samsc744
New Member
Thanks for the tip I will look it up when I have time tomorrow.
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse
- Thread starter CdnGuy
- Start date
DedLift
New Member
Everything that comes out of your stupid face is KKK, white supremacist, etc, etc. You know who talks about race in every post? Racists themselves. Most of us don't even consider the race side of any discussion but youre fixated on it because its the only card you've got. That card is old and overplayed and as a non racist white guy, its irritating to have so many people continue to use it as their wild card for not getting the job, recognition, whatever else they feel should be given instead of earned. It closes the door on meaningful, intelligent conversation and opens a door of hate. You may as well crawl back under the rock youve slithered out from under because you are a terrible example of what a decent person sounds like. Plus, im already sick of hearing you run that cockholster you call a mouth
How Trump’s Rush to Enact an Immigration Ban Unleashed Global Chaos
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/politics/donald-trump-rush-immigration-order-chaos.html
WASHINGTON — As President Trump signed a sweeping executive order on Friday, shutting the borders to refugees and others from seven largely Muslim countries, the secretary of homeland security was on a White House conference call getting his first full briefing on the global shift in policy.
Gen. John F. Kelly, the secretary of homeland security, had dialed in from a Coast Guard plane as he headed back to Washington from Miami. Along with other top officials, he needed guidance from the White House, which had not asked his department for a legal review of the order.
Halfway into the briefing, someone on the call looked up at a television in his office. “The president is signing the executive order that we’re discussing,” the official said, stunned.
The global confusion that has since erupted is the story of a White House that rushed to enact, with little regard for basic governing, a core campaign promise that Mr. Trump made to his most fervent supporters. In his first week in office, Mr. Trump signed other executive actions with little or no legal review, but his order barring refugees has had the most explosive implications.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/politics/donald-trump-rush-immigration-order-chaos.html
WASHINGTON — As President Trump signed a sweeping executive order on Friday, shutting the borders to refugees and others from seven largely Muslim countries, the secretary of homeland security was on a White House conference call getting his first full briefing on the global shift in policy.
Gen. John F. Kelly, the secretary of homeland security, had dialed in from a Coast Guard plane as he headed back to Washington from Miami. Along with other top officials, he needed guidance from the White House, which had not asked his department for a legal review of the order.
Halfway into the briefing, someone on the call looked up at a television in his office. “The president is signing the executive order that we’re discussing,” the official said, stunned.
The global confusion that has since erupted is the story of a White House that rushed to enact, with little regard for basic governing, a core campaign promise that Mr. Trump made to his most fervent supporters. In his first week in office, Mr. Trump signed other executive actions with little or no legal review, but his order barring refugees has had the most explosive implications.
DedLift
New Member
I watched that too. She is a very good speaker who really knows what's up. Shes chewed out and called out the biased leftist media in her interviews with them and they conveniently left out all of the valid points she made and cut and pasted away all of the meaningful dialogue that didn't support their agendas. She's got the gift of gab. Trump is smart for having her represent him. Fox at least showed the entirety of the discussion. Kudos to them
samsc744
New Member
Good use of cliches I give you that still senseless rambling but go on please. At least you don't sound as stupid as the other clown.
Jeremiahflex
Well-known Member
People close to Mr. Bannon said he is not accumulating power for power’s sake, but is instead helping to fill a staff leadership vacuum created, in part, by Mr. Flynn’s stumbling performance as national security adviser.
Mr. Flynn still communicates with Mr. Trump frequently, and his staff has been assembling a version of the Presidential Daily Briefing for Mr. Trump, truncated but comprehensive, to be the president’s main source of national security information. During the campaign, he often had unfettered access to the candidate, who appreciated his brash style and contempt for Hillary Clinton, but during the transition, Mr. Flynn privately complained about having to share face time with others.
Mr. Flynn “has the full confidence of the president and his team,” Hope Hicks, a spokeswoman for Mr. Trump, said in an email. Emails and phone calls to Mr. Flynn and his top aide were not returned.
A president who likes generals and abhors political correctness, Mr. Trump found in Mr. Flynn — who joined Trump backers in an anti-Clinton “lock her up!” chant during the campaign — perhaps the most politically incorrect general this side of his hero, Gen. George S. Patton.
But Mr. Flynn, a lifelong Democrat sacked as head of the Pentagon’s intelligence arm after clashing with Obama administration officials in 2014, has gotten on the nerves of Mr. Trump and other administration officials because of his sometimes overbearing demeanor, and has further diminished his internal standing by presiding over a chaotic and opaque N.S.C. transition process that prioritized the hiring of military officials over civilian experts recommended to him by his own team.
Mr. Flynn’s penchant for talking too much was on display on Friday in a meeting with Theresa May, the British prime minister, according to two people with direct knowledge of the events.
When Mrs. May said that she understood wanting a dialogue with Mr. Putin but stressed the need to be careful, Mr. Trump asked Mr. Flynn when the two were scheduled to speak.
Mr. Flynn replied it was Saturday — he had delayed it to fit in Mrs. May’s meeting for “protocol” as a United States ally, adding at length that Mr. Putin was impatient to chat.
Mr. Trump, the person said, appeared irritated by the response.
Still, the episode that did the most damage to the Trump-Flynn relationship occurred in early December when Mr. Flynn’s son, also named Michael, unleashed a series of tweets pushing a discredited conspiracy theory that Clinton associates had run a child sex-slave ring out of a Washington pizza restaurant.
Mr. Trump told his staff to get rid of the younger Mr. Flynn, who had been hired by his father to help during the transition. But Mr. Trump did so reluctantly because of his loyalty during the campaign, when dozens of former military officials were dismissing Mr. Trump as too unstable to command.
“I want him fired immediately,” Mr. Trump said in a muted rendition of his “You’re fired!” line in “The Apprentice,” according to two people with knowledge of the interaction.
That has not stopped the general’s son from spouting off: On Saturday, at a time when Trump surrogates were pushing back on the idea that the executive order did not discriminate against any religion, the younger Mr. Flynn tweeted his approval of the policy, adding “#MuslimBan.” The tweet was subsequently deleted; his entire account disappeared later in the day.
Still, the national security adviser has also continued to dabble in the kind of bomb-throwing behavior that concerns Mr. Trump’s allies, such as planning to attend an anti-Clinton “Deploraball” event at the time of the inauguration. He was urged to skip it by Trump allies, and ultimately agreed.
Both Mr. Trump and Mr. Bannon still regard Mr. Flynn as an asset. “In the room and out of the room, Steve Bannon is General Flynn’s biggest defender,” said Kellyanne Conway, another top adviser to the president.
But it is unclear when the maneuvers to reduce Mr. Flynn’s role began. Two Obama administration officials said Trump transition officials inquired about expanded national security roles for Mr. Bannon and Mr. Kushner at the earliest stages of the transition in November — before the younger Mr. Flynn became a liability — but after Mr. Flynn had begun to chafe on the nerves of his colleagues on the team.
Mr. Flynn’s reputation has raised questions among some in the cabinet. Two weeks ago, both men held a meeting with Rex W. Tillerson, Mr. Trump’s pick to run the State Department, Mr. Mattis and Mike Pompeo, now the C.I.A. director, to discuss coordination — Mr. Flynn was invited but did not attend.
Part of the meeting was devoted to discussing concerns about Mr. Flynn, according to an official with knowledge of it.
Waahhhh, Trump is doing everything he said he was going to do in his campaign! The tears are so delicious. [emoji24]
Last edited:
Too bad. I sort of liked Flynn for having the nerve to go public with that intelligence report predicting the rise of ISIS as a result of US actions - exactly how it occurred. At least if Trump fires him he can claim having been fired by presidents from two different parties!
Spare Us the Theatrics
Trump’s Fortress America is rooted in the Obama years
by Justin Raimondo, January 30, 2017
The Trump administration has the media and its political opponents (or do I repeat myself?) in a lather as the White House continues to fire executive orders in quick succession, demolishing the old order and enraging both liberals and their newfound neoconservative allies. Amid all the virtue-signaling hysterics, the most significant aspects of what is occurring are being overlooked – and it’s my job to point them out.
While the blue-state crowd is protesting President Trump’s order banning travel to the US by citizens of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia, what gets lost in all the shouting is that the legal and political basis of his order was laid down by President Barack Obama. These people don’t care to recall that, in 2013, Obama banned all refugees from Iraq for six months, and his action was hardly noticed: Trump is only proposing a ninety-day pause. What prompted Obama’s action, as ABC News reported at the time, was “the discovery in 2009 of two al Qaeda-Iraq terrorists living as refugees in Bowling Green, Kentucky — who later admitted in court that they’d attacked U.S. soldiers in Iraq.”
Two years later, Congress passed a law, the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act, that restricted travel visas for citizens of “states of concern,” i.e. Syria, Sudan, Iraq, Iran and “any other country or area of concern.” Obama promptly signed it. In early 2016, the Department of Homeland Security unilaterally extended these restrictions to Yemen, Libya, and Somalia. What this meant was that the visa waiver program did not apply to citizens of these countries: travelers had to apply for a visa at US embassies, a highly problematic matter (Syria, for one, has no such facility) and were very unlikely to be successful in their efforts. I don’t recall any protests at the time.
In short, the legal and political basis of Trump’s executive order – which is being denounced as an unprecedented attack on our allies (Iraq), civil liberties, and decency itself – was laid during the previous regime. Trump has simply dispensed with the fiction that these travelers are welcomed by our government, and issued an ostensibly temporary outright ban.
Aside from the hypocrisy underscored in that history, however, a larger point needs to be made: this all follows from our bipartisan foreign policy of perpetual war. Regardless of one’s views on immigration, the idea that we can invade the world and then proceed to invite the world is worse than naïve – it’s dangerous. As Garet Garrett, that prophet of the Old Right, put it more than half a century ago:
"How, now, thou American, frustrated crusader, do you know where you are?
"Is it security you want? There is no security at the top of the world.
"To thine own self a liberator, to the world an alarming portent, do you know where you are going from here?"
Where, indeed.
After fifteen years of rampaging throughout the world, that the US is now retreating to Fortress America comes as a shock only to the clueless. That this is being done with the crudity we have come to expect from Trump – green card holders were handcuffed at the airports, and immigration officials told the hapless detainees to complain to the President – is likewise not surprising. Someone who has been a resident of the United States for years, albeit not a citizen, being treated in this manner is an outrage – but what else has the history of the post-9/11 been but one outrage after another? (The inclusion of green card holders is now being walked back by the White House.)
And as for those who are now gathering at airports with placards denouncing Trump – where were they when the countries on the no-go list were being bombed by their hero, Obama? The answer is that they were nowhere to be found. Oh, but now they’re up there on their high horses, lances lowered and ready to do battle with the “fascist” Trump. Spare us the theatrics, my liberal friends, and contemplate your own sins, for they are many.
Our endless “war on terrorism” – which continues under President Trump, even as I write, with a dawn raid on the headquarters of the Yemeni branch of al-Qaeda – has been fulsomely supported and extended by both parties. The Obama regime aided and abetted Saudi Arabia’s invasion of Yemen, making it possible for al-Qaeda to gain a foothold as Saudi troops and Riyadh’s puppet Yemeni government carried out a vicious war of attrition against Shi’ite rebels – while leaving al-Qaeda largely alone to consolidate its gains.
Where were the NeverTrumpers while atrocities against the Yemeni people were being committed with our tax dollars?
Furthermore, under President Obama, the US pursued a https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/reps-tulsi-gabbard-austin-scott-introduce-legislation-end-illegal-us-war (policy of “regime change”) in Syria, the goal of which was to overthrow the government of Bashar al-Assad and install a theocracy run by Islamist “rebels” allied with al-Qaeda and ideologically indistinguishable from ISIS, our purported enemy.
The very same media outlets and blue-state virtue-signalers who are howling about the “cruelty” of Trump’s rejection of Syrian refugees have been telling us for years that we haven’t been aiding the Syrian rebels enough, and that the US must intervene more strenuously in that country’s civil war. Do these people not realize that our policy caused the refugee exodus?
As the anti-Trump brouhaha continues, two very pertinent facts about this series of executive orders is getting lost in the shouting.
First, as I wrote about in my last column, the initial draft of the executive order entitled “Protecting the Nation From Attacks From Foreign Nationals” contained a section raising the possibility of creating “safe zones” in Syria. The final version omits this dangerous plan. This is significant: what it means is that the Trump administration is going to resist calls by the interventionist media to “do something” about the Syrian civil war and is opting instead to keep its footprint in the region lighter than the War Party would prefer. “Safe zones” are off the table, at least for now.
Yes, I did urge our readers to call the White House and urge them to drop this loopy idea, but it would be equally loopy to take any credit for it. My guess is that our newly-minted Secretary of Defense, in tandem with the Pentagon, talked him out of it, as I thought they would. But, hey, pressure from the public may have been a factor – you never know!
Secondly, a presidential memorandum outlining Trump’s “https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/plan-defeat-islamic-state-iraq” contains one fascinating little section that reads as follows:
“The Plan shall include … identification of new coalition partners in the fight against ISIS and policies to empower coalition partners to fight ISIS and its affiliates.”
While Russia is not named, it is clearly the intent of the Trump administration to involve Moscow in our operations against ISIS, at least in the Syrian theater. And while this doesn’t mean that we’re about to withdraw from the region, it does mean that our footprint will be much smaller. Trump is clearly leery of getting bogged down in another Middle Eastern war: thus his vows to “eradicate” ISIS “quickly.” That may be a pipedream, but the fact remains that if he can farm out much of the fight against ISIS to the Russians and Assad, our own involvement is effectively lessened.
This also augurs a new era of cooperation between the United States and Russia, which both parties in Congress bitterly oppose. Citing Russian assistance in Syria is going to be one of Trump’s major talking points in opposing the new cold war that so many in the liberal media and both wings of the War Party have been frantically ginning up.
The hysterical response to Trump has blinded the left to what is really going on: they are so busy working themselves up into a fit of self-satisfied outrage that they have lost the ability not only to reason but to see what is right in front of their eyes. Much of this is due to partisanship, but the rest we can attribute to a cognitive disability: when emotions are substituted for thought over an extended period, the result is a permanent impairment. If what we are seeing at the end of the first week of the Trump administration is indicative of the next four years, the fate of American liberalism promises to be sad indeed.
Update: Here’s a new development: there are http://www.baghdadinvest.com/breaking-americans-banned-iraq-retaliation-measures/ (reports) that Iraq is retaliating against the travel ban by banning all travel to Iraq by Americans. If this includes US soldiers traveling to Iraq to help its hapless government fight off its many enemies, then one can only ask: who says Trump isn’t the antiwar President?! One wonders if this ban will also include a ban on American tax dollars traveling to Iraq: somehow, I don’t think so.
Trump’s Fortress America is rooted in the Obama years
by Justin Raimondo, January 30, 2017
The Trump administration has the media and its political opponents (or do I repeat myself?) in a lather as the White House continues to fire executive orders in quick succession, demolishing the old order and enraging both liberals and their newfound neoconservative allies. Amid all the virtue-signaling hysterics, the most significant aspects of what is occurring are being overlooked – and it’s my job to point them out.
While the blue-state crowd is protesting President Trump’s order banning travel to the US by citizens of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia, what gets lost in all the shouting is that the legal and political basis of his order was laid down by President Barack Obama. These people don’t care to recall that, in 2013, Obama banned all refugees from Iraq for six months, and his action was hardly noticed: Trump is only proposing a ninety-day pause. What prompted Obama’s action, as ABC News reported at the time, was “the discovery in 2009 of two al Qaeda-Iraq terrorists living as refugees in Bowling Green, Kentucky — who later admitted in court that they’d attacked U.S. soldiers in Iraq.”
Two years later, Congress passed a law, the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act, that restricted travel visas for citizens of “states of concern,” i.e. Syria, Sudan, Iraq, Iran and “any other country or area of concern.” Obama promptly signed it. In early 2016, the Department of Homeland Security unilaterally extended these restrictions to Yemen, Libya, and Somalia. What this meant was that the visa waiver program did not apply to citizens of these countries: travelers had to apply for a visa at US embassies, a highly problematic matter (Syria, for one, has no such facility) and were very unlikely to be successful in their efforts. I don’t recall any protests at the time.
In short, the legal and political basis of Trump’s executive order – which is being denounced as an unprecedented attack on our allies (Iraq), civil liberties, and decency itself – was laid during the previous regime. Trump has simply dispensed with the fiction that these travelers are welcomed by our government, and issued an ostensibly temporary outright ban.
Aside from the hypocrisy underscored in that history, however, a larger point needs to be made: this all follows from our bipartisan foreign policy of perpetual war. Regardless of one’s views on immigration, the idea that we can invade the world and then proceed to invite the world is worse than naïve – it’s dangerous. As Garet Garrett, that prophet of the Old Right, put it more than half a century ago:
"How, now, thou American, frustrated crusader, do you know where you are?
"Is it security you want? There is no security at the top of the world.
"To thine own self a liberator, to the world an alarming portent, do you know where you are going from here?"
Where, indeed.
After fifteen years of rampaging throughout the world, that the US is now retreating to Fortress America comes as a shock only to the clueless. That this is being done with the crudity we have come to expect from Trump – green card holders were handcuffed at the airports, and immigration officials told the hapless detainees to complain to the President – is likewise not surprising. Someone who has been a resident of the United States for years, albeit not a citizen, being treated in this manner is an outrage – but what else has the history of the post-9/11 been but one outrage after another? (The inclusion of green card holders is now being walked back by the White House.)
And as for those who are now gathering at airports with placards denouncing Trump – where were they when the countries on the no-go list were being bombed by their hero, Obama? The answer is that they were nowhere to be found. Oh, but now they’re up there on their high horses, lances lowered and ready to do battle with the “fascist” Trump. Spare us the theatrics, my liberal friends, and contemplate your own sins, for they are many.
Our endless “war on terrorism” – which continues under President Trump, even as I write, with a dawn raid on the headquarters of the Yemeni branch of al-Qaeda – has been fulsomely supported and extended by both parties. The Obama regime aided and abetted Saudi Arabia’s invasion of Yemen, making it possible for al-Qaeda to gain a foothold as Saudi troops and Riyadh’s puppet Yemeni government carried out a vicious war of attrition against Shi’ite rebels – while leaving al-Qaeda largely alone to consolidate its gains.
Where were the NeverTrumpers while atrocities against the Yemeni people were being committed with our tax dollars?
Furthermore, under President Obama, the US pursued a https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/reps-tulsi-gabbard-austin-scott-introduce-legislation-end-illegal-us-war (policy of “regime change”) in Syria, the goal of which was to overthrow the government of Bashar al-Assad and install a theocracy run by Islamist “rebels” allied with al-Qaeda and ideologically indistinguishable from ISIS, our purported enemy.
The very same media outlets and blue-state virtue-signalers who are howling about the “cruelty” of Trump’s rejection of Syrian refugees have been telling us for years that we haven’t been aiding the Syrian rebels enough, and that the US must intervene more strenuously in that country’s civil war. Do these people not realize that our policy caused the refugee exodus?
As the anti-Trump brouhaha continues, two very pertinent facts about this series of executive orders is getting lost in the shouting.
First, as I wrote about in my last column, the initial draft of the executive order entitled “Protecting the Nation From Attacks From Foreign Nationals” contained a section raising the possibility of creating “safe zones” in Syria. The final version omits this dangerous plan. This is significant: what it means is that the Trump administration is going to resist calls by the interventionist media to “do something” about the Syrian civil war and is opting instead to keep its footprint in the region lighter than the War Party would prefer. “Safe zones” are off the table, at least for now.
Yes, I did urge our readers to call the White House and urge them to drop this loopy idea, but it would be equally loopy to take any credit for it. My guess is that our newly-minted Secretary of Defense, in tandem with the Pentagon, talked him out of it, as I thought they would. But, hey, pressure from the public may have been a factor – you never know!
Secondly, a presidential memorandum outlining Trump’s “https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/plan-defeat-islamic-state-iraq” contains one fascinating little section that reads as follows:
“The Plan shall include … identification of new coalition partners in the fight against ISIS and policies to empower coalition partners to fight ISIS and its affiliates.”
While Russia is not named, it is clearly the intent of the Trump administration to involve Moscow in our operations against ISIS, at least in the Syrian theater. And while this doesn’t mean that we’re about to withdraw from the region, it does mean that our footprint will be much smaller. Trump is clearly leery of getting bogged down in another Middle Eastern war: thus his vows to “eradicate” ISIS “quickly.” That may be a pipedream, but the fact remains that if he can farm out much of the fight against ISIS to the Russians and Assad, our own involvement is effectively lessened.
This also augurs a new era of cooperation between the United States and Russia, which both parties in Congress bitterly oppose. Citing Russian assistance in Syria is going to be one of Trump’s major talking points in opposing the new cold war that so many in the liberal media and both wings of the War Party have been frantically ginning up.
The hysterical response to Trump has blinded the left to what is really going on: they are so busy working themselves up into a fit of self-satisfied outrage that they have lost the ability not only to reason but to see what is right in front of their eyes. Much of this is due to partisanship, but the rest we can attribute to a cognitive disability: when emotions are substituted for thought over an extended period, the result is a permanent impairment. If what we are seeing at the end of the first week of the Trump administration is indicative of the next four years, the fate of American liberalism promises to be sad indeed.
Update: Here’s a new development: there are http://www.baghdadinvest.com/breaking-americans-banned-iraq-retaliation-measures/ (reports) that Iraq is retaliating against the travel ban by banning all travel to Iraq by Americans. If this includes US soldiers traveling to Iraq to help its hapless government fight off its many enemies, then one can only ask: who says Trump isn’t the antiwar President?! One wonders if this ban will also include a ban on American tax dollars traveling to Iraq: somehow, I don’t think so.
Ill tell you what.
If you feel so strongly about my link between the KKK or racism start a new thread in the General Discussion section and PUT YOUR NAME TO IT.
If nothing else the discussion should be interesting
Until then your claims are unsubstantiated and derogatory in nature
Start the thread weak one
I really couldnt agree more
Not much else to say here
I hope so..
Democracy IS authoritarian. It only feels like liberty when the ones in charge agree with your opinion on what everyone else should be doing, and forces them to do it.
There's never been a president that I didn't eventually despise, but for the moment Trump is starting to grow on me.
Trump Signs Executive Order On Regulation: "For Every New Regulation, Two Regulations Must Be Revoked"
full article
Trump Signs Executive Order On Regulation: "For Every New Regulation, Two Regulations Must Be Revoked"
"President Trump has signed an executive action to revoke two regulations for every one enacted, or as officials told AP, that they are naming the new directive a “one in, two out” plan. Federal agencies will need to revoke two regulations for every new regulation they request, and the White House will review the proposal, according to administration officials."
full article
