Jump to content

Welcome to Nightly.Net
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

The Trump Administration 2017-


1202 replies to this topic

#1
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 16,978 posts

So how's it going? Everything you dreamed it would be? 

 

I honestly am in the same place I was before and so I haven't been impacted much beyond the HAHAs and living within something historical. We'll probably see Trump's twitter habit spiral more out for more laughs.

 

Currently I think Trump's being used by the GOP to further agenda's within the party and once he does something that they can't reign him in from impeachment proceedings will start.

 

So let's start the pool!

 

I'm giving him a year!



#2
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 16,978 posts

El Oh El. Senior State Department people resign.



#3
Marc DuQuesne

Marc DuQuesne

    Member

  • Members
  • 564 posts
After their resignation was requested. No surprise there.

#4
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 16,978 posts
That is what is so funny.

#5
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,390 posts

Resigned, fired, doesn't really matter.  Is there a swamp in Washington more in need of draining than Foggy Bottom?  Well, there is the Justice Department.

 

Technically, I think the real story is that they'd tendered their resignations ceremonially with the incoming administration per tradition only to have them accepted.



#6
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 16,978 posts

Yup. Every administration. But let's freak out! 



#7
Marc DuQuesne

Marc DuQuesne

    Member

  • Members
  • 564 posts

I'm very happy with Mattis, especially Trump stating that Mattis could overrule him on the torture issue. Not so much because of the torture issue but because I am hoping that will extend to all defense related matters. Mattis doesn't seem to have any problem disagreeing with the boss, that is what I am looking for.

 

Other than that... There are a few things that aren't completely and totally fusked. He may actually be able to negotiate some good trade deals in the wake of the TPP fizzle. I like the idea of bilateral trade agreements more than big trade blocks anyway.



#8
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 16,978 posts

DeVos seems to be more reviled than Sessions.



#9
Driver

Driver

    Tank

  • Supporters
  • 6,591 posts
So how about them there Muslim green card and visa denials. That's totally defendable and not scary at all, right?

#10
Odine

Odine

    Member

  • Supporters
  • 1,940 posts

Someone said to me.. "you know when the Berlin Wall came down it was a massive deal. I was only small, but I still remember what a massive deal it was.  That the overwhelming feeling was that of optimism and the world was moving forward for the better. This wall going up between the US and Mexico... feels exactly the opposite to that".



#11
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,390 posts

DeVos seems to be more reviled than Sessions.

 

Sessions is a generally competent guy who the Senators know and who they've worked and generally gotten along with.  He's been the attorney general for a state and was the Ranking Member of the committee charged with questioning him.  His confirmation hearings were smooth and, if anything, exposed the injustice he received 30 years ago when Democrats trumped up racism charges in his hearings to become a judge.  In the end, the main objection to him is ideological.  And Democrats know they aren't going to get Republicans to dump Sessions because he's too conservative or from warmed over charges of racism because he's from the Deep South.  They're only fighting as hard as they are to satisfy their base.

 

DeVos's qualifications rest on being a school choice advocate.  She's never actually worked in a school and her confirmation hearings were probably the poorest of the Trump's nominees (despite Democrats wasting a lot of time complaining about not getting enough time), seeming to misunderstand some basic questions.

 

DeVos and Carson are the two nominees that are the most difficult to justify on a basic competency level.  Oddly enough, despite being the least qualified nominee of all, Carson skated through committee unanimously with even Elizabeth Warren voting for him.

 

So how about them there Muslim green card and visa denials. That's totally defendable and not scary at all, right?

 

<shrug>

 

Limiting immigration from countries that have a significantly greater chance of sending terrorists into our population strikes me as an utterly defensible and rational immigration policy.  And I'm not sure what's scary about it.

 

My only big objection would be if the people who helped us in Iraq and Afghanistan and now need to flee from retaliation won't be able to get here.



#12
Marc DuQuesne

Marc DuQuesne

    Member

  • Members
  • 564 posts

So how about them there Muslim green card and visa denials. That's totally defendable and not scary at all, right?

That is one of the things I would consider completely fusked. Another reason I like Mattis, he had some strong words about it a few months back.

 

 

On Trump’s call for a ban on Muslim immigrants, Mattis — who rarely gives media interviews — was also sharply critical, saying that such talk prompts U.S. allies to think “we have lost faith in reason.”

Asked about the reaction in the Middle East to Trump’s suggestion, Mattis said, “They think we’ve completely lost it. This kind of thing is causing us great damage right now, and it’s sending shock waves through this international system.“

I heard a theory about Devos the other day that made sense. She is the lightning rod. Give the Dems her to chew on so the others can glide through.



#13
Ms. Spam

Ms. Spam

    MS.

  • Member
  • 16,978 posts

So how about them there Muslim green card and visa denials. That's totally defendable and not scary at all, right?

Interestingly, the countries on the banned list and the countries on the okay list coincide with Trump interests. The ones that drove planes into buildings came for Saudi Arabia. Clearly terrorists have proved that you don't need to illegally or legally enter the country to do damage either. Just radicalize already marginalized citizens born here! YouTube videos and chat groups make it easy! 

 

I also am opposed to the idea of a test for Christian knowledge before entry. In a country that is already overwhelmingly agnostic/atheistic I wonder what that test would be?

 

I hear that the fees now for domestic Trump US hotels have also increased.

 

It's like our country is being run by conspiracy theorists.  :eek:



#14
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,390 posts
Clearly terrorists have proved that you don't need to illegally or legally enter the country to do damage either. Just radicalize already marginalized citizens born here! YouTube videos and chat groups make it easy!

 

None of what you said, Spam, actually indicates that this is bad policy.  Only that it's not perfect policy.  We get a lot of this when it comes to immigration.  The whole wall is mocked because it won't be 100% effective.  The desire to keep border crossers out is mocked because many illegal immigrants overstay visas.

 

What you suggest is paralysis of potentially good productive policy because you can glibly point to secondary avenues that would need to be cleaned up using different policies.

 

If you see a weak point, close it off.  This, again, seems to be merely blindingly obvious as solid logical policy to protect American citizens and interests.  That it is considered in many quarters radical and scary I believe says more about your position than it does about mine.

 

In this specific case, it shows that you're not serious about a deadly threat.

 

 

 

I also am opposed to the idea of a test for Christian knowledge before entry.

 

That's a new one.



#15
pavonis

pavonis

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,897 posts
Well, just to place a prediction for the record. I expect Trump will make it the full term.

#16
Driver

Driver

    Tank

  • Supporters
  • 6,591 posts

It's just difficult to not feel like there's an agenda when there's obvious hypocrisy. On one hand we want to build a wall to keep people from coming in illegally. And yet people who are going the legal route with work visas and green cards are now also being denied. Conservatives can argue specifics and try to find justifications, but that doesn't deny the pretty obvious fact that policy is being generated in the shadow of xenophobia.

 

The odds of being killed by a Muslim extremist who came into the country legally aren't even a fraction of the odds of getting killed by a crazy white American dude with an assault rifle. And yet-- no movement on the 2nd amendment.

 

Add in the fact that the countries not under sanction happen to just be the ones where Trump has business interests just seems to highlight the hypocrisy even more.


Edited by Driver, 28 January 2017 - 11:27 AM.

  • Ms. Spam +1 this

#17
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,390 posts
It's just difficult to not feel like there's an agenda when there's obvious hypocrisy. On one hand we want to build a wall to keep people from coming in illegally. And yet people who are going the legal route with work visas and green cards are now also being denied.

 

That's not hypocrisy at all.  There is no right for any foreign national to come to the United States.  The demand for them to apply legally isn't there just to be a pain in the butt because paperwork and delays are fun, it's there to say who can and cannot come into the country.

 

I'm reminded of how many times I've seen the flowchart of how difficult it is to come to this country legally as evidence that illegal immigration is acceptable.  All I can really do is shake my head because I see the two as utterly separate issues.

 

 

 

Conservatives can argue specifics and try to find justifications, but that doesn't deny the pretty obvious fact that policy is being generated in the shadow of xenophobia.

 

Talk to Europe about how well mass immigration and taking in refugees from such countries is working out for them.  Immigration policy should not be simply left up to shouts of xenophobia and romantic notions of the Statue of Liberty.  It should be discussed as adults trying to figure out the best policy for the country.

 

For myself, not bringing in citizens of these countries hardly strikes me as unreasonable or unjustifiable.

 

 

 

Add in the fact that the countries not under sanction happen to just be the ones where Trump has business interests just seems to highlight the hypocrisy even more.

 

Look, I know it's fun to beat up Trump, but I also know you and everyone who has brought this up is intelligent enough to realize that the countries not on this list had a whole lot more to do with diplomatic reasons than personal enrichment for Trump.

 

We've got a long four years ahead of us with plenty of real scandals, and I don't feel like having to stick up for him on made-up ones.  If we're going to view treating the Saudis and such with kid gloves like every single other administration does as well as proof of anything, then I don't know what to tell you.  I sure as hell don't like it either, but that's been the status quo over there for many decades now and it's hardly proof of corruption that Trump hasn't upended that particular table in the past week and thrown things into even more chaos.

 

I'm already having flashbacks to Halliburton being the explanation for every single Bush Administration decision in the Middle East.  And, yes, Trump should have done more to separate himself from his company, but I'd hope everyone would at least try to distinguish what is business as usual going back decades from what might be a legit gripe.



#18
Driver

Driver

    Tank

  • Supporters
  • 6,591 posts

Remind me what it says on the Statue of Liberty. I forget.

 

And you're dodging the moral side of the argument, which is the conservative way, I get that. These acts are generalizations that spite innocent people on the off chance that one in countless thousands could be a threat. 


Edited by Driver, 28 January 2017 - 02:01 PM.

  • Ms. Spam +1 this

#19
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,390 posts

I question the wisdom of delegating national policy that will get people killed to romantic poems of the 19th century.

 

If sentimentality and some misplaced notion of "our values" is all that stands in favor of doing something stupid and destructive, then we should certainly set aside our misplaced virtue and do what is best for our citizens. 



#20
Driver

Driver

    Tank

  • Supporters
  • 6,591 posts

Right.

 

Unless we're talking about guns. In which case writings from centuries ago are iron clad.



#21
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,390 posts
Unless we're talking about guns. In which case writings from centuries ago are iron clad.

 

For the same reason that your freedom of speech is an iron clad rule.  We cannot pick and choose which parts of the Bill of Rights we like without the rights we cherish becoming open to negotiation.

 

Personally, I don't like the 2nd Amendment.  I'm no gun person.  But it exists, therefore I respect it.

 

Or do you not agree that the protections of the Constitution should continue to be a guiding principle of our legal system and laws?



#22
Jacen123

Jacen123

    Woggle-Bug

  • Member
  • 36,658 posts

Denying entry to those who already have a green card is absolutely absurd.  They have already gone through the extensive process of not just securing a visa, but obtaining permanent resident status.  Working in academia, I know a large number of people who have gone through this process and seen what a pain it is.

 

Even though I can't say that I would necessarily be a fan of this, if the administration wants to declare that they won't grant any new green cards to individuals from those countries, I could at least understand the basic logic behind that.

 

Given the fact that there are cases of individuals who have already been denied entry who originally hail from the banned countries who were abroad prior to this without a chance to return is absurd and, at the least, shows how poorly thought out the implementation of this policy was.


  • Ms. Spam +1 this

#23
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,390 posts
Denying entry to those who already have a green card is absolutely absurd.

 

Agreed on that point.  The president probably doesn't have the power to unilaterally end those en masse and shouldn't anyway.  I suspect it's a race to find out whether that will be amended by another executive order or struck down in courts.



#24
Driver

Driver

    Tank

  • Supporters
  • 6,591 posts

 

 

Or do you not agree that the protections of the Constitution should continue to be a guiding principle of our legal system and laws?

 

I was only pointing out that Conservatives seem to pick and chose what parts of our foundations as a county with a moral imperative to keep, and which to ignore.

 

Guns-- I don't want to take them away, but I think there should be strong regulation. As Jacen said and you agreed, punishing people whom have already been vetted is ridiculous. Both of these are part of the same problem-- the more precise we want to be about screening things, be it guns, immigrants, or health insurance, it will cost money.

 

One of the core arguments of any conservative is "well who's going to pay for it?" You yourself Poe said this in the health insurance thread, and even said, hey it sucks these kids of illegal immigrants born here may die, but it's not a fixable problem, so let's not try. (paraphrasing of course).

 

When you don't want to spend the money to be precise, you get actions like the one being taken now-- a general, broad sweeping edict that essentially is cutting of your nose to spite your face.

 

Granted I am an admitted Star Trek utopist, but it seems more and more to me that when Conservatives say "who's going to pay for it?" what they really mean is "I don't want to pay for it."

 

And here's where Carrie can come in and shred me-- but I think as a people we should be morally better and want to help each other despite the bottom line. I'm fine with paying more taxes if it means more people can have a healthier, safe life. 



#25
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,390 posts
I was only pointing out that Conservatives seem to pick and chose what parts of our foundations as a county with a moral imperative to keep, and which to ignore.

 

Well, sure, we make a distinction between art and the supreme law of the land.  Is that really a valid criticism?

 

 

 

You yourself Poe said this in the health insurance thread, and even said, hey it sucks these kids of illegal immigrants born here may die, but it's not a fixable problem, so let's not try. (paraphrasing of course).

 

You sure you have that one right?  I don't even recall posting on a healthcare thread, much less declaring that illegal children can die in our streets.

 

The only thread I recall about illegal children was this one where I said they shouldn't be exempt from deportation, which I know bothered you, but was hardly so Scrooge-esque.





Reply to this topic