Disgusted with Trump administration - Part I

• Azubuike24

  

  He also said this is an "American issue" and he really DGAF.
• O-Trap

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1836339 wrote:Yeah I tried to not pay attention to them, but when he tweets and it becomes policy or influences policy, it is a problem. That is what is happening.

  The thoughts he's expressing certainly are, but if he didn't "tweet" them, I'd wager the thoughts would still be influencing policy.
  
  In a strange way, it seems as though his obsession with Twitter lets us see the wood burning through the window.
• Spock

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1836339 wrote:Yeah I tried to not pay attention to them, but when he tweets and it becomes policy or influences policy, it is a problem. That is what is happening.
  
  
  
  Why the fuck would I believe anything that Assad is saying? Everyone against his rule is a terrorist to him.

  dont you believe the media here? Its about the same credibility level
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Speaking of the media...
  
  I swear that sometimes I wonder if the media hasn't fallen into an alternative universe. When I see that MSNBC to be more truthful and less of a political pundit than CNN, it makes me nervous!
• sleeper

  

  Azubuike24;1836338 wrote:I just did a little research on it. Looks like only about 10% of the funds for PP are federal funds. I understand Medicaid supports the majority of it. And I agree, the truth doesn't get covered when the term "defund PP" gets thrown around. However, the same needs to apply to "repeal the ACA." When you dig into the facts there, the majority of people helped by the ACA went on Medicaid eligible assistance. The ACA provided an estimated 2-2.3M people who had zero access to any coverage, access. That's hardly enough to warrant such an outcry.

  Agreed. The ACA isn't perfect but it did address some issues that needed it. Single Payer is the next and final solution.
• O-Trap

  

  isadore;1836310 wrote:Hail Trump! Is pseudonym redundant or is O-Trap your Christian or surname?

  Touche.
• QuakerOats

  sleeper;1836351 wrote:Agreed. The ACA isn't perfect but it did address some issues that needed it. Single Payer is the next and final solution.

  
  So a few lying politicians could say they insured a couple million people, they carpet bombed the system for a couple hundred million people and lied through their teeth all the way to 2016. Fuck them and their party; they deserve the massive ass- kickings they have been handed since 2010.
• Azubuike24

  

  Mistakes happen in politics. It's the literal "world-ending panic" I see on a daily basis when people talk about "losing coverage." If you added up all those concerns, you would think that half the population is about to get hung out to dry and die.
• Heretic

  

  isadore;1836292 wrote:Hail Trump!
  Why is our leader trying to destroy an American Company with 72,000 employees. Just because they made a financial decision to stop pushing his daughter's tacky clothes line. And Gosh his Press Secretary and Chief Political advisor both join in the effort.

  It is comical. The guy who was all about bringing jobs back to America is vehemently speaking against an American company solely for choosing not to sell his daughter's clothes (aka: conflict of interest), while one of his lackeys (Conway) openly endorsed said clothes (ethics violation).
  
  Just another day in the life! At least it appears Nordstrom's stock rose after he cried about them, so that's good!
• Devils Advocate

  

  O-Trap;1836359 wrote:Douche.

  It had to be done
• O-Trap

  

  Devils Advocate;1836436 wrote:It had to be done

  
  I blame no one.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Serious question on the Immigration EO.
  In the text, DHS and State was tasked to provide reports on an overview of the current immigration visas, policies, flow of people, etc. The whole point of the EO was so we could review who we are bringing in right?
  
  So, if that is case, anyone know if that review has even started? Where are they, is the ban going to be even needed even if it is called legit?
  Or, has the review not even started, which would kind of be dumb...
• Con_Alma

  ptown_trojans_1;1836519 wrote:Serious question on the Immigration EO.
  In the text, DHS and State was tasked to provide reports on an overview of the current immigration visas, policies, flow of people, etc. The whole point of the EO was so we could review who we are bringing in right?
  
  So, if that is case, anyone know if that review has even started? Where are they, is the ban going to be even needed even if it is called legit?
  Or, has the review not even started, which would kind of be dumb...

  I was under the impression that the EO was to halt immigration so the the process of vetting those with visas and the policies could be reviewed to ensure their effectiveness. Am I wrong?
  
  I agree that the effectiveness of the process should have begun and should be taking place no matter the court's decision.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Con_Alma;1836521 wrote:I was under the impression that the EO was to halt immigration so the the process of vetting those with visas and the policies could be reviewed to ensure their effectiveness. Am I wrong?
  
  I agree that the effectiveness of the process should have begun and should be taking place no matter the court's decision.

  Yeah, you are correct. The text says without the halt, the agencies would be burdened with the review.
  But, if I was DHS and State, wouldn't I want to start the process of reviewing anyways, even if it is a burden?
  
  I'm thinking out loud, but if they are about to get the process rolling and get their report to Trump in a timely fashion, the ban itself may not even be needed.
• Con_Alma

  Agreed. Start the review and continue to force the legal issues supporting the EO.
• sleeper

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1836523 wrote:Yeah, you are correct. The text says without the halt, the agencies would be burdened with the review.
  But, if I was DHS and State, wouldn't I want to start the process of reviewing anyways, even if it is a burden?
  
  I'm thinking out loud, but if they are about to get the process rolling and get their report to Trump in a timely fashion, the ban itself may not even be needed.

  You really think a Trump run administration is competent enough to carry this policy out?
  
  The savior of Democracy will likely be Trump's own incompetence.
• Azubuike24

  

  The election of Trump, regardless of what he personally does or becomes, is hopefully the savior of Democracy. We need more regular citizens representing the people in politics. Not one large pool of people from old money and power structures filling all levels. If anything, the barriers to getting to that level of politics need to be lessened.
• Heretic

  

  Azubuike24;1836539 wrote:The election of Trump, regardless of what he personally does or becomes, is hopefully the savior of Democracy. We need more regular citizens representing the people in politics. Not one large pool of people from old money and power structures filling all levels. If anything, the barriers to getting to that level of politics need to be lessened.

  You'll have to enlighten me as to how a really rich guy, who was born really rich due to having a really rich dad, who's spent his entire life hanging with really rich people and politicians constitutes "regular citizens". Just because he ran on that theme doesn't, you know, make it remotely true. He's got as much in common with "regular citizens" as the Hollywood types people on this site regular (and often, rightly) blast for being hilariously out of touch with reality.
• O-Trap

  

  Heretic;1836545 wrote:You'll have to enlighten me as to how a really rich guy, who was born really rich due to having a really rich dad, who's spent his entire life hanging with really rich people and politicians constitutes "regular citizens". Just because he ran on that theme doesn't, you know, make it remotely true. He's got as much in common with "regular citizens" as the Hollywood types people on this site regular (and often, rightly) blast for being hilariously out of touch with reality.

  He might have less in common with the regular person than the Hollywood actors, as many of them at least started out growing up in families comprised of "regular citizens," and they were, in fact, regular citizens themselves.
• rocketalum

  
  
  Yep totally just a regular guy.
• rocketalum

  Yep, just a regular Joe.
  
  <IMG SRC="http://www.snopes.com/app/uploads/2016/08/trump-family-portrait.jpg">
• Azubuike24

  

  Oh Trump is definitely rich and egotistical, and is far from the poster boy or ideal image, but he's not part of the same elite club that has been running things for the last 30 years. Sure, they were all portrayed as having their partisan views and sides, but from a high level perspective, it just saw the same cronies in power over such long periods of time, that who held offices became less and less important. He didn't build his wealth from politics and for the most part, didn't become president with other people's money. And while I think he's a narcissist who is in this to boost his ego and his businesses, he also wants to blow up politics as we know it and bring as many down as he can.
  
  As I've said in prior posts. The single scariest thing to this world would be absolute transparency about the U.S. Government. Trump is the closest thing we will probably ever get to opening that up, regardless of whether your left or right.
• rocketalum

  Yep just a regular dude from a total average Joe gilded penthouse. He gets us.
  
  
• gut

  You know you're filthy rich when your kid's toy cars are limousines!
• Azubuike24

  

  Never said that.
  
  However, he's willing to expose all of his skeletons in-exchange for making sure everyone else (both individuals and groups) get put on blast.
  
  As someone who is right and left on a variety of things, that's what I want to see. True linear transparency into the media, government organizations, drug companies, banks, etc...and the money trail and influence from top to bottom.