and christians) and are really despised by the muslims as "devil worshippers" since according to their religion god created the most important archangel called Tawûsê Melek, who is often identified by Muslims and Christians with Shaitan (Satan). When God created Adam, he asked the archangels to bow to Adam and all did except for Tawûsê Melek. In answer to God, Tawûsê Melek replied, "How can I submit to another being! I am from your illumination while Adam is made of dust." Then, God praised him and made him the leader of all angels and his deputy on the Earth. (This probably furthers what some see as a connection to the Islamic Shaytan, as according to the Quran, he too refused to bow to Adam at God's command, though in this case it is seen as being a sign of Shaytan's sinful pride.)

is member of the Coptic Church, one of the oldest christian churches in the world, established by Marc himself (or so they say). The Copts are the most numerous christian population in the Arabic world and used to be the majority in Egypt till 12 century. The Copts are among the biggest christian churches still. But in a majorly muslim Egypt villages, churches of the Copts get attacked. No matter that their church/religion is centuries older that the muslim one.

Very interesting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alternative facts - my God, this woman is stupid.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US exit from United Nations could become reality with fresh bill

 

A Republican-proposed House Resolution has quietly slipped past the public radar – proposing that the United States withdraw its membership from the United Nations, just as another bill was being concocted to cut US funding to the body.

The bill, proposed by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL), entitled American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017, seeks a complete US withdrawal from the UN, that the international body remove its headquarters from New York and that all participation be ceased with the World Health Organization as well.

Rogers and other prominent Republicans have repeatedly voiced the idea that US taxpayer money should not go to an organization that does not promote US interests – especially one that does not stick up for Israel together with the US. The new document is merely the latest manifestation of sentiment that has been brewing for some time.

The bill was quietly introduced on January 3 and was passed on to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. If approved, the bill would take two years to take effect. It would also repeal the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, signed in the aftermath of WWII.

“The President shall terminate all membership by the United States in the United Nations in any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations...The United States Mission to the United Nations is closed. Any remaining functions of such office shall not be carried out,”according to the text of HR 193.

The bill would also prohibit “the authorization of funds for the US assessed or voluntary contribution to the UN,” which would also include any military or peacekeeping expenditures, the use of the US military by the UN, and the loss of “diplomatic immunity for UN officers or employees” on US soil.

Rogers had tried to pass the same bill in 2015, albeit unsuccessfully.

“Why should the American taxpayer bankroll an international organization that works against America's interests around the world?” Rogers asked at the time in defense of his idea.

“The time is now to restore and protect American sovereignty and get out of the United Nations.”

Another supporter of HR 193, Rend Paul (R-KY) also put it like this in January 2015: “I dislike paying for something that two-bit Third World countries with no freedom attack us and complain about the United States… There’s a lot of reasons why I don’t like the UN, and I think I’d be happy to dissolve it,” added the Kentucky senator.

Later, in June 2015, Rogers had introduced his document – then named HR 1205, but essentially the same USExit idea he’s proposing now.

“The UN continues to prove it’s an inefficient bureaucracy and a complete waste of American tax dollars.” Rogers went on to name treaties and actions he believes “attack our rights as US citizens.” These included gun provisions, the imposition of international regulations on American fossil fuels – but more importantly, the UN attack on Israel, by voting to grant Palestine the non-member state ‘permanent observer’ status.

“Anyone who is not a friend to our ally Israel is not a friend to the United States.”

That same logic was used this January when House Republicans prepared a legislation that would decrease – even potentially eliminate – US funding to the UN. According to calculations by the conservative Heritage Foundation, the US provides over 22 percent of all UN funding.

The bill to cut the funding was introduced shortly after the UNSC voted 14-0 to condemn the continued construction of illegal Israeli settlements – the resolution Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu considered a backstab from the US, which declined to veto it, as per former President Barack Obama’s suddenly critical attitude to Israel at the end of his presidency.

Still, the resolution vote came the same year the Obama administration awarded Israel with its largest military aid package ever, signing a memorandum of understanding in September that would give it $38 billion over 10 years.

However, with Donald Trump now in power, many Republicans seem to be attacking the idea of participating in the UN or cutting funding with renewed fervor.

Each year, the US gives approximately $8 billion in mandatory payments and voluntary contributions to the international peace agency and its affiliated organizations. About $3 billion of that sum goes the UN’s regular peacekeeping budgets.

 

https://www.rt.com/usa/374754-us-leave-united-nations-bill/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can the leader of the free world be aware of millions of people marching against him and his policies and yet say nothing? They responded to the millions of women and men who were not afraid to voice their convictions with nothing. They dismissed the whole thing by saying pro life organisations will march next Friday and the media won't talk about it. What?

Just because those people didn't vote for you that doesn't mean they're not honest, tax paying, US citizens. Shouldn't they be acknowledged by their president? Any president with an ounce of decency would at least assure those people he won't implement any anti minorities policies but that's the problem right there Trump will change things for all the minorities groups. I don't know how he wil get away with it. What sort of excuses he will give. But one thing is for sure this new president will only serve the people who voted for him. How tyrannical. How anti democratic. How anti America. Impeach him now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MeakMaker said:

How can the leader of the free world be aware of millions of people marching against him and his policies and yet say nothing? They responded to the millions of women and men who were not afraid to voice their convictions with nothing. They dismissed the whole thing by saying pro life organisations will march next Friday and the media won't talk about it. What?

Just because those people didn't vote for you that doesn't mean they're not honest, tax paying, US citizens. Shouldn't they be acknowledged by their president? Any president with an ounce of decency would at least assure those people he won't implement any anti minorities policies but that's the problem right there Trump will change things for all the minorities groups. I don't know how he wil get away with it. What sort of excuses he will give. But one thing is for sure this new president will only serve the people who voted for him. How tyrannical. How anti democratic. How anti America. Impeach him now. 

 

It seems that he did say something in a quite Trump-esque controversial fashion....

 

‘We just had election!’: Trump puzzled over Women’s March

 

Protesters should have expressed their opinions during the US election and not after, US President Donald Trump tweeted, commenting on the mass protests following his inauguration.

“Watched protests yesterday but was under the impression that we just had an election!” Trump tweeted, adding: “Why didn't these people vote?”

He also said in the tweet that “celebs hurt cause badly,” referring to the statements of a number of celebrities who criticized Trump and his policies.

He followed this by quickly taking a step back, assuring his Twitter followers that peaceful protests are “a hallmark of our democracy.”

“Even if I don't always agree, I recognize the rights of people to express their views,” he wrote.

At the same time, Reince Priebus, Trump's White House chief of staff, accused the media of trying to delegitimize Trump’s presidency, and warned that the new administration is “not going to sit around and take it.”

On Saturday, Donald Trump’s first full day in the White House, thousands of women marched through US cities to protest against Trump and to call for the protection of civil liberties and diversity, which the protest organizers believe are threatened by Trump’s policies.

In Washington, as many as 500,000 people reportedly turned up to make the walk from Independence Avenue towards the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue. Sister rallies took place in Japan, Australia, and other countries, while demonstrations were also staged in some European cities, including London, Paris, Barcelona, Dublin, and Milan.

Trump’s inauguration also saw violent skirmishes break out in parts of Washington, DC on Friday, and people took to the streets from cities across the nation in anti-Trump protests.

 

https://www.rt.com/usa/374707-trump-woman-march-twitter/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Next he's going to vilify and demonize the EU, trying to build up a new big opponent and 'threat' in his narratives to justify his collaboration with/ and to marginalize Putin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Nessie said:

 

It seems that he did say something in a quite Trump-esque controversial fashion....

 

‘We just had election!’: Trump puzzled over Women’s March

 

Protesters should have expressed their opinions during the US election and not after, US President Donald Trump tweeted, commenting on the mass protests following his inauguration.

“Watched protests yesterday but was under the impression that we just had an election!” Trump tweeted, adding: “Why didn't these people vote?”

He also said in the tweet that “celebs hurt cause badly,” referring to the statements of a number of celebrities who criticized Trump and his policies.

He followed this by quickly taking a step back, assuring his Twitter followers that peaceful protests are “a hallmark of our democracy.”

“Even if I don't always agree, I recognize the rights of people to express their views,” he wrote.

At the same time, Reince Priebus, Trump's White House chief of staff, accused the media of trying to delegitimize Trump’s presidency, and warned that the new administration is “not going to sit around and take it.”

On Saturday, Donald Trump’s first full day in the White House, thousands of women marched through US cities to protest against Trump and to call for the protection of civil liberties and diversity, which the protest organizers believe are threatened by Trump’s policies.

In Washington, as many as 500,000 people reportedly turned up to make the walk from Independence Avenue towards the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue. Sister rallies took place in Japan, Australia, and other countries, while demonstrations were also staged in some European cities, including London, Paris, Barcelona, Dublin, and Milan.

Trump’s inauguration also saw violent skirmishes break out in parts of Washington, DC on Friday, and people took to the streets from cities across the nation in anti-Trump protests.

 

https://www.rt.com/usa/374707-trump-woman-march-twitter/

Yes I read his comment and what did he exactly say? Nothing. Did he reassure all those people that they shouldn't be worried?That their voice will be heard and the new administration will work for all Americans, minorities included? Wouldnt you say that if you truly acknowledged all those people? He went on the defensive once again and talk about celebrities as if he is not one?!? They responded critically and butt hurt. Truly the new America is run by a tyrant. What more evidence do we need?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, MeakMaker said:

Yes I read his comment and what did he exactly say? Nothing. Did he reassure all those people that they shouldn't be worried?That their voice will be heard and the new administration will work for all Americans, minorities included? Wouldnt you say that if you truly acknowledged all those people? He went on the defensive once again and talk about celebrities as if he is not one?!? They responded critically and butt hurt. Truly the new America is run by a tyrant. What more evidence do we need?

He has been a celebrity for over 40 years. His whole life has been a soap opera played in american tabloids daily. Of his own will. He then became a tv reality celebrity on a show with the word celebrity in its name.

People supporting him or trying to be neutral (which is the same. Think Switzerland during WWII) are just people who are white enough to not feel threatened by him, who think because they are "true" americans (what does it mean ?) they will be protected by him...but most of them forgot that being white won't protect them from his administration if they are not rich enough. His first bill was to raise the interests of mortgages payments http://time.com/4641511/trump-inauguration-mortgage-payments/

The rich will become richer, safe and sound in their gold plated towers and huge properties protected by armed guards they can afford while more and more people will be pushed over the edge, going after each other's throats because they are so alienated they think their ennemy is the black family next door and not the bankers and corporations CEO's in white collars stealing all their savings to get richer and richer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read that Omorosa is Director of Communications for the Office of Public Liaison with the rank of Assistant to the President.

Omorosa, that woman who participated on his show and failed badly :lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump signs executive order withdrawing US from TPP

 

With a stroke of a pen, President Donald Trump has unraveled the Trans-Pacific Partnership, withdrawing the US from the controversial free-trade pact. Without Washington’s participation, the TPP would have to be renegotiated or scrapped altogether.

The largest global trade agreement in 20 years, the TPP would have included the United States, Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. It was championed by former President Barack Obama as a way to open Asian markets for American goods and create a trade bloc to counter China.

Opposition to the TPP was one of the key planks of Trump’s presidential campaign, with the billionaire businessman calling the trade pact a “potential disaster” for the US. He said he would prefer bilateral trade deals with individual TPP countries instead. Monday’s executive order signaled the new administration’s determination to address its priorities quickly.

Vietnam backed out of the pact in November, citing uncertainty created by Trump’s election and the refusal of the US Congress to ratify the TPP.

Trump has also targeted the North American Free Trade Association, which eliminated commercial barriers between the US, Canada and Mexico during the Clinton administration.

If Wilbur Ross gets the Senate confirmation to head the Department of Commerce, he will be charged with renegotiating the trade deals, alongside US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and chief of the newly established White House Trade Council, Peter Navarro.

“We are going to start renegotiating on NAFTA, on immigration and on security at the border,” Trump said on Sunday, after the swearing-in ceremony for senior White House staff.

Trump’s animosity for the TPP was shared by some of the Democrats, led by Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. His rival in the November 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton, initially supported the trade pact.

On Monday, Trump assembled chief executives of major US corporations at the White House and promised to lower the tax and regulatory burden on doing business within the country. His administration will be scrapping free trade in favor of fair trade, he said.

“The regulations are going to be cut massively, and the taxes will be cut with them,” Trump said, warning that those who relocate factories will face a “substantial border tax.”

Trump signed two more executive orders on Monday, freezing all federal government hiring – with the exception of the US military – and prohibiting federal funding to US organizations promoting abortion overseas.

 

https://www.rt.com/usa/374819-trump-orders-tpp-repeal/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, LSD said:

 

I hope the women that voted for him can see exactly what he thinks of their rights and that they never consider having an abortion.  

 He is such a self serving person who flip flops his own views for personal gain.  Turning the clock back already.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MeakMaker said:

But one thing is for sure this new president will only serve the people who voted for him. How tyrannical. How anti democratic. How anti America.

News flash, all presidents do this.  Obama was the first to start disrespecting the entire laws of the land and governing almost primarily by executive order, forcing policies through that weren't legally passed through Congress.  He was the one to start blurring the lines between the balance checks in place in the system.  He was the one who disrespected all the laws of the land with his joke of a Justice department that is totally corrupt and morally bankrupt.  Issuing more pardons and clemencies than anyone.  There can't be different laws for different people, which is exactly the practice he promoted more than anyone.  I voted for Obama, but he was an absolutely terrible president outside of certain social policies.  Social policy is not enough.

People dump on Trump because he dared to say things against the status quo, but the establishment and partisan platform mentality is what got us to this point.  Meanwhile, most liberals are blindly pro-HRC when the Clintons displayed actual criminal negligence, actions, and are the most actually anti-feminist people ever.  HRC is the most hypocritical "feminist" of all who grabs onto the "first woman nominee" platform when it suits her but was the silent accomplice to Bill's actual sexual assaults.  The Clinton Foundation and campaign were largely funded by Saudi Arabia and the Arab countries that are actually most oppressive to women's, and human, rights.

The march is great if it was actually for women's rights and not dragging all of the other political issues into it.  We can't just be for women's rights in the first world though where it's safe to express a dissenting point of view.  The people in the oppressed countries are the ones who need an equal amount of compassion and help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, rebelvvv said:

News flash, all presidents do this.  Obama was the first to start disrespecting the entire laws of the land and governing almost primarily by executive order, forcing policies through that weren't legally passed through Congress.  He was the one to start blurring the lines between the balance checks in place in the system.  He was the one who disrespected all the laws of the land with his joke of a Justice department that is totally corrupt and morally bankrupt.  Issuing more pardons and clemencies than anyone.  There can't be different laws for different people, which is exactly the practice he promoted more than anyone.  I voted for Obama, but he was an absolutely terrible president outside of certain social policies.  Social policy is not enough.

People dump on Trump because he dared to say things against the status quo, but the establishment and partisan platform mentality is what got us to this point.  Meanwhile, most liberals are blindly pro-HRC when the Clintons displayed actual criminal negligence, actions, and are the most actually anti-feminist people ever.  HRC is the most hypocritical "feminist" of all who grabs onto the "first woman nominee" platform when it suits her but was the silent accomplice to Bill's actual sexual assaults.  The Clinton Foundation and campaign were largely funded by Saudi Arabia and the Arab countries that are actually most oppressive to women's, and human, rights.

The march is great if it was actually for women's rights and not dragging all of the other political issues into it.  We can't just be for women's rights in the first world though where it's safe to express a dissenting point of view.  The people in the oppressed countries are the ones who need an equal amount of compassion and help.

 

If ever there was a THIS it's THIS.

100% perfect comment.

PIN IT NOW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rebelvvv said:

Obama was the first to start disrespecting the entire laws of the land and governing almost primarily by executive order, forcing policies through that weren't legally passed through Congress.

Oh and why was that? Pure undemocratic evil? Or was it because of the Congress itself who would stand against every action he was about to take just out of spite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lolo said:

Oh and why was that? Pure undemocratic evil? Or was it because of the Congress itself who would stand against every action he was about to take just out of spite?

Congress are legally elected representatives of the American people also.  You can't just ignore their will and say the President is always right and gets to do whatever he wants.  People can't change the President in 4 years, but they can certainly change the representation in Congress.  If you need to wonder why Obama didn't represent the American people well, you only have to look at how his party has lost all power.  At the end of the day Obama served himself and used his presidency, like the Clintons, to enrich himself at the expense of every other non-social policy issue.

But as long as people remain in their political echo chamber and are unwilling to confront truths about how other people feel, they will continue to wonder why things are the way they are.  Time will tell how Trump's presidency is, but he deserves a chance.  The very last thing the US needed was a third term Obama/Clinton who would continue on with the trainwreck way things were.  If someone doesn't even admit there were issues, they can't possibly begin to start addressing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rebelvvv said:

News flash, all presidents do this.  Obama was the first to start disrespecting the entire laws of the land and governing almost primarily by executive order, forcing policies through that weren't legally passed through Congress.  He was the one to start blurring the lines between the balance checks in place in the system.  He was the one who disrespected all the laws of the land with his joke of a Justice department that is totally corrupt and morally bankrupt.  Issuing more pardons and clemencies than anyone.  There can't be different laws for different people, which is exactly the practice he promoted more than anyone.  I voted for Obama, but he was an absolutely terrible president outside of certain social policies.  Social policy is not enough.

As far as I know every president used numerous executive orders to get his points across. At least based on pure numbers Obama issued even less executive orders than his predecessors. It isn't completely unprecedented and unheard off in US politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rebelvvv said:

News flash, all presidents do this.  Obama was the first to start disrespecting the entire laws of the land and governing almost primarily by executive order, forcing policies through that weren't legally passed through Congress.  He was the one to start blurring the lines between the balance checks in place in the system.  He was the one who disrespected all the laws of the land with his joke of a Justice department that is totally corrupt and morally bankrupt.  Issuing more pardons and clemencies than anyone.  There can't be different laws for different people, which is exactly the practice he promoted more than anyone.  I voted for Obama, but he was an absolutely terrible president outside of certain social policies.  Social policy is not enough.

People dump on Trump because he dared to say things against the status quo, but the establishment and partisan platform mentality is what got us to this point.  Meanwhile, most liberals are blindly pro-HRC when the Clintons displayed actual criminal negligence, actions, and are the most actually anti-feminist people ever.  HRC is the most hypocritical "feminist" of all who grabs onto the "first woman nominee" platform when it suits her but was the silent accomplice to Bill's actual sexual assaults.  The Clinton Foundation and campaign were largely funded by Saudi Arabia and the Arab countries that are actually most oppressive to women's, and human, rights.

The march is great if it was actually for women's rights and not dragging all of the other political issues into it.  We can't just be for women's rights in the first world though where it's safe to express a dissenting point of view.  The people in the oppressed countries are the ones who need an equal amount of compassion and help.

While I agree with parts of this, the notion that Obama just barged in and began doing executive actions just isn't true. After the loss of the house in 2010 and especially the senate in 2014, he faced a resistance from republicans that was almost unprecedented. Nothing was getting done and fewer bills were passed in the last two congresses than at any other point in the last 50 years or so. Not Even John Boehner and Paul Ryan could control the far right wings obstruction in the House especially. So if we're going to talk about executive action, let's talk about how it was a two way street between the legislative and executive branch. 

HRC absolutely gave us Trump, yes. But I think you're being a bit harsh when it comes to the money she took from the governments you listed. I find it to be the height of hypocrisy to hear this said, yet NO ONE knows ANYTHING about Trumps business deals, his taxes, his philanthropy, or even his own Trump Foundation. He is the absolute LEAST transparent individual to ever enter the Oval Office. I certainly don't agree with any kind of funds being taken from these governments, but at least the Clinton Foundstion actually disclosed it. 

The executive orders signed today by Trump would've been signed by ANY republican president, minus TPP. But this is where he's different. Overall, this was a good day for him. The orders, the optics, and press conference. After the absolute catastrophe of his inaugural weekend, he needed this. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, KalamazooJay said:

While I agree with parts of this, the notion that Obama just barged in and began doing executive actions just isn't true. After the loss of the house in 2010 and especially the senate in 2014, he faced a resistance from republicans that was almost unprecedented. Nothing was getting done and fewer bills were passed in the last two congresses than at any other point in the last 50 years or so. Not Even John Boehner and Paul Ryan could control the far right wings obstruction in the House especially. So if we're going to talk about executive action, let's talk about how it was a two way street between the legislative and executive branch. 

HRC absolutely gave us Trump, yes. But I think you're being a bit harsh when it comes to the money she took from the governments you listed. I find it to be the height of hypocrisy to hear this said, yet NO ONE knows ANYTHING about Trumps business deals, his taxes, his philanthropy, or even his own Trump Foundation. He is the absolute LEAST transparent individual to ever enter the Oval Office. I certainly don't agree with any kind of funds being taken from these governments, but at least the Clinton Foundstion actually disclosed it. 

The executive orders signed today by Trump would've been signed by ANY republican president, minus TPP. But this is where he's different. Overall, this was a good day for him. The orders, the optics, and press conference. After the absolute catastrophe of his inaugural weekend, he needed this. 

The point is Obama made no point to think about why they lost the House.  He made no point of thinking about how to get along with those resisting and attempting to pass policy in legally binding fashion.  I'm all for social progress and advocacy for LEGAL changes, passed appropriately through the legislative branch of government.  Obama's role in the executive branch was supposed to be to manage and lead by governing, not dictating, what the policy should be.  HRC and Obama's problems were they both thought they are above the law.  Obama twisted the whole judicial system and the DOJ to suit his personal agendas.  Either a country has laws that apply the same to all citizens, or it doesn't.  His selective actions and the way he went about implementing the policy platforms he supported were the very cause of what happened.

And we won't even go into all his foreign policy messes.  However, accepting money from and deliberately cozying up to all foreign governments at the expense of American interests in the name of furthering his personal legacy was atrocious.  He was buddies with the very establishment governments who oppress their people and all American values with no regard for the people in those countries themselves.  His actions in Cuba are why actual Cuban immigrants dislike him so much.

Don't pretend that the Clinton Foundation disclosed things though.  They were leaked.  All the talk is about how the information got out but none of the focus or denial is on whether the information is true.  There wouldn't have been a scandal if there wasn't anything to be scandalous about.  The pro-HRC media coverage that continued to try to bury all of her flaws in the sand is why nobody trusts the media who can think for themselves.  Trump may not have full transparency or disclosure, but HRC has been proven to be unethical, lacking in integrity, and to this day cannot understand why people don't trust her.  She's proven since Bill's presidency that her personal political ambitions come at all costs and none of it is with regard to actually serving the American people.  Anyone who thought she was the lesser of the choices we had is blind.

This isn't me being racist, and I love Madonna and admire her very passion and ability to fight against the status quo and speak her mind.  HRC is not worthy of even being mentioned in the same sentence or worthy of her support, however.  I said it in the other thread, but everyone jumps on Madonna for using hyperbole to get attention and takes her literally instead of seriously.  The hypocrisy and double standard apply on both sides though.  Trump isn't an ideologue.  He's actually far closer to moderate and independent like many people in the country.  He has the strength to go against the partisan politics and do what is pragmatic and best for the country.  As a non-career politician, I'd take that any day over more of the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, rebelvvv said:

The point is Obama made no point to think about why they lost the House.  He made no point of thinking about how to get along with those resisting and attempting to pass policy in legally binding fashion.  I'm all for social progress and advocacy for LEGAL changes, passed appropriately through the legislative branch of government.  Obama's role in the executive branch was supposed to be to manage and lead by governing, not dictating, what the policy should be.  HRC and Obama's problems were they both thought they are above the law.  Obama twisted the whole judicial system and the DOJ to suit his personal agendas.  Either a country has laws that apply the same to all citizens, or it doesn't.  His selective actions and the way he went about implementing the policy platforms he supported were the very cause of what happened.

And we won't even go into all his foreign policy messes.  However, accepting money from and deliberately cozying up to all foreign governments at the expense of American interests in the name of furthering his personal legacy was atrocious.  He was buddies with the very establishment governments who oppress their people and all American values with no regard for the people in those countries themselves.  His actions in Cuba are why actual Cuban immigrants dislike him so much.

Don't pretend that the Clinton Foundation disclosed things though.  They were leaked.  All the talk is about how the information got out but none of the focus or denial is on whether the information is true.  There wouldn't have been a scandal if there wasn't anything to be scandalous about.  The pro-HRC media coverage that continued to try to bury all of her flaws in the sand is why nobody trusts the media who can think for themselves.  Trump may not have full transparency or disclosure, but HRC has been proven to be unethical, lacking in integrity, and to this day cannot understand why people don't trust her.  She's proven since Bill's presidency that her personal political ambitions come at all costs and none of it is with regard to actually serving the American people.  Anyone who thought she was the lesser of the choices we had is blind.

This isn't me being racist, and I love Madonna and admire her very passion and ability to fight against the status quo and speak her mind.  HRC is not worthy of even being mentioned in the same sentence or worthy of her support, however.  I said it in the other thread, but everyone jumps on Madonna for using hyperbole to get attention and takes her literally instead of seriously.  The hypocrisy and double standard apply on both sides though.  Trump isn't an ideologue.  He's actually far closer to moderate and independent like many people in the country.  He has the strength to go against the partisan politics and do what is pragmatic and best for the country.  As a non-career politician, I'd take that any day over more of the same.

You lost me at the end with this statement. He doesn't even have the strength to deal with the fact that his inaugural attendance wasn't as big as Obama's. This man's history, which I've read about, has absolutely nothing in it that says he's going to do anything pragmatic or what's best for this country. The individuals he's surrounding himself with in his administration should be evident of that. Jesus, I mean, Steve Bannon alone. I'm all for a pragmatic business man in the oval office, but not this one. Much like how I wanted a woman in the White House, but not Hillary. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KalamazooJay said:

You lost me at the end with this statement. He doesn't even have the strength to deal with the fact that his inaugural attendance wasn't as big as Obama's. This man's history, which I've read about, has absolutely nothing in it that says he's going to do anything pragmatic or what's best for this country. The individuals he's surrounding himself with in his administration should be evident of that. Jesus, I mean, Steve Bannon alone. I'm all for a pragmatic business man in the oval office, but not this one. Much like how I wanted a woman in the White House, but not Hillary. 

I'm more interested in the actions and not the talk and noise, so like I said, we'll see what happens.  Obama was all about rhetoric, but what he actually did outside of his social policy agenda was atrocious.  Our choices were obviously awful, but at the end of the day, he is the one who managed to get people's attention and at least start to make the changes neither side was willing to do.  There was bipartisan opposition to TPP and his willingness to step up on that gives me hope.  Let's not pretend that Trump is a Republican ideologue.  He hijacked the party by making outlandish statements because that's the only way a third party or moderate would get elected.  If the Democrats weren't blindly behind HRC, I'm sure he would have co-opted their agenda just the same.  Most Americans are actually not black or white one way on all issues across the board, so he's a far better representation of the people than Hillary and her blind following of Obama's failed policies, in addition to her personal flaws, would ever have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, rebelvvv said:

I'm more interested in the actions and not the talk and noise, so like I said, we'll see what happens.  Obama was all about rhetoric, but what he actually did outside of his social policy agenda was atrocious.  Our choices were obviously awful, but at the end of the day, he is the one who managed to get people's attention and at least start to make the changes neither side was willing to do.  There was bipartisan opposition to TPP and his willingness to step up on that gives me hope.  Let's not pretend that Trump is a Republican ideologue.  He hijacked the party by making outlandish statements because that's the only way a third party or moderate would get elected.  If the Democrats weren't blindly behind HRC, I'm sure he would have co-opted their agenda just the same.  Most Americans are actually not black or white one way on all issues across the board, so he's a far better representation of the people than Hillary and her blind following of Obama's failed policies, in addition to her personal flaws, would ever have been.

.......a man that cries about the attendance of an inaguration is a better representation for the people? REALLY?

what is wrong with you all lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best thing to do is ban me from this part of the forum. I keep coming in trying to be hopeful and I just end up getting more angry at the "opinions" stated here. It's like trump can do anything he wants and gets praised by people here and it's making my blood boil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, rebelvvv said:

I'm more interested in the actions and not the talk and noise, so like I said, we'll see what happens.  Obama was all about rhetoric, but what he actually did outside of his social policy agenda was atrocious.  Our choices were obviously awful, but at the end of the day, he is the one who managed to get people's attention and at least start to make the changes neither side was willing to do.  There was bipartisan opposition to TPP and his willingness to step up on that gives me hope.  Let's not pretend that Trump is a Republican ideologue.  He hijacked the party by making outlandish statements because that's the only way a third party or moderate would get elected.  If the Democrats weren't blindly behind HRC, I'm sure he would have co-opted their agenda just the same.  Most Americans are actually not black or white one way on all issues across the board, so he's a far better representation of the people than Hillary and her blind following of Obama's failed policies, in addition to her personal flaws, would ever have been.

You're correct that the majority of Americans are pretty moderate, level headed, non idealogs. And I don't believe Trump is either. 

But what I DO believe is that he's a narcissist of the highest level. This has been proven time and time again throughout his career in business and entertainment. And here's the real problem. You say that he HAD to say outlandish things to make it through the primary? He's been saying batshit crazy things his entire life! Bullying and bullshit and everything in between. HE IS STILL DOING IT. He did between the election and the inauguration. He did it all weekend long. His aides did too. ALL WEEKEND LONG. 

I, too, would be interested in his actions as I agree with some of the issues he's talking about, especially on trade. But like I said last summer, he's opened this Pandora's box of hatred, misogyny, bigotry, xenophobia, and racism. That doesn't just "go away" from people's memories. You don't get to just put it all back in the box and pretend it wasn't said. 

He had brought out the WORST in people on BOTH sides and has shown no outreach or indication or intention to do so. And that's why I find him so "deplorable". And it's because of this, he just simply won't be able to govern like a normal  president. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...