OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

Status
Not open for further replies.
what i really want to know is......what are the joint chiefs talking about behind closed doors. are they, thru their secret military channels, setting up a military solution to this obvious attempt at a dictatorship?

WILL THE MILITARY OBEY THIS ASSHOLE IF HE DECLARES NATIONAL MARSHALL LAW??

will the national guard obey?

will the police departments obey?

if the answer to any of these is yes....we are about to become the new north korea.

The police and military will obey. Because it won't be set up as "install martial law." It'll be set up as "quell this imaginary or not bit of urban violence" or patrol "xyz lawless border town" or "make things safe for Super Bowl Sunday" and that shit will just creep in...like naked body scanners and pat downs before you go to a rock concert/ball game/whatever.

When you start out cracking the skulls of people no one likes, it's like pretty easy to get people to think of skull cracking as normal.
 
Yep. I want everyone to participate, but there shouldn't be a test.

I used to think that, but these days I don't. I don't want anyone barred from voting or any kind of test, but if you can't take the time actually look at the issues each candidate is representing, don't vote or vote for Mayor McCheese and pay attention to the next one.
 
I used to think that, but these days I don't. I don't want anyone barred from voting or any kind of test, but if you can't take the time actually look at the issues each candidate is representing, don't vote or vote for Mayor McCheese and pay attention to the next one.

I'm a first step kinda guy. Take the first step. Get everyone to participate. Meanwhile, invest in education to create that informed electorate. And yes, I know it will never happen.
 
I got absolutely slaughtered in a uni essay once because I got carried away with my support for J.S. Mills qualified voting theory :grin:
 
I try to keep conspiracy stuff at an arm's length (I find it interesting, but generally don't buy into that sort of thing), but Bannon worming his way closer to the center of power has caused some concern in the back of my mind.

It's at the forefront of my mind. He's at least okay with Nazi movement in this country as his former media outlet never tried to distance themselves from that audience. Complicity is really just as bad as active participation in this realm. Just as likely, however, is a more active/passionate alignment with the white supremacy mindset in this nation. Getting to this position is the beginning of an attempt to seize control of aspects of the armed forces and using them against the public.

What's undeniable at this point is the Trump campaign and now his continuing statements and actions coming right out the of the Nazi playbook. These are the tactics that brought the Reich to power. The difference here is that we are not in a decades long economic depression, so more than half of our nation (significantly I'd guess) has prospered on some level for the last eight years. Even the people that love and cheer all of Trump's venom and hatred have (as a whole) NOT suffered with a black man running our country...despite the clear disdain for that man. So I don't feel our nation will succumb to these machinations, but it won't stop them from trying. Trump is either on board or (more likely) too obtuse to see what's going on.

He is not some normal politician that knows or cares about doing for the nation on any level. Is the arguably the most self-concerned/interested person on the planet. "Winning" and being right (despite all evidence to the contrary) are all he cares about. He's not a big picture guy...unless it's a YUGE portrait of himself. Bannon and other similarly distasteful individuals are running a big grift on these jackass and he's too up his own ass to see it.

I'm beginning to think Ted Cruz would have actually been a better choice. I can't believe I just typed that...Ted fucking Cruz?!?
 
I got absolutely slaughtered in a uni essay once because I got carried away with my support for J.S. Mills qualified voting theory :grin:

I'd love to have an informed electorate that participates in elections at all levels. People have the right to be stupid and to not participate. You've got to meet them where they're at.
 
I'd love to have an informed electorate that participates in elections at all levels. People have the right to be stupid and to not participate. You've got to meet them where they're at.

Unfortunately we have scores of people who are stupid and do participate. Not only that but these folk tend to be the most vociferous on social media too.
 
I've kind of stayed away from this thread and, as much as I knew he was a tool, I respect democracy and felt like he should be given a fair chance as President

:shrug:

He's been in a week and is already causing mayhem and acting like a tin pot dictator. I listen to talk radio on the way home from gigs and on Saturday night they had some ex top from the CIA on. He was foaming at the mouth about how this should have been done years ago because of 9/11. The presenter pointed out that none of the attackers were from any of these countries and on the flipside - Saudis who made up the majority of attackers weren't barred entry.

The guy came back talking about how powerful the Saudi lobby is and basically boiled it down to - Saudi and Israel bribe the system to the point that they can do whatever the hell they want. Those countries that don't (such as these 7)? well tough.


If anything this whole thing is going to galvanise radical Islamic support. I think Obama went a long way to qualming the American imperialist sentiment a lot of countries (not just from the Arab world either) felt about American geo-politics and before the new paint has dried in the White House Trump has shot it to shreds.

I've no fear that Trump will make it to 2020 without doing something to get impeached but I just hope he doesn't fuck up too much shit before then.

Nope, the fair chance thing is bullshit.

He campaigned on a very specific platform and won. I want/wanted no part of it. If you voted for him thinking he wouldn't attempt to follow through on these ideas, you were a fucking tool...one of the many that got the most unfit candidate in history into the oval office. A man that has kept himself surrounded with many horrible people. And that's stated with a fair amount of objectivity as the horror of which I speak is not about casual differences of opinion and perspective that were the traditional wall between the parties, but a full fledged philosophy that goes against the very principles that founded this nation.

Yes, those principles were hypocritical when originally established by the white Christian men that owned slaves, subjugated women, and supported the removal (and/or slaughter) of the indigenous people of this continent...especially after the French Indian War. But as we have a constitution that allows correction and change, we have spent more than 200 years trying to right the ship with either broad moves or little by little (often well past when the changes should have been made).

Knowing what he wanted to do going and assuming that he'd try to follow-up on at least some of it, I was never prepared to give him a chance. What kind of idiot would think Trump was going to suddenly change and give a shit about anything other than keeping himself showered in the praise he earned from the far right during the campaign. What did anyone think the victory tour was about? And now we see that he's trying to make every awful campaign promise a reality...in his first 10 fucking days.

Yeah, give him a chance...what a fucking joke.

As to impeachment...remember Clinton was impeached, but remained in office and would have likely gotten re-elected if there weren't presidential term limits.
 
Unfortunately we have scores of people who are stupid and do participate. Not only that but these folk tend to be the most vociferous on social media too.

You're always going to have that. But a participation rate of 55% is unacceptable.
 
I think perhaps Bannon/Trump turned up the heat a bit too quickly?
1e9d43a.jpg
 
I used to think that, but these days I don't. I don't want anyone barred from voting or any kind of test, but if you can't take the time actually look at the issues each candidate is representing, don't vote or vote for Mayor McCheese and pay attention to the next one.

This goes back to an earlier rant I had in this thread (yeah, I know, which one?). Anyway, to me it's less about the voters, despite me being disgusted with the 62 million that voted for Trump regardless of reasoning/justification. I'd point to the process for inclusion to run for national office is too open. I'm not saying you have to have the right degree, but law and/or political science make clear sense. It's also not about being a career politician with decades of experience, just some experience in higher office.

Would it be so bad if we expected a presidential candidate to have served in an executing or legislative branch of a state or the federal government? Let's not leave the executive branch of a municipality and maybe even city council member depending upon the size of the city? How would that be bad that they have an intimate understanding of the political system? This is relatively low-level vetting, given the mayors, governors, and state/federal legislators that have held office in this country.

Trump still has no real clue about how to govern. Compromise and appeasement are not a part of his skill set...which has been true for the Republican party for the better part of the last 25 years.
 
whitehouse.gov finally updated the executive orders & memos for the ones most recently discussed over the weekend. Rice Prebus was out discussing the specifics but they were not available at the time for review:

The DNI and chair of JCS are excluded from regular Primary Comittee attendance:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...um-organization-national-security-council-and
The PC shall have as its regular attendees the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, the Assistant to the President and Chief Strategist, the National Security Advisor, and the Homeland Security Advisor. The Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall attend where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed. The Counsel to the President, the Deputy Counsel to the President for National Security Affairs, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget may attend all PC meetings.



The immigration ban:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

It's kinda ironic that this is the stated purpose:
Section 1. Purpose. The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.

(.....but we're not going to ban residents of the country that those attackers actually came from.)

I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).



Prebus mentioned that the order specifically excludes green card holders....which is sorta true since green card holders are not considered foreign nationals/aliens but lawful permanent residents of the United States. He went on to say that green card holders traveling from these banned nations were being detained or not permitted to travel to the U.S. due to agent's 'discretionary' leeway. Highly troubling though considering the number of instances where GC holders were detained or not permitted to travel to the U.S. How this has all shaken out in practice is looking more and more to be a religious exclusion in practice.
 
This goes back to an earlier rant I had in this thread (yeah, I know, which one?). Anyway, to me it's less about the voters, despite me being disgusted with the 62 million that voted for Trump regardless of reasoning/justification. I'd point to the process for inclusion to run for national office is too open. I'm not saying you have to have the right degree, but law and/or political science make clear sense. It's also not about being a career politician with decades of experience, just some experience in higher office.

Would it be so bad if we expected a presidential candidate to have served in an executing or legislative branch of a state or the federal government? Let's not leave the executive branch of a municipality and maybe even city council member depending upon the size of the city? How would that be bad that they have an intimate understanding of the political system? This is relatively low-level vetting, given the mayors, governors, and state/federal legislators that have held office in this country.

Trump still has no real clue about how to govern. Compromise and appeasement are not a part of his skill set...which has been true for the Republican party for the better part of the last 25 years.

i agree, being 35 or older, a natrual born citizen and have lived for at least 14 years in the country are NOT enough qualifications to be not just president, but the leader of the free world. there needs to be some other qualifications and there needs to be an upper age limit too.
 
Unrelated, but a medicine my doctor has wanted me on for years is now an option thanks to my insurance (through Ashlee). It's still $140/mo. Ridiculous.
 
Unrelated, but a medicine my doctor has wanted me on for years is now an option thanks to my insurance (through Ashlee). It's still $140/mo. Ridiculous.

If it's a biologic, PM me cause I know a few things you can do to lower that cost.
 
i agree, being 35 or older, a natrual born citizen and have lived for at least 14 years in the country are NOT enough qualifications to be not just president, but the leader of the free world. there needs to be some other qualifications and there needs to be an upper age limit too.

Same with the congress. Local or state government should be a stepping stone to national government and the president should arguably have more requirements to hold office regarding experience. And yes on the upper age limit...people generally get more conservative as they age.
The dick-head in chief being a good example...if it weren't all an act just to get attention. Again, winning was not his real intention.
 
This goes back to an earlier rant I had in this thread (yeah, I know, which one?). Anyway, to me it's less about the voters, despite me being disgusted with the 62 million that voted for Trump regardless of reasoning/justification. I'd point to the process for inclusion to run for national office is too open. I'm not saying you have to have the right degree, but law and/or political science make clear sense. It's also not about being a career politician with decades of experience, just some experience in higher office.

Would it be so bad if we expected a presidential candidate to have served in an executing or legislative branch of a state or the federal government? Let's not leave the executive branch of a municipality and maybe even city council member depending upon the size of the city? How would that be bad that they have an intimate understanding of the political system? This is relatively low-level vetting, given the mayors, governors, and state/federal legislators that have held office in this country.

Trump still has no real clue about how to govern. Compromise and appeasement are not a part of his skill set...which has been true for the Republican party for the better part of the last 25 years.

You know, if the people were informed, a person like Trump wouldn't have made it past the primaries. Think about it. For over 200 years, we've never had a candidate like him go all the way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top