What is your present favorability rating of Donald Trump's executive actions?
Absolutely Favor
6.2% (8)
6.2% (8)
Mostly Favor
9.2% (12)
9.2% (12)
Barely Favor
1.5% (2)
1.5% (2)
Neutral
3.1% (4)
3.1% (4)
Barely Disfavor
0.8% (1)
0.8% (1)
Mostly Disfavor
20% (26)
20% (26)
Absolutely Disfavor
58.5% (76)
58.5% (76)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Donald Trump Executive Actions General

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

SeventhSigil:
So, since the wall's being talked about here, and I don't have the patience to make an entire thread about this, it would appear that the planned meeting between the Mexican and American Presidents has been called off for an undetermined length of time. Long story short, Mexico's been continuing to rain on Trump's parade by loudly saying "Guys, we are not paying for your stupid border wall!" This in and of itself isn't new, as Mexico has been consistently saying it since Trump's campaign, making it clear they weren't nearly as 'happy' about the prospect as he might have suggested in at least one rally.

What is NEW was the revelation that Congress would be moving ahead in pursing the wall's construction, and what happened in the wake of that. The estimated costs range from twelve to fifteen billion dollars, with the strategy here apparently being 'Build It Now, Make Mexico Pay Later.' Obviously Trump was quick to reiterate that Mexico would, in fact, be paying for the wall even if indirectly, with the same conviction John Cleese demonstrated in The Holy Grail when he tried to convince the corpse collector that his elderly father was, in fact, dead. ("I'm feeling better!" "No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment!")

This led to Mexico's President lamenting the decision on (sigh) Twitter, as well as making it clear via televised address he wouldn't budge on the issue, the same stance he has expressed approximately one bazillion times. This drew some very clear lines in the sand, both with regards to Mexico paying for the Wall or having remittances taxed or otherwise confiscated to fund the wall's construction. This meant the question of the border wall would have likely been a central pillar of the scheduled meeting between both leaders at the end of this month, where they would renegotiate trade between Mexico and the United States.

However, Trump also took to Twitter (siiiiigh) and stated that if Mexico did not intend to pay for the wall, it would be best to just cancel the trade meeting altogether. This wasn't directly aimed at the Mexican President's own Twitter account, mind you, and was rather one of Trump's typical 'Tweeting Opinions ABOUT Someone Rather Than Tweeting To Them' things.

It would appear that the message was clear enough, however, as Mexico (who just to reiterate is unwilling to pay for the border wall) has taken him up on that ultimatum, cancelling their meeting.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer has stated they are looking to reschedule the meeting, while keeping the lines of communication open.

So. As a further update to the Mexico situation, this shit is now apparently a thing;

http://time.com/4657474/donald-trump-enrique-pena-nieto-mexico-bad-hombres/

There's also stuff relating to Iran, but I'm still untangling that web before I say anything.

You know, I honestly didn't have "Threaten war with Mexico" on my #45 bingo card.

altnameJag:
You know, I honestly didn't have "Threaten war with Mexico" on my #45 bingo card.

Don't feel bad, it's like finding out the national park service stood up to trump before congressional democrats. Completely out of left field. Are we going to start a pool on who he invades first?

The Nation:Leaked Draft Of Trump's Religious Freedom Order Reveals Sweeping Plans to Legalize Discrimination

"A leaked copy of a draft executive order titled "Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom," obtained by The Investigative Fund and The Nation, reveals sweeping plans by the Trump administration to legalize discrimination.

This article was reported in partnership with the Investigative Fund at the Nation Institute.

The four-page draft order, a copy of which is currently circulating among federal staff and advocacy organizations, construes religious organizations so broadly that it covers "any organization, including closely held for-profit corporations," and protects "religious freedom" in every walk of life: 'when providing social services, education, or healthcare; earning a living, seeking a job, or employing others; receiving government grants or contracts; or otherwise participating in the marketplace, the public square, or interfacing with Federal, State or local governments."

A Muslim walks into an interview; he is promptly turned away for being a Muslim.

A Jew applies for healthcare; healthcare company responds "fuck Jews" and refuses.

A Christian applies for a highly regarded private school; is turned down because Hindus only.

An Atheist runs for president; is rejected because he is an atheist.

A Buddhist applies for a government grant; is replied to with "Buddhists do not represent American values" and is denied.

You should all be doing everything you can at this point to get this man removed from power. This is absolute fascism and promotes a theocratic government gaining power where the popular religion of the land is what you believe if you want anything! Republicans, Democrats, anyone who cares about freedom or your fellow people's well-being, this is where you take a stand or you run like cowards and embrace a new era of evil.

Epyc Wynn:
The Nation:Leaked Draft Of Trump?s Religious Freedom Order Reveals Sweeping Plans to Legalize Discrimination

I'm furious, afraid, saddened, and completely emotionally overwhelmed.
The sensible part of me says that there's a good chance this will be shot down, and the paranoid part of me is saying "We said the same thing about Trump winning. What if it doesn't???" and at this point I just want to angry-cry.

Epyc Wynn:
The Nation:Leaked Draft Of Trump?s Religious Freedom Order Reveals Sweeping Plans to Legalize Discrimination

"A leaked copy of a draft executive order titled "Establishing a Government-Wide Initiative to Respect Religious Freedom," obtained by The Investigative Fund and The Nation, reveals sweeping plans by the Trump administration to legalize discrimination.

This article was reported in partnership with the Investigative Fund at the Nation Institute.

The four-page draft order, a copy of which is currently circulating among federal staff and advocacy organizations, construes religious organizations so broadly that it covers "any organization, including closely held for-profit corporations," and protects "religious freedom" in every walk of life: 'when providing social services, education, or healthcare; earning a living, seeking a job, or employing others; receiving government grants or contracts; or otherwise participating in the marketplace, the public square, or interfacing with Federal, State or local governments."

A Muslim walks into an interview; he is promptly turned away for being a Muslim.

A Jew applies for healthcare; healthcare company responds "fuck Jews" and refuses.

A Christian applies for a highly regarded private school; is turned down because Hindus only.

An Atheist runs for president; is rejected because he is an atheist.

A Buddhist applies for a government grant; is replied to with "Buddhists do not represent American values" and is denied.

You should all be doing everything you can at this point to get this man removed from power. This is absolute fascism and promotes a theocratic government gaining power where the popular religion of the land is what you believe if you want anything! Republicans, Democrats, anyone who cares about freedom or your fellow people's well-being, this is where you take a stand or you run like cowards and embrace a new era of evil.

I have been pointing this out since Pence was named VP. This is the Pence Act, it is what Pence has been pushing since he was just a senator for his state...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act_(Indiana)

Epyc Wynn:
Why is the Republican establishment failing to speak out against this? Are they afraid to stand against someone they supported in electing? Or maybe they just agree deep down but are afraid to admit it.

Remember that during the Primaries the other candidates almost never spoke against Trump but mostly against each other? Even then it was clear that Trump had a base specifically loyal to himself. They expected Trump to crash and burn and hoped to gain his base afterwards. But the one who attacked Trump would have no chance of getting his base. So none of them did, not until the very end.

The situation hasn't really changed; there's still a solid block of dedicated Trumpists. If the GOP dumps Trump, they alienate that block. They can't afford to alienate that block because they need it's votes in future elections. So they have to wait for the block to lose interest in Trump, at which point they can then dump him without consequence.

Removes white supremacists from counter-terrorism program.

The Trump administration wants to revamp and rename a U.S. government program designed to counter all violent ideologies so that it focuses solely on Islamist extremism, five people briefed on the matter told Reuters.

The program, "Countering Violent Extremism," or CVE, would be changed to "Countering Islamic Extremism" or "Countering Radical Islamic Extremism," the sources said, and would no longer target groups such as white supremacists who have also carried out bombings and shootings in the United States.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-extremists-program-exclusiv-idUSKBN15G5VO?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=5892aff004d3012ade6d4b39&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

So who here actually backs Donald Trump in wanting to legalize discrimination? Does the right wing even support this pure evil?

So when, exactly, are his supporters going to wise up to the fact that #45 is all of the things he's been accused of? What stupid ass campaign promise that we were told "he doesn't actually mean that" is even left?

Epyc Wynn:
So who here actually backs Donald Trump in wanting to legalize discrimination? Does the right wing even support this pure evil?

Apparently, it's all right by Congress as long as it's a Republican doing it. They don't seem to have a problem with supporting him still.

While this isn't an executive order (yet), at the National Prayer Breakfast Trump stated that he's going to try and "destroy" the Johnson Amendment.
The very same amendment that bars churches from engaging in political activities.
We'll have to see just what exactly he does, but this will be disastrous if it actually passes.

This might be kind of minor in the grand scheme of things, but Trump has signed an order intended to delay the implementation, and potentially eventually roll back, Obama's retirement savings rule. The rule in question, which has come under fire from Wall Street, was intended to protect consumers from conflicted advice given by financial advisors. This move isn't surprising, given the Republicans and many financial industry executives have come down pretty hard against this rule, citing consumer choice. Sean Spicer, White House spokesman and nemesis to Dippin Dots, has described the rule as "A solution in search of a problem."

A more specific explanation might be from White House National Economic Council Director and former Goldman Sachs COO Gary Cohn, who is on record as saying;

"I don't think you protect investors by limiting choices. We think it is a bad rule. It is a bad rule for consumers. This is like putting only healthy food on the menu, because unhealthy food tastes good but you still shouldn't eat it because you might die younger."

So yeah. That's happening.

EDIT: He's also apparently going to be targeting the Dodd-Frank Act, (which was implemented during 2008's recession,) deregulating the financial industry in the process. This is potentially MUCH bigger.

Epyc Wynn:
The Seattle Times: Federal judge in Seattle halts Trump?s immigration order in its entirety

Followed by:

Public Pool: WH is ordering the DOJ to file an emergency stay to keep the ban in place

...did the White House seriously release a press statement, only to rapidly re-release an updated version whose SOLE change was to backpedal on the part where they called the court ruling 'outrageous'?

That is amazing. It means that there was JUST enough awareness on how loaded the word was going to be when referring to a lawful judgement for them to immediately seek higher ground, but not enough to keep it from getting out there the first time. Who the Hell is in charge of these statements, anyw-

Oh, Press Secretary Sean Spicer. That explains it.

Nothing particularly surprising otherwise, though, the ban had some pretty significant holes in it by all accounts, was sloppily put together, and basically avoided a lot of the vetting that might have actually let it get through the courts. But it's going to be a cold day in Hell before Trump's administration admits any of this, so they'll likely fight this thing to the death, or until they get their way. I'm mostly concerned of what happens should this reach the Supreme Court (would it?) considering the Republicans are already in the process of sticking someone there.

SeventhSigil:

Epyc Wynn:
The Seattle Times: Federal judge in Seattle halts Trump?s immigration order in its entirety

Followed by:

Public Pool: WH is ordering the DOJ to file an emergency stay to keep the ban in place

...did the White House seriously release a press statement, only to rapidly re-release an updated version whose SOLE change was to backpedal on the part where they called the court ruling 'outrageous'?

That is amazing. It means that there was JUST enough awareness on how loaded the word was going to be when referring to a lawful judgement for them to immediately seek higher ground, but not enough to keep it from getting out there the first time. Who the Hell is in charge of these statements, anyw-

Oh, Press Secretary Sean Spicer. That explains it.

Nothing particularly surprising otherwise, though, the ban had some pretty significant holes in it by all accounts, was sloppily put together, and basically avoided a lot of the vetting that might have actually let it get through the courts. But it's going to be a cold day in Hell before Trump's administration admits any of this, so they'll likely fight this thing to the death, or until they get their way. I'm mostly concerned of what happens should this reach the Supreme Court (would it?) considering the Republicans are already in the process of sticking someone there.

Honestly, I think if any of this stuff gets to the Supreme Court and it rules in favor of Trump, I think -that- will be the breaking point.

Saelune:

SeventhSigil:

Epyc Wynn:
The Seattle Times: Federal judge in Seattle halts Trump?s immigration order in its entirety

Followed by:

Public Pool: WH is ordering the DOJ to file an emergency stay to keep the ban in place

...did the White House seriously release a press statement, only to rapidly re-release an updated version whose SOLE change was to backpedal on the part where they called the court ruling 'outrageous'?

That is amazing. It means that there was JUST enough awareness on how loaded the word was going to be when referring to a lawful judgement for them to immediately seek higher ground, but not enough to keep it from getting out there the first time. Who the Hell is in charge of these statements, anyw-

Oh, Press Secretary Sean Spicer. That explains it.

Nothing particularly surprising otherwise, though, the ban had some pretty significant holes in it by all accounts, was sloppily put together, and basically avoided a lot of the vetting that might have actually let it get through the courts. But it's going to be a cold day in Hell before Trump's administration admits any of this, so they'll likely fight this thing to the death, or until they get their way. I'm mostly concerned of what happens should this reach the Supreme Court (would it?) considering the Republicans are already in the process of sticking someone there.

Honestly, I think if any of this stuff gets to the Supreme Court and it rules in favor of Trump, I think -that- will be the breaking point.

In essence. Actually, just prior to this, the Trump Administration scored a minor win in Boston when a judge ruled against extending the stay on deportations that had been put in place soon after the executive order was released. So they actually managed to regain a little bit of ground, until this new ruling came along and knocked them right back to Start. It probably explains Spicer's hasty post-release correction, they probably thought they had this in the bag and ended up getting triggered by the newest development. =P

-----

Also, just in case someone tries to claim that this is another Democrat-appointed meddler, the judge who made this newest ruling was actually appointed by George W. Bush's administration. So if the Trump administration tries to claim this decision was 'politically motivated,' do keep that in mind.

Politico's got a more detailed write-up on both this ruling and the Boston ruling;

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-travel-ban-legal-win-234634

So, Trump has taken to Twitter to express his disapproval of his travel ban being blocked; it's three tweets, so I'll just transcribe them all here since they were meant to be taken as a whole message.

"When a country is no longer able to say who can, and who cannot, come in & out, especially for reasons of safety & security - big trouble! Interesting that certain Middle-Eastern countries agree with the ban. They know if certain people are allowed in it's death & destruction! The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!"

Okie dokie, so, to rattle off my feedback on this entire statement.

-Beginning of it is meant to insinuate no form of individual vetting takes place, that literally ANYONE can march across the border. Actually, not even insinuate, Trump flat-out says the country has no say over who can/cannot leave or enter. Obviously untrue.
-'Certain Middle-Eastern' countries does have me curious as to which ones; Saudi Arabia, obviously, would support it since they're in full support of Trump's administration, AND would support the sort of additional sanctions and restrictions the U.S. are now applying to Iran. Does anyone else know which other countries he'd be referring to?
-'So-Called Judge' is about as loaded a statement as Spicer's initial use of 'Outrageous' to describe the ruling, and even the use of 'opinion' could be intended to undermine the legitimacy of the judge's court decision. Let alone 'ridiculous.' Whoever helped edit the Press Secretary's press release, maybe Trump left him in D.C. when he went to his resort.

----

This wasn't the full extent of Trump's Twitter activity today, as he took time from his busy schedule to fire a shot at the New York Times. "After being forced to apologize for its bad and inaccurate coverage of me after winning the election, the FAKE NEWS @nytimes is still lost!" This obviously means the New York Times must have written something about him that drew his ire, something above-and-beyond the travel ban stories every outlet on the planet is writing. So I took a gander, and found this recently published article;

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/us/politics/donald-trump-business.html?_r=0

----

Finally, shortly after, he released one more tweet that was just 'MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN,' all Caps, all in big letters.

So much for getting the weekend off. xP

Reuters: State Dept reverses visa ban, allows travelers with visas into U.S. - official

Hopefully this is permanent because if Trump's administration manages to wave their magic wand of influence and undo this I would personally join protests in the streets; if it weren't for the fact I live in an area where people are not protesting. Maybe I should start one.

I mostly try to avoid this section of the website because I have to hear about all horrible things going on in the world no matter what, that in my down time I would mostly prefer to be rid of it. Then I heard about the order Trump is trying to put through about allowing any business to discriminate based off of religious reasons, which is such a nebulous idea that I cannot fathom it actually going through, and sticking before judges actually start to put a halt to it. So just to let you know Epyc Wynn, with that thread you made in the Wild West, you managed to wrangle in at least one additional person with that thread before it got buried alive in shitposting.

I'm going to admit my fault in this, I voted third party, I would prefer to vote for someone that is closer to how I actually politically feel, rather than just for someone because they just aren't the opposition. I also believed that Trump wouldn't be so awful, and if he would, that the checks and balances that hold up almost everything in our political side would prevent him from getting too crazy. I still do hold this idea, as the ban itself has already been overturned by that judge in Washington, and I imagine most of his other crazy orders will end up with the same fate, but I think there will still be some bad damage that would have been possible to have been avoided with someone else in the White House. Even if that other person didn't end up actually doing anything whilst in the White House, I'm suddenly now actually thinking "Yeah, it would have been better than Trump," even if I don't think it would have been an overall positive choice.

I still don't agree with a lot of the opposition, with some of the tactics and overall attitude that the anti-trump side seems to have, with some people being so aggressive with their ideas that they come across as racist or sexist in their own manner. I feel this needs to be said, as it's up to the people in a group to call out the bullshit in that group, lest we risk alienating people in the center and driving them towards the opposition, as I feel a fair amount of extreme left-wing people do. But I think taking that middle ground I was so fond of before isn't going to be possible much longer, so it's time for me to step up and say that I'm not okay with this, join the ranks, and try to find the best way that I can work towards making things at least somewhat right.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, I'm sorry that I wasn't actively helping before. I realize that it was a mistake to try and just tune everything out. I want to make a difference and see what I can do about making things better, in the best way I can. I'm not entirely sure how. What is everyone else trying to do right now to try and block all of Trumps stupid ideas? What can I do to help?

klaynexas3:
I mostly try to avoid this section of the website because I have to hear about all horrible things going on in the world no matter what, that in my down time I would mostly prefer to be rid of it. Then I heard about the order Trump is trying to put through about allowing any business to discriminate based off of religious reasons, which is such a nebulous idea that I cannot fathom it actually going through, and sticking before judges actually start to put a halt to it. So just to let you know Epyc Wynn, with that thread you made in the Wild West, you managed to wrangle in at least one additional person with that thread before it got buried alive in shitposting.

I'm going to admit my fault in this, I voted third party, I would prefer to vote for someone that is closer to how I actually politically feel, rather than just for someone because they just aren't the opposition. I also believed that Trump wouldn't be so awful, and if he would, that the checks and balances that hold up almost everything in our political side would prevent him from getting too crazy. I still do hold this idea, as the ban itself has already been overturned by that judge in Washington, and I imagine most of his other crazy orders will end up with the same fate, but I think there will still be some bad damage that would have been possible to have been avoided with someone else in the White House. Even if that other person didn't end up actually doing anything whilst in the White House, I'm suddenly now actually thinking "Yeah, it would have been better than Trump," even if I don't think it would have been an overall positive choice.

I still don't agree with a lot of the opposition, with some of the tactics and overall attitude that the anti-trump side seems to have, with some people being so aggressive with their ideas that they come across as racist or sexist in their own manner. I feel this needs to be said, as it's up to the people in a group to call out the bullshit in that group, lest we risk alienating people in the center and driving them towards the opposition, as I feel a fair amount of extreme left-wing people do. But I think taking that middle ground I was so fond of before isn't going to be possible much longer, so it's time for me to step up and say that I'm not okay with this, join the ranks, and try to find the best way that I can work towards making things at least somewhat right.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, I'm sorry that I wasn't actively helping before. I realize that it was a mistake to try and just tune everything out. I want to make a difference and see what I can do about making things better, in the best way I can. I'm not entirely sure how. What is everyone else trying to do right now to try and block all of Trumps stupid ideas? What can I do to help?

I'm at work at the moment, on my mobile, but later tonight I'll send some recommendations. I'm Canadian, but Trump and his, er, methods have drawn my interests these last handful of months. In the meantime, welcome to the fold! (*Softly chants 'one of us, one of us...' xP )

SeventhSigil:
Snip

Well it's good to see I'm not the only one that comes here often while at work, or that has to work weekends either. And it's nice to see someone be inclusive about this.

I feel like one of the issues as to how and why Trump got elected was that the left got to the point of being so vocal that enough people probably went with Trump out of spite, or despite all of Clinton's ads about "hey, at least I'm not Trump," that a lot of people went with Trump because, hey, at least it wasn't the person that horribly aggressive person from Tumblr was voting for. Most people are defensive, and when you're attacking, maybe not even them, but something that they seem to hold true, they would much rather blindly defend this than actually look at what they believe and reconsider things. I know I'm guilty of this quite often, especially when someone is being directly antagonistic, even if not towards myself, I'm less likely to want to agree with someone that is being aggressive, because I have a hard time believing that what they are saying could be coming from a place of reason. I think a lot of people are like this, and I think the best way to get this point across would be to try and extend an olive branch and try to be the bigger people. Make the people on the more right side feel like they aren't being attacked, this is an issue I have with a lot of protests, because a lot of protests are aggressive and angry, and I don't think that properly gets across the ideas that the left seem to hold, that being primarily peace and acceptance with one another. I'm not saying all protests are held in this manner, but it seems like the ones that are talked about are the ones that often devolve into violence.

While I get that there will be brick walls, people that no matter how kind and caring you might be, will never be willing to listen or sit down and talk it out, but these are a small minority of people that genuinely are this closed minded, and giving anyone the benefit of the doubt that they might not fall into the category of "lost cause" is enough of a chance to prevent someone from becoming a lost cause. The fact that as society has progressed, things have become more "progressive" is proof in my opinion of that. It's like a lot of people say, racism and hate are not inherent, it is taught, and even the oldest dog can learn some new tricks if you have enough patience, so helping someone understand where the people of the left is coming from I think would win many more allies than the shouting and name calling things often turn into. Even simple conversations on this website, when people don't agree, the argument turns from talking to eventually each side reducing the other side to something ridiculous, or simply ending with basically saying "oh, so you're one of those people." It just comes across as condescending and awards no one the chance actually try and understand where someone is coming from. It's just a write off, someone saying "you aren't worth the time," so why should that person in turn be willing to make a difference.

I say this as, with the fact of how the election turned out, a majority of people do not want what is seen as the "liberal agenda." As things are, fighting with the conservative side doesn't really help much as fighting doesn't win over any of the conservative crowd, and resorting to petty tactics will often times scare people in the middle to the other side. People on the left need to work towards bridging that gap or else a progressive mindset will remain in the minority, and that will only mean it will take longer for living conditions to improve. I want people to be more open minded and progressive and accepting, my biggest issue is I see too many people in the left that are the anti-thesis of this, because they are so toxic and hateful towards anyone that doesn't agree with them. This is going to happen, as people are people, but again, these are supposed to be the people on my side, and I know that having people like this only hurts, rather than actually helps. This is why I'm fine with your more loud mouth, obnoxious conservative types, because generally they should chase away more people than they should bring in, but when the obnoxious liberal people start coming out of the woodwork and start spewing their toxicity and makes the obnoxious conservative look more appealing, that's when I see an issue. I don't want the term liberal to be seen in a negative connotation, and my previous idea was just to avoid the whole discussion entirely, but now I feel like I do have a stake in this, and I need to say something. This is so far the main issue I have with the movement as a whole, what I feel like could be changed and what I would even like to help change, is to try and disassociate the toxic members, and show that people that the movement really is for peace and acceptance, not just in name, but in spirit and actions as well.

This is something I've been thinking about for a while, but due to my hard stance of "stay out of it," I never fully said. I would maybe drop a few things here and there, but ultimately I think that now is the time to say it and get across my point. And I don't mean that everyone in the movement is toxic, it is a vocal minority, I understand that, I just feel like it's important to call out the toxicity and to try as best as the community can to clean it up. That is what will really win some allies, I feel, is just showing that the movement really isn't founded out of reactionary anger and hate, that it was founded on the ideas of acceptance and peace, and that it isn't just what we want at the end of the day, but something that we live in our day to day lives. That is what wins allies. That is what will have people look at the movement and want to join it. It's the basic idea behind missionary work with Christianity, and it's one of the biggest ways that they win over new converts, outside of just raising children into it.

I have a lot more to contribute to the conversation, and if anyone thinks that I'm off or not correct or focusing on the incorrect things, let me know. I want to discuss this, discussion is how we come to agreements and how we progress to new ideas and something better. I've probably rambled on more than I needed to, but this was the first time I've really put my political ideas out there in a long time, at least in a way to actually actively have discussion with others, so I may have gone a bit overboard, so I do apologize for that, but hopefully I at least made a bit of sense.

klaynexas3:
Snip

Honestly, the campaign- Trump's actions, the Democrats' actions, etc, etc- could and probably will fill a whole book, and I think it's probably best we address your initial request- advice on how to proceed now- before we talk about any kind of post-mortem. If it's a subject that still interests you, be happy to discuss it in private, but right now the priority should be that whatever Clinton might have done, or the liberals had done, we're now in a situation where Trump IS doing things, and will continue to do them.

-So, first thing, I'm going to be sending you a list within the hour of people to research, and maybe some incidents; I'm not going to include links beyond maybe some Wikipedia bios for the people to get you started, because I do think it's important you search out information on your own, to better draw your own conclusions. The more sources you use, the better. I'm not sure how much you've been paying attention to the post-election news, or even the post-inauguration news, but a lot of it has moved so quickly it's entirely possible some things have slipped through the cracks for you.

-Second, pay attention to his Twitter. I am dead serious. Not only does it offer a direct line to his thoughts- pretty sure nobody's been able to take the thing away from him- but it's also a good way to be tipped off on things Trump doesn't like to read; not because he'll say WHAT the thing is, but because he'll fire shots at whoever wrote/printed it. So if he makes a Tweet taking potshots at the New York Times, it would be an excellent time to meander over to the New York Times and see if they've written anything about him in the past couple of days. It won't always be something useful (he took shots at Vanity Fair in December, and it turned out the likely reason was because they'd published a scathing review of his restaurant the Trump Grille,) but sometimes you can dig up interesting nuggets. Sometimes his tweets can even confirm reports that came from anonymous sources; for example, his Tweet about the Australian immigrant deal all but confirmed reports from a short time earlier that he had blasted the Australian Prime Minister on the phone about it. Here's the relevant thread; www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.946759-Trump-accuses-Australian-PM-of-exporting-terrorists

-Third, and this is most crucial of all, do not believe a single word his administration says without vetting it yourself. This applies to Trump himself, Press Secretary Sean Spicer, that spokesperson Kellyanne Conway, etc. Not only was Trump's campaign fraught with falsehoods, his administration has already shown themselves to be decidedly unreliable when it comes to providing accurate, or even true, information. Sometimes this is about something stupid and childish- inauguration crowd sizes being the first thing that come to mind- but more recently Kellyanne Conway took it much further. I'll spoiler tag the details, was from a post I made in another thread.

****

So! Phew.

Sorry if some of it seemed obvious, but I wasn't sure how 'up to speed' you are on the last few months. o.o And it's really important to be as on-the-ball and informed as possible, because there are two things that you can do.

The first is combat misinformation. There are inevitably going to be people that take Trump at his word and spread around his words, his claims, etc, etc. Kellyanne Conway's little stunt, I guarantee, is going to lead to echoes of 'The Bowling Green Massacre' in places where people can't be bothered to spent ten seconds looking into it, and everytime an echo like that pops up, it needs to be corrected. Quickly, firmly, ideally with citations, but also as respectfully as possible. The person you're correcting may choose not to believe you, depending on how much they rely on Trump and co. for their worldview, but in the end it's only half about them; the other half is making sure that anyone else in proverbial earshot gets both sides of the story, to keep this kind of misinformation from spreading.

The second, and this is something I can't do as a Canadian, contact your political representatives about everything you oppose, ESPECIALLY if they're Republican. Anyone who feels as you do, tell them to do the same; the Democrats are obviously 100% opposed to him, but many Republicans have either openly supported him, or kept their mouths firmly shut. The former will likely continue to do so regardless of outside pressure, but the latter may be those who don't agree with all of Trump's proposals, but don't want to risk pissing off their conservative voting base or even Trump by standing against him.

Keep in mind, we're not out of the woods yet with regards to the ban; Trump's government has already filed an appeal to overturn the temporary halt on it, and he's firing on all Cylinders on Twitter to try and rally his support base against the judge who made the call. He's had his first taste of the restraining effects of the Legislative Branch, and it's pretty clear he hates it. The damage he could do to its ability to check his authority, especially if he pushes the Republicans to aid him in that regard, is potentially immense.

So yeah! I'll be sending the list I mentioned earlier as soon as I can put it together. ^_^

SeventhSigil:

klaynexas3:
Snip

sweet mother of Snips dats a big-ass Snippidy Snoop Snip

It's going to be a dictionary-sized book called "2016 Presidential Election" featuring 4chan, 8chan, Pepe, Kermit the Frog, #BlackLivesMatter, CNN being the new lefty version of Fox, Bernie Sanders weeping, and the cover is leather with a gold-press brick wall pattern. If it doesn't have all of those things, it is not an accurate book.

Bernie Sanders is the most ethical man in United States politics right now, and one of the most ethical United States politicians in history. If people would have not fearfully held off on giving him a chance, he would have lead the country to greatness the likes of which have not been seen since Teddy Roosevelt. But the Democrats threw it away out of a fear rooted in the dark doubts of ethics being effective, instead insisting that experience is the most important thing in the world and thus Hillary was chosen, only for the general populace to rightly observe her as more of the same and go for the demonic embodiment of change Donald J. Trump who cares more about his brand than he does the citizens of the United States he now represents and has power over.

I just hope Bernie Sanders knows what he's doing with his political revolution (join r/PoliticalRevolution to stay up to date on it) but he better be prepared to take the gloves off and not doubt himself because he will need all the confidence he can get if he wants to lead the country for real this time. He did nothing wrong the last time, but if he could improve I would tell him speak a little more freely rather than worry about what sounds most ethical. Personally, I felt Bernie Sanders held back too much at times, but that was just a general vibe I got out of him and a frankly understandable one since he obviously doesn't want to appear like another ridiculous cartoon populist character that knows nothing but talks loudly (aka Donald J. Trump the current 45th POTUS).

Might be worth bookmarking this page for the next few years to help keep a mental pressure release on your rising dread, revulsion and outrage.

Not completely, but some.

http://www.snopes.com/tag/donald-trump/

Epyc Wynn:
BBC: Trump bid to reinstate travel ban fails

Link doesn't work. D:

But yeah, from what I understand the full appeal will still have to be held in court over the next few days, but the administration's motion to immediately overturn the stay on his travel ban beforehand has been denied. So that's at least a few more days, and if the appeal itself also fails, maybe another week or so until the temporary stay itself expires? Here's hoping that the judicial effort to make the halting of the ban permanent goes through.

SeventhSigil:

Epyc Wynn:
BBC: Trump bid to reinstate travel ban fails

Link doesn't work. D:

But yeah, from what I understand the full appeal will still have to be held in court over the next few days, but the administration's motion to immediately overturn the stay on his travel ban beforehand has been denied. So that's at least a few more days, and if the appeal itself also fails, maybe another week or so until the temporary stay itself expires? Here's hoping that the judicial effort to make the halting of the ban permanent goes through.

Fixed the link.

Trump To Fox News: I May Defund California "As A Weapon" To Fight Illegal Immigration

Trump is also continuing to bitch about the Judge's stay on his travel ban via Twitter today. If he isn't able to get it reinstated, and ESPECIALLY if future court rulings render the stay permanent, he's going to be between a rock and a hard place. He's always made his entire brand all about being a super big winner, Donald 'I Never Settle' Trump, and every time a decision the White House makes gets overturned by one of the other branches of government, it'd be a defeat more public than any of his court losses or settlements. Including...

SeventhSigil:
Donald 'I Never Settle' Trump

It makes it all the funnier when Kellyanne Conway kept trying to act like settling without an admission of guilt is in itself an admission of guilt. She got stumped when Anderson Cooper threw this back at her, it was hilarious, but sad.

Dr. Thrax:

SeventhSigil:
Donald 'I Never Settle' Trump

It makes it all the funnier when Kellyanne Conway kept trying to act like settling without an admission of guilt is in itself an admission of guilt. She got stumped when Anderson Cooper threw this back at her, it was hilarious, but sad.

Oh God, I remember that.

They really do occupy their own little bubble. ...unfortunately they've also insisted we need to share it with them. =P

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/us/politics/trump-white-house-aides-strategy.html?_r=1

The whole thing is worth a read, but this is my favorite part.

Mr. Priebus bristles at the perception that he occupies a diminished perch in the West Wing pecking order compared with previous chiefs. But for the moment, Mr. Bannon remains the president's dominant adviser, despite Mr. Trump's anger that he was not fully briefed on details of the executive order he signed giving his chief strategist a seat on the National Security Council, a greater source of frustration to the president than the fallout from the travel ban.

He signs things without knowing what they say. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

So, a potential headache on the horizon for Downing Street with regards to Trump's probable state visit. The actual Parliament debate on the petition I mentioned awhile back to withdraw the offer Theresa May made will be on the 20th, but as I said then, be surprised if anything comes of it.

However, apparently the Speaker of the House of Commons has said quite bluntly that should Trump come for the state visit (of which he has no control,) he as well as others will be 'strongly opposed' to allowing Trump the option of addressing Parliament.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP0c6smM_NM

Now, how big a headache is uncertain. Even if British politeness morphs into an outright refusal, there's no guarantee Trump would have wanted to address Parliament in the first place- not every state visit has an address. On the flip side, even if Trump didn't want it, always possible being refused it will still be enough to piss him off. xP

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here