Thread: President Donald Trump

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

he wants to ban extremists, and has banned countries that harbor extremists

as you know, Christians from those countries were also banned from the US

see no muslim ban, pot head !!!

You're wasting your time as bsnub clearly takes stupid and ignorant to new levels. His libtard blogs have told him it's a muslim ban and nothing will change his mind, even when it's clearly pointed out to him in easy to understand English.

Originally Posted by koman

So why don't you just accept it for what it is and stop trying to spin it into some kind of global human tragedy FFS.

I am not spinning anything that is what you are doing. If Drumpf could have legally banned all muslims he would have Giuliani clearly stated that Drumpf came to him asking to "legally do a muslim ban". This is as close to legal of a muslim ban as you can get.

You wrong and clearly ignoring the most important part of the story. The fact that Drumpf asked how he COULD LEGALLY DO A MUSLIM BAN. One more time he would have banned all muslims if he could have legally done so.

Originally Posted by buriramboy

You're wasting your time as bsnub clearly takes stupid and ignorant to new levels.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by koman

So why don't you just accept it for what it is and stop trying to spin it into some kind of global human tragedy FFS.

I am not spinning anything that is what you are doing. If Drumpf could have legally banned all muslims he would have Giuliani clearly stated that Drumpf came to him asking to "legally do a muslim ban". This is as close to legal of a muslim ban as you can get.

You wrong and clearly ignoring the most important part of the story. The fact the Drumpf asked how he COULD LEGALLY DO A MUSLIM BAN.

Seriously how retarded are you? How can it be a muslim ban, when the majority of the worlds muslims are not banned? Can you understand this? I've purposely not used any difficult to understand words.

Originally Posted by buriramboy

How can it be a muslim ban, when the majority of the worlds muslims are not banned?

Clearly you need to reread my post you utter spastic. The explanation is there sadly I feel that you do not have the brain cells to comprehend it.

PJW should be a fucking carpenter! Nailed!

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by buriramboy

How can it be a muslim ban, when the majority of the worlds muslims are not banned?

Clearly you need to reread my post you utter spastic. The explanation is there sadly I feel that you do not have the brain cells to comprehend it.

Your explanation is some libtard bollox that bares to semblance to reality. As always you just type rubbish that you've read on some libtard blog and convinced yourself is fact. Do you understand the majority of the worlds Muslims can still enter the US without any different restrictions as they could last week, month, year etc. God you really are beyond stupid.

Lets walk this back for the slow, stupid and/or misinformed. Drumpf approached Rudy Giuliani asking him how he could "legally do a muslim ban" ole Rudy is on tape confirming this.

Now if Drumpf could have banned all muslims he would have. Clearly Giuliani explained to him that would have been unconstitutional so they had to come up with the next best thing that could be done "legally". This muslim ban was it.

Why is that so hard for you people to understand. The stupidity....SMH

Originally Posted by bsnub

Lets walk this back for the slow, stupid and/or misinformed. Drumpf approached Rudy Giuliani asking him how he could "legally do a muslim ban" ole Rudy is on tape confirming this.

Now if Drumpf could have banned all muslims he would have. Clearly Giuliani explained to him that would have been unconstitutional so they had to come up with the next best thing that could be done "legally". This muslim ban was it.

Why is that so hard for you people to understand. The stupidity....SMH

Because it's not a muslim ban you utter retard, why is that so hard for you to understand.

^^ love those InfoWars vids

making a lot of valid points about the hypocrisie of the American public when Obama was doing the same thing,

we live in a funny world, the last 15 years have been surreal, and now we have Trump as the cherry on the top

Give it up Snubbie, you are behaving like a blathering idiot and as usual resorting to the same old juvenile name calling. Your argument is all based on a comment made on a TV show, and not in any way based on what has actually been done. That's just foking ridiculous.

Originally Posted by bsnub

^ So why did Drumpf call it one you utter spastic. He has been saying for months he was going to ban muslims so now that he has done it all of the sudden it not so.

Fucking absurdly stupid reasoning. I laid it out as clear as can be and you are so utterly brainwashed and in denial of reality you block out what really happened and replace it with your own false narrative.

Piss off back to your breitbart propaganda lemming.

Never read breitbart. So now after calling Trump a liar, you now want to believe what he says.

The only one in denial of reality is you, you insist on calling this a muslim ban when the majority of the worlds muslims are not affected and you continuously refuse to accept and acknowledge this in every single post you've made, hence you are either totally ignorant or stupid, but I suspect both.

What is truly noteable is the media overreaction and double standard being displayed towards Trump.

The six countries were already listed by Congress and Obama as terrorist threats.

So Trump demands a bit more scrutiny on people from these countries. Something Congress and Obama should've already done.
So Trump is actually taking charge and doing what he said he would do.

Is the sky really falling!

No Congress and the media are the fools here! Again!

Mind ya it was just a few months ago when Obama was bombing the shit out of these countries, and not a fucking peep from the media.

Seems like someone isn't paying much attention.

Originally Posted by koman

effects 7 countries out of well over 100 that have predominant Muslim populations. That's it.

no koman, that's not it.

because you're spouting off "alternative facts".......again.

there are not well over 100 predominantly muslim countries.....in actual fact (you may have heard this, it's also called "reality") there are well UNDER 100 predominantly muslim countries. there are not even close to 100.

not.
even.
close.

the amount of disinformation and pure, unadulterated ignorance that you spread on this forum is mind numbing.

Originally Posted by koman

Give it up Snubbie, you are behaving like a blathering idiot and as usual resorting to the same old juvenile name calling. Your argument is all based on a comment made on a TV show, and not in any way based on what has actually been done. That's just foking ridiculous.

I have nothing to give up I am right here and you are wrong period you lost the argument plain and simple.

The facts;

1. Drumpf went to Giuliani asking how he could "legally do a muslim ban" something he has said he would do countless times.

I guess you forgot about this;



2. When Guiliani explained to him that a complete muslim ban would be unconstitutional they came up with the next best thing.

3. The fact is that Drumpf wanted to ban all muslims but realized he could not legally do so.

You can spin reality all you want and I am sure that clown burimassram boy will be along to bark up the tree with you but the reality is that you are wrong. Period.

Can you dispute any of the facts I have posted up?

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

^^ love those InfoWars vids

making a lot of valid points about the hypocrisie of the American public when Obama was doing the same thing,

we live in a funny world, the last 15 years have been surreal, and now we have Trump as the cherry on the top

Indeed.

Trump was elected democratically and is putting in place the manifesto he was elected to do.

Those who have a problem with democracy and have trouble shutting the fuck up when a vote doesnt go their way should perhaps emigrate to pakistan or north korea.

Funny how the masses are demonstrating around the world because of this travel ban.

Many countries have bans in place against citizens of other countries, havent seen any demos against those countries and their leaders who have visited and done deals with the west and the usa.

Liberals and lefties do tend to be blatant hypocrites though.

no koman, that's not it.

because you're spouting off "alternative facts".......again.

there are not well over 100 predominantly muslim countries.....in actual fact (you may have heard this, it's also called "reality") there are well UNDER 100 predominantly muslim countries. there are not even close to 100.

not.
even.
close.

the amount of disinformation and pure, unadulterated ignorance that you spread on this forum is mind numbing.

Good catch, I missed that.

I'm just gonna assume that Koman pulled it out of his anus because based on this map, there are just under 40 muslim majority countries total in the world (50% or more of the population is Muslim). So 7 out of 40 countries affected by the ban, assuming that they are all Muslim majority (haven't checked, but it would seem as though they are based on reports).

A frightening map, looks like the ct scan of a spreading malignancy.

All religion is a malignancy.

But in modern times Muslim would probably be the equalivalent of a stage 4 diagnosis

Originally Posted by taxexile

Many countries have bans in place against citizens of other countries,

Really? Which countries have these bans?

Trump may have a cure.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by taxexile

Many countries have bans in place against citizens of other countries,

Really? Which countries have these bans?

16 countries have bans against Israeli citizens entering their country.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by taxexile

Many countries have bans in place against citizens of other countries,

Really? Which countries have these bans?

Malaysia, brunei, oman, saudi arabia, iran, iraq, bangladesh.

And nine more.

If there was any question about who is largely in charge of national security behind the scenes at the White House, the answer is becoming increasingly clear: Steve Bannon, the former head of Breitbart News, a far-right media outlet, and now White House advisor.


Even before he was given a formal seat on the National Security Council’s “principals committee” this weekend by President Donald Trump, Bannon was calling the shots and doing so with little to no input from the National Security Council staff, according to an intelligence official who asked not to be named out of fear of retribution.


“He is running a cabal, almost like a shadow NSC,” the official said. He described a work environment where there is little appetite for dissenting opinions, shockingly no paper trail of what’s being discussed and agreed upon at meetings, and no guidance or encouragement so far from above about how the National Security Council staff should be organized.


The intelligence official, who said he was willing to give the Trump administration the benefit of the doubt when it took office, is now deeply troubled by how things are being run.


“They ran all of these executive orders outside of the normal construct,” he said, referring to last week’s flurry of draft executive orders on everything from immigration to the return of CIA “black sites.”


After the controversial draft orders were written, the Trump team was very selective in how they routed them through the internal White House review process, the official said.


Under previous administrations, if someone thought another person or directorate had a stake in the issue at hand or expertise in a subject area, he or she was free to share the papers as long as the recipient had proper clearance. With that standard in mind, when some officials saw Trump’s draft executive orders, they felt they had broad impact and shared them more widely for staffing and comments.


That did not sit well with Bannon or his staff, according to the official. More stringent guidelines for handling and routing were then instituted, and the National Security Council staff was largely cut out of the process.


By the end of the week, they weren’t the only ones left in the dark. Retired Marine Gen. John Kelly, the secretary of homeland security, was being briefed on the executive order, which called for immediately shutting the borders to nationals from seven largely Muslim countries and all refugees, while Trump was in the midst of signing the measure, the New York Times reported.


The White House did not respond in time to a request for comment.


The lack of a paper trail documenting the decision-making process is also troubling, the intelligence official said. For example, under previous administrations, after a principals or deputies meeting of the National Security Council, the discussion, the final agreement, and the recommendations would be written up in what’s called a “summary of conclusions” — or SOC in government-speak.


“Under [President George W. Bush], the National Security Council was quite strict about recording SOCs,” said Matthew Waxman, a law professor at Columbia University who served on Bush’s National Security Council. “There was often a high level of generality, and there may have been some exceptions, but they were carefully crafted.”


These summaries also provided a record to refer back to, especially important if a debate over an issue came up again, including among agencies that needed to implement the conclusions reached.


If someone thought the discussion was mischaracterized, he or she would call for a correction to be issued to set the record straight, said Loren DeJonge Schulman, who previously served in former President Barack Obama’s administration as a senior advisor to National Security Advisor Susan Rice. Schulman is now a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security.


“People took the document seriously,” she said.


During the first week of the Trump administration, there were no SOCs, the intelligence official said. In fact, according to him, there is surprisingly very little paper being generated, and whatever paper there is, the NSC staff is not privy to it. He sees this as a deterioration of transparency and accountability.


“It would worry me if written records of these meeting were eliminated, because they contribute to good governance,” Waxman said.


It is equally important that NSC staff be the ones drafting the issue papers going into meetings, too, said Schulman. “The idea is to share with everyone a fair and balanced take on the issue, with the range of viewpoints captured in that document,” she said.


If those papers are now being generated by political staff, she added, it corrupts the whole process.


It could also contribute to Bannon’s centralization of power.


“He who has the pen has the authority to shape outcomes,” the intelligence official said.


Now Bannon’s role in the shadows is being formalized thanks to an executive order signed Saturday by Trump that formally gives Bannon a seat on the National Security Council’s principals committee. The same executive order removed from that group the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the director of national intelligence, and the secretary of energy. Their new diminished role is not unprecedented, but some still find it a troubling piece of this larger picture. For example, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates — who served under both Bush and Obama — told ABC News this weekend that sidelining the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the director of national intelligence was a “big mistake.” Every president can benefit from their “perspective, judgment, and experience,” Gates said.


Meanwhile,


Bannon’s new role is unprecedented. Under Obama, it wasn’t unheard of for his chief political advisors, John Podesta and David Axelrod, to attend NSC meetings, but they were never guaranteed a seat at the table. Under Bush, the line between national security and domestic political considerations was even clearer. Top aides have said they never saw Karl Rove or “anyone from his shop” in NSC meetings, and that’s because Bush told him explicitly not to attend.

The signal Bush “especially wanted to send to the military is that, ‘The decisions I’m making that involve life and death for the people in uniform will not be tainted by any political decisions,’” former White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten said last September.


Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called Bannon’s appointment to the council as a permanent member a “radical departure” from how the decision-making body was organized in the past, adding that he found the change “concerning.”
Inside and outside of government, there are also deep reservations about Bannon’s alignment with the far right and white nationalism, thanks to his previous leadership of Breitbart. One Bannon quote making the rounds this weekend: “Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal, too. I want to bring everything crashing down and destroy all of today’s establishment.”


There are new questions about where retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump’s national security advisor, fits into all of this. Internally, it remains unclear what his role is, the intelligence official said. “He has a voice at the table, but he’s overshadowed by Bannon.”


Meanwhile, Tom Bossert, a former Bush national security aide whom Trump picked to serve as the White House’s homeland security advisor, is not “one of Bannon’s,” so he is also on the outside looking in, according to the official. However, in Saturday’s executive order, Bossert was also given a permanent seat on the NSC principals committee.


But there is not a lot of infighting right now, because to have infighting, there needs to be a power struggle, and there is no struggle, the intelligence official said.

However, there is an effort to crack down on leaking. Last week, a draft executive order, which raised the prospect of bringing back CIA “black sites” and reopening the debate on torture, leaked to the press. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said it was “not a White House document” and that he had “no idea where it came from.” But according to the New York Times, “the White House had circulated it among National Security Council staff members for review on Tuesday morning.” The Times was even provided with the details of the email chain that showed “the draft order’s movements through the White House bureaucracy.”

“They’re doing a witch hunt now to find out how that got out,” the intelligence official said. “There is zero room for dissenting opinion.”


Trump did say publicly that he would defer to Defense Secretary James Mattis for now on the question of torture, which would suggest that disagreement is OK. But while publicly the president is allowing for different opinions, there is unhappiness about what is permitted behind the scenes, according to the official. If you take a stand against the White House, you might find yourself frozen out of future meetings, he said.


The NSC staff is mostly in shock after last week, the intelligence official said. For now, no one knows what each day will bring. There is no organizational chart yet for the NSC, meaning there has been no internal guidance yet about which portfolios still exist and to whom they report, the official said. The Washington Post reported Sunday on some of the changes being made, including that “some offices such as cyber have been expanded, while others have been collapsed.” The directorates on Europe and Russia, which were separate under Obama, have now been combined.


It’s possible that the current chaos and lack of bureaucratic process is a result of the Trump administration still going through growing pains and figuring out how best to run things. But former NSC officials said an organizational chart for the NSC is the kind of thing you have in place weeks before taking office.


Only time will tell if the way things are currently being done is deliberate or part of a new administration learning on the job how best to provide advice to the president and communicate with the relevant agencies.


Trump’s management style is known to be highly unstructured, if not chaotic. The Post reported in May that he was running his presidential campaign like he ran his business — “fond of promoting rivalries among subordinates, wary of delegating major decisions, scornful of convention and fiercely insistent on a culture of loyalty around him.”


“While this may have worked for his company, it is certainly not a way to run a country,” the official said.


https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30...ump-president/