{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
1/30/2017 4:29:20 AM
26
-
You're kidding right? Or just ignorant? The White House is attempting to circumvent legal advice, install dubious appointees to incredible powerful national security positions and violate court orders (in regards to CEO Trump's EO on Muslim countries).
-
Hahahah
-
[quote]You're kidding right? Or just ignorant? The White House is attempting to circumvent legal advice, [/quote] Not illegal [quote]install dubious appointees to incredible powerful national security positions [/quote] Also not illegal [quote]and violate court orders (in regards to CEO Trump's EO on Muslim countries).[/quote] The court order was only a stay on the deportation of those that had already arrived. Do you have some evidence that any of those people have been deported?
-
[i]If[/i] he is impeached it could be through using the office of the presidency for self profit, it could be for disregarding court orders and thus breaking the law, or it could be that if there is truth to his involvement with the Russian government hacking the DNC then treason.
-
[quote][i]If[/i] he is impeached it could be through using the office of the presidency for self profit, it could be for disregarding court orders and thus breaking the law, [/quote] Yeah, that could get anyone impeached, but OP said [b][u]right now[/u][/b]. [quote]or it could be that if there is truth to his involvement with the Russian government hacking the DNC then treason.[/quote] Come on, if Russia acted they acted alone.
-
[quote]Come on, if Russia acted they acted alone.[/quote] You might want to rethink that. Just because it is so brazen, so incredible it is hard to believe that the Republican Presidential nominee would work with a foreign government for self gain, does not make it impossible.
-
I mean how would they have colluded. Someone on Trump calls Putin and asked him to help out, and Putin was all, "I mean if anyone found out I'd look like a total dick, and Hillary's already threatening war over cyberattacks. What if she wins and they find out? Well, since we're such good friend, sure."
-
Modificato da Vgnut: 1/31/2017 4:55:11 AMYou pretty much answered your question. Putin's been on the political stage running Russia for 17 years now. His MO isn't exactly something we're yet to figure out. Whether it's domestically or abroad Russia has sowed the seeds of confusion and division in elections. Because Russia is really on a shaky foundation he has to show Russian force on the international stage to consolidate his own power. That means taking on NATO and the United States. Putin can see that Americans hate each other more than any other people and he knew to manipulate that. And it's not like the American election is the first Putin has interfered with nor will it be the last. Putin wants chaos in American politics because it weakens America which therefore weakens the European Union and NATO which then therefore strengthens Russia in Eastern Europe. His goal I imagine was to undermine Clinton and create a situation where she would have to place her focus more on domestic issues than international ones. Trump helped considerably with that and happened to actually win. Putin also understood better than most Americans than even should Trump lose he wouldn't go away and that Trumpism aka illiberal/fascism/neofascism was here to stay.
-
DNC "dirty laundry" is still "dirty laundry". Regardless of "blame the messenger" counter tactics.
-
Conflict of interest is something that keeps coming up, especially with the recent 7 country ban.
-
No not really. There's one lawsuit by a few law professors based solely on the fact some buildings have Trump in their name. Now please explain how the ban will put money in Trump's pocket.
-
[quote]No not really. There's one lawsuit by a few law professors based solely on the fact some buildings have Trump in their name. Now please explain how the ban will put money in Trump's pocket.[/quote] I never said it was going to happen, I said that's one of the ways people are going about it. Further, don't you find it odd he didn't ban Saudi Arabia or turkey? Two places with terrorist problems with majority Muslim populations, where he has business interests? That's suspect, to say the least.
-
Trump didn't choose any of the countries to ban, Obama did.
-
[quote]Trump didn't choose any of the countries to ban, Obama did.[/quote] Correct. Yet, if trump was really going to do this he would've added said countries
-
I don't find it strange. They've stated that they're considering add more countries to the list, and the Saudi and Turkey thing is a little more sensitive than the countries banned right now. It's global politics. We can piss off Yeman, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Syria all we want, and they can't do damn thing about it. We piss off the Saudi's and they'll tank or inflate the oil prices depending on what they think will do the most damage. Turkey, who's a NATO ally, was founded as a secular state, and has been slipping toward being more like its neighbors. We need to have open relations with them to hopefully stop them from slipping even more.
-
[quote]I don't find it strange. They've stated that they're considering add more countries to the list, and the Saudi and Turkey thing is a little more sensitive than the countries banned right now. It's global politics. We can piss off Yeman, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Syria all we want, and they can't do damn thing about it. We piss off the Saudi's and they'll tank or inflate the oil prices depending on what they think will do the most damage. Turkey, who's a NATO ally, was founded as a secular state, and has been slipping toward being more like its neighbors. We need to have open relations with them to hopefully stop them from slipping even more.[/quote] But they've all produced or have a high percentage of terrorists. None of the states banned have produced any terrorist on American soil. In fact, Iraq is supposed to be our ALLY. It still stands that trump, in order to prove he doesn't have any conflicts of interest, should ban all Muslim majority countries if that is his intent (which in his campaign it was).
-
Come on man, I know you understand there's more nuance to a ban on a country like Sudan that has little to no effect on the global economy and countries like Saudi Arabia that has easily -blam!-ed our shit up in the past by ramping up or cutting off production at they're state run oil companies. It would be great if it was that easy, but it's not.
-
[quote]Come on man, I know you understand there's more nuance to a ban on a country like Sudan that has little to no effect on the global economy and countries like Saudi Arabia that has easily -blam!-ed our shit up in the past by ramping up or cutting off production at they're state run oil companies. It would be great if it was that easy, but it's not.[/quote] Doesn't matter. If your goal is to stem "radical islamists" then actually ban the places that produce them.
-
Those places do produce terrorists, they just haven't been sending them to the US. Also, all or nothing isn't that great of an approach for anything, and its kind of childish. It goes back to life's not fair. Not everyone gets treated the same because everyone is not the same.
-
[quote]Those places do produce terrorists, they just haven't been sending them to the US. Also, all or nothing isn't that great of an approach for anything, and its kind of childish. It goes back to life's not fair. Not everyone gets treated the same because everyone is not the same.[/quote] And they haven't produced a terrorist on American soil. If we're going to ban places with terrorists why not Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? Shit, us banning these people will just continue to drive westerners away and cause resentment amongst the Muslim population.
-
Do I have to keep repeating myself? NOT ALL COUNTRIES ARE EQUAL!!!!
-
What you're doing is basically the equivalent of throwing an innocent person who happened to be near a crime in jail, while the KNOWN perpetrator is left free.
-
No, it's like arresting two people. One for attempted murder and one for murder. The guy arrested for attempted murder doesn't have a lawyer and can't pay his bail, so he sits in jail. The guy arrested for murder gets his lawyer to file motions and posts his own bond, so he's released from jail. All these country produce terrorist that have killed Americans. Their not innocent.
-
Except that the 7 selected haven't produced any terrorists that have attacked the US. Why should they be treated worse than counties that have, but just happen to be able to grease Trump's palm?
-
Yes they have, just google it. Once you get passed the articles about, "They never attacked on [b][u]US soil[/u][/b]." you see that terrorists in these countries have done things like attacking American embassies, beheaded Americans, and try to sink US warships. These countries do produce terrorist that hold anti American sentiments.
