American Politics

[kkck]

Oh, so trump is actually trying to go ahead with the whole thing of import tariffs for mexico to build the wall. And he isn't even building the wall, he is building a fence. It's a shame that the "jobs" president is about to kill so many jobs.... Heck, for one even fox news correctly thinks this is retarded. And of course, the real tragedy here would of course not be what happens to the US economy but what would happen to mexicos. Immigration from mexico across the wall has been decreasing on account of mexico doing better economically thus there being less incentive for them to cross. Anyone cares to take a guess as to what will happen if import tariffs make mexico's economy tank? So this is basically what is going on:

1.- Trump wants to build the wall and pays for it with tariffs from mexico.
2.- Such a thing will cost US jobs and immensely hurt mexico's economy.
3.- Mexico's newfound increased poverty creates incentives for the people to want to go to the US. However affected the economy at the US it will still be better than mexico after all.

How astoundingly stupid is this? I can't help but wonder if this isn't something like a distraction from some other legislation he is trying to pass....

 

[M3J]

Ordinarily I agree with the libertarians who draw equivalency between the two parties. However, many of the things on this list show that this is something new: While I disagree with most of these financing cuts, funds can be cut and reinstated depending on an administration.

What I find alarming is the confiscation of cell phones and the searching of them without warrants. The attempted silencing/discrediting of opposition media, and the gagging of government offices.

This is not fear-mongering conspiracy theory about possible repercussions. These are clear and present dangers to our bill of rights.

These are the FACTS - For all you "wait and see, give him a chance folks."

We are 6 days in.

* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the DOJ’s Violence Against Women programs.

* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.

* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities.

* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Minority Business Development Agency.

* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Economic Development Administration.

* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the International Trade Administration.

* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership.

* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Legal Services Corporation.

* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.

* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Environmental and Natural Resources Division of the DOJ.

* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.

* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Office of Electricity Deliverability and Energy Reliability.

* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

* On January 19th, 2017, DT said that he would cut funding for the Office of Fossil Energy.

* On January 20th, 2017, DT ordered all regulatory powers of all federal agencies frozen.

* On January 20th, 2017, DT ordered the National Parks Service to stop using social media after RTing factual, side by side photos of the crowds for the 2009 and 2017 inaugurations.

* On January 20th, 2017, roughly 230 protestors were arrested in DC and face unprecedented felony riot charges. Among them were legal observers, journalists, and medics.

* On January 20th, 2017, a member of the International Workers of the World was shot in the stomach at an anti-fascist protest in Seattle. He remains in critical condition.

* On January 21st, 2017, DT brought a group of 40 cheerleaders to a meeting with the CIA to cheer for him during a speech that consisted almost entirely of framing himself as the victim of dishonest press.

* On January 21st, 2017, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer held a press conference largely to attack the press for accurately reporting the size of attendance at the inaugural festivities, saying that the inauguration had the largest audience of any in history, “period.”

* On January 22nd, 2017, White House advisor Kellyann Conway defended Spicer’s lies as “alternative facts” on national television news.

* On January 22nd, 2017, DT appeared to blow a kiss to director James Comey during a meeting with the FBI, and then opened his arms in a gesture of strange, paternal affection, before hugging him with a pat on the back.

* On January 23rd, 2017, DT reinstated the global gag order, which defunds international organizations that even mention abortion as a medical option.

* On January 23rd, 2017, Spicer said that the US will not tolerate China’s expansion onto islands in the South China Sea, essentially threatening war with China.

* On January 23rd, 2017, DT repeated the lie that 3-5 million people voted “illegally” thus costing him the popular vote.

* On January 23rd, 2017, it was announced that the man who shot the anti-fascist protester in Seattle was released without charges, despite turning himself in.

* On January 24th, 2017, Spicer reiterated the lie that 3-5 million people voted “illegally” thus costing DT the popular vote.

* On January 24th, 2017, DT tweeted a picture from his personal Twitter account of a photo he says depicts the crowd at his inauguration and will hang in the White House press room. The photo is of the 2009 inauguration of 44th President Barack Obama, and is curiously dated January 21st, 2017, the day AFTER the inauguration and the day of the Women’s March, the largest inauguration related protest in history.

* On January 24th, 2017, the EPA was ordered to stop communicating with the public through social media or the press and to freeze all grants and contracts.

* On January 24th, 2017, the USDA was ordered to stop communicating with the public through social media or the press and to stop publishing any papers or research. All communication with the press would also have to be authorized and vetted by the White House.

* On January 24th, 2017, HR7, a bill that would prohibit federal funding not only to abortion service providers, but to any insurance coverage, including Medicaid, that provides abortion coverage, went to the floor of the House for a vote.

* On January 24th, 2017, DT ordered the resumption of construction on the Dakota Access Pipeline, while the North Dakota state congress considers a bill that would legalize hitting and killing protestors with cars if they are on roadways.

* On January 24th, 2017, it was discovered that police officers had used confiscated cell phones to search the emails and messages of the 230 demonstrators now facing felony riot charges for protesting on January 20th, including lawyers and journalists whose email accounts contain privileged information of clients and sources.

To everyone who said to wait and see and give him a chance... Are we done yet? This is what wait and see has gotten us in less than a week. And we've still got 3 years, 359 days to go.

*I copied & pasted this myself. Please do the same.

CHANCES AFTER CHANCES, FUCK HIM AND ANYONE WHO SAYS TO KEEP GIVING HIM CHANCES


I like how people believe Assange saying Russia had nothing to do with the emails or Wikileaks. If it was Hillary whom they helped instead of Trump, everyone would be crying about Russia. Hypocrites. Only reason why they believe Assange is because they got what they wanted.

 

[Philia]

Mexican president cancels visit and says Mexico won't pay for the wall.

 

[POW]

Mexican president cancels visit and says Mexico won't pay for the wall.

That's not shocking his popularity polls are in the teens around 12% he can't afford to look weak he's barely maintaining his credibility. .

 

[Philia]

That's not shocking his popularity polls are in the teens around 12% he can't afford to look weak he's barely maintaining his credibility. .

Any president would've done this.


If he builds the wall with tariffs put on Mexican goods, who pays for it? American consumers?

And the wall won't stop illegal border crossing from Mexico unless it is built underground as well.


The wall will be something the future generation will tear down and promise never again...

 

[POW]

Any president would've done this.

..

Yeah but Pena Nieto’s polls are as bad as they get he's literally fighting for his right to exist.

The full wall will probably never be built and instead just tighter security more agents and drones. Trump has a tendency to exaggerate a carry over from his history as a self promoting businessman who's spent his life building up his image & brand.

 

[kkck]

Yeah, the full wall simply isn't going to be a thing. Even trump has backed down from that and instead pushed for more localized walls or fences and additional controls. Though I would argue even the additional border controls are bullshit. Under obama the amount of patrol officers at the border was at an all time high... Not to mention that obama has deported more people than any other president. But since he is a democrat now one points this out.... The biggest risk the US faces right now is the trade tariff that he wants to impose over mexico. It will hurt the US and Mexico's economy and apparently the money will be used on useless fences. On the upside, the border will be made out kms of monuments to abject stupidity....

 

[TotalEconomist]

Any president would've done this.


If he builds the wall with tariffs put on Mexican goods, who pays for it? American consumers?

And the wall won't stop illegal border crossing from Mexico unless it is built underground as well.


The wall will be something the future generation will tear down and promise never again...

The Wall won't stop illegals because they can always go around it

 

[xi0]

Not to mention that obama has deported more people than any other president.

His policy probably helped stemmed the tide in the amount of illegals coming and staying in the country by year (we don't have more recent numbers, and one can only imagine what the "unofficial" numbers could look like), but you can't really acknowledge you have an issue in illegal immigration and then have mayors in over 300 cities in the country having "sanctuary" policies, where police can't even ask a person about their immigration status unless they're detained and suspected of a felony. It's completely counter-productive to actually addressing the problem IMO. And that's not really even considering the moral dilemma of it as a humanitarian issue, it just doesn't make sense in any case.

But with that being said, I think anyone who reads this thread knows my position on the wall...

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

Looks like the Calexit momentum is picking up. If California secedes from the country, then I fear that some other states might follow.
This isn't looking good...

 

[xi0]

Looks like the Calexit momentum is picking up. If California secedes from the country, then I fear that some other states might follow.
This isn't looking good...

It's complete nonsense. The entire movement was started by a REPUBLICAN. If California seceded from the Union, the electorate would lose even more traditionally Blue votes and Trump would have won the popular vote. Anyone in favor of such a thing but against Trump is either a full-bore libertarian, or an ignoramus (some say these aren't necessarily mutually exclusive either ).

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

It's complete nonsense. The entire movement was started by a REPUBLICAN. If California seceded from the Union, the electorate would lose even more traditionally Blue votes and Trump would have won the popular vote. Anyone in favor of such a thing but against Trump is either a full-bore libertarian, or an ignoramus (some say these aren't necessarily mutually exclusive either ).

Honestly, this is something I don't wish to happen. California exiting would be a big clusterfuck of a mess and leaves the Democratic Party at a huge disadvantage if they secede from the United States.
But the problem that I'm seeing about this is that I can definitely see the possibility of California leaving, especially in a complete Republican Takeover of the House, Senate, and White House. Unless we have some sane and non-corrupted politicians, they're most likely going to say "Bye Felicia".

Granted, there's still plenty of time that California could change their minds by 2018 Mid-Election.

 

[xi0]

But the problem that I'm seeing about this is that I can definitely see the possibility of California leaving, especially in a complete Republican Takeover of the House, Senate, and White House. Unless we have some sane and non-corrupted politicians, they're most likely going to say "Bye Felicia".

A state is never going to secede from the Union again while the government and military still stand. Mind you, the Civil War happened because a coalition of states did it within the same period of time. Hell, Alaska has been talking about this for years, and nothing has come of it. Same with Texas.

Post-election hysteria seems to be justified when it comes to real, tangible things going down, but leaving the union is not how any perceived wrongs get righted. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. California's economy is huge and dwarfs most countries, yes, but how would the rest of the Union abide their secession? And plus, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution would be directly violated by a state government doing such a thing by it's citizens. Such a decision wouldn't ever be ratified on a federal level and could not be legally challenged in any legit way, and therefore there would be no alternative but war. As huge as California is, take it away and the full military might of the country would still crush and cripple it almost instantly IMO.

And that hypothetical situation is a worst-case scenario mind you, however, what is gained by Californians wanting such a thing? Are they willing to die over it? Because the military personnel there are sworn to protect the US, so how many would be willing to cooperate in open rebellion? It's just nonsense to me.

 

[Philia]

I read somewhere, Russian forces are backing Talibans in Afghanistan. Lol...it seems American forces will be forced out of Afghanistan. America need to have influence in Afghanistan so that they can be an active player in central-south Asian politics. Afghanistan is a country which shares borders with Pakistan, China, India, Iran and some of the ex-Soviet states(not Russia I think) I doubt they will find another place as good as Afghanistan to influence Central-South Asian politics. If they have to pull out without having their backed govt firmly in power, they will have wasted unthinkable amount of money, life and resources for absolutely nothing.

And they way Trump is acting he'll force Mexico to be under Chinese influence. Venezuela, Cuba, Mexico it's time China extends their influence to the Americas.

The world is becoming multipolar again. We live in an interesting time....

 

[M3J]

Fuck the refugee ban. I read that the countries where most terrorists came from are okay though, because Trump has his businesses there as well. Dunno if this is true though. If it is, this just makes the whole thing worse.

Fuck Trump and his dumbass supporters, and the shitheads who support this shit.

 

[SharkBait]

Now our nation will be safe, so glad to see that the process of halting people from terroristic countries is in full swing.

Additionally our military will continue to be made stronger, more ships, more forces, and more security.

Trump signs executive actions on "extreme vetting," rebuilding military
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-military-extreme-vetting-executive-actions/

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

I don't get it.
Trump wants to invest in a strong Military, but wants to make America isolated from the world where they don't want to be involved in anything. What's the point in investing a Military if it's just going to be a waste of money.

Nonetheless, I'm glad that this whole Ban doesn't affect me or my family (or, maybe for now), since I'm from none of the 7 countries that Trump mentioned (Refugee or not, Greencard or not, everyone's going to be affected by this disastrous ban). What I'm scared, on the other hand, is if he'll add anymore into the list (but thanks to a fairly good history that the U.S. has with Morocco, I have good hope that we won't be affected).
But what I'm actually surprised is that Saudi Arabia isn't on the list.

 

[SharkBait]

Nonetheless, I'm glad that this whole Ban doesn't affect me or my family (or, maybe for now), since I'm from none of the 7 countries that Trump mentioned (Refugee or not, Greencard or not, everyone's going to be affected by this disastrous ban).

America will be safer, of course everyone is going to be affected positively.

 

[xi0]

But what I'm actually surprised is that Saudi Arabia isn't on the list.

Is it really that surprising?

The only thing that gives me pause is that the "ban" appears to be on a temporary basis only. Now, he could extend them at some point, but with the lack of transparency, it's hard to know. It might just be a publicity stunt.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

America will be safer, of course everyone is going to be affected positively.

How exactly will it make America "safer"? It would make no damn difference if Trump bans people or not, because we'd still be unsafe by other forces. Look at last year for example: If this policy was enforced back then, do you think it would've stopped people like Omar Mateen from killing people in Orlando? No, because this policy would only cause more harm than good (the killing would've still happened AND you're preventing people from entering the country).

And besides, America will never be safe as long as we have the "Right to bear Arms" like we're in a Warzone.

Is it really that surprising?

The only thing that gives me pause is that the "ban" appears to be on a temporary basis only. Now, he could extend them at some point, but with the lack of transparency, it's hard to know. It might just be a publicity stunt.

Well, considering how Saudi Arabia has decent history of Wahabism, it would make a ton of sense to include them on the list. But I guess it's either because he has business in Saudi Arabia (or potential influence by Saudi, given that Trump was bailed out twice by a Saudi), or he doesn't want to damage even further relationship with them (which is extremely doubtful), or they're a good partner for Oil.

Hopefully, this ban doesn't last longer than 3 months (6 at the most). Still don't know what could happen in the coming months, which can put us at an edge (but like I said: as long as the list remains unchanged, I think we're fine).