Impressed by Trump administration

• sleeper

  

  [video=youtube;d7gp5A5TK0M][/video]
  
  Complete embarrassment. This is what the Republicans want; GOP in 2017 folks.
• BoatShoes

  Apple;1836160 wrote:You might be right!

  The freakout over sessions from the democrats is not real. It is a result of thinking that painting the GOP as racists is still a good strategy despite evidence to the contrary.
  
  The right argument is that Sessions' views on immigration have no reasonable basis in fact.
  
  The chamber of commerce republicans know this and the dems should be using this as an opportunity to make the case they are the better party for business and raise money but they just play the race card.
• BoatShoes

  rocketalum;1836475 wrote:How is that news? Of course it's "possible" that terrorists are hiding among the refugees. It's also possible that the Browns win the next 5 super bowls. I actually don't disagree with Trump that we need to very thoroughly vet these refugees. I'm just confused on how he thinks this isn't already sufficient and what more he plans to add? Again maybe if his EO wasn't a totally ill thought out cluster#*(& we'd have some answers on what exactly is inadequate in this process. Here's the full list of steps already in place
  
  Registration with the United Nations.
  
  [RIGHT]2.[/RIGHT] Interview with the United Nations.
  
  [RIGHT]3.[/RIGHT] Refugee status granted by the United Nations.
  
  [RIGHT]4.[/RIGHT] Referral for resettlement in the United States.
  
  The United Nations decides if the person fits the definition of a refugee and whether to refer the person to the United States or to another country for resettlement. Only the most vulnerable are referred, accounting for less than than 1 percent of refugees worldwide. Some people spend years waiting in refugee camps.
  
  [RIGHT]5.[/RIGHT] Interview with State Department contractors.
  
  
  
  [RIGHT]6.[/RIGHT] First background check.
  
  [RIGHT]7.[/RIGHT] Higher-level background check for some.
  
  [RIGHT]8.[/RIGHT] Another background check.
  
  The refugee’s name is run through law enforcement and intelligence databases for terrorist or criminal history. Some go through a higher-level clearance before they can continue. A third background check was introduced in 2008 for Iraqis but has since been expanded to all refugees ages 14 to 65.
  
  [RIGHT]9.[/RIGHT] First fingerprint screening; photo taken.
  
  [RIGHT]10.[/RIGHT] Second fingerprint screening.
  
  [RIGHT]11.[/RIGHT] Third fingerprint screening.
  
  The refugee’s fingerprints are screened against F.B.I. and Homeland Security databases, which contain watch list information and past immigration encounters, including if the refugee previously applied for a visa at a United States embassy. Fingerprints are also checked against those collected by the Defense Department during operations in Iraq.
  
  [RIGHT]12.[/RIGHT] Case reviewed at United States immigration headquarters.
  
  [RIGHT]13.[/RIGHT] Some cases referred for additional review.
  
  Syrian applicants must undergo these two additional steps. Each is reviewed by a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services refugee specialist. Cases with “national security indicators” are given to the Homeland Security Department’s fraud detection unit.
  
  [RIGHT]14.[/RIGHT] Extensive, in-person interview with Homeland Security officer.
  
  Most of the interviews with Syrians have been done in Jordan and Turkey.
  
  [RIGHT]15.[/RIGHT] Homeland Security approval is required.
  
  [RIGHT]16.[/RIGHT] Screening for contagious diseases.
  
  [RIGHT]17.[/RIGHT] Cultural orientation class.
  
  [RIGHT]18.[/RIGHT] Matched with an American resettlement agency.
  
  [RIGHT]19.[/RIGHT] Multi-agency security check before leaving for the United States.
  
  Because of the long amount of time between the initial screening and departure, officials conduct a final check before the refugee leaves for the United States.
  
  [RIGHT]20.[/RIGHT] Final security check at an American airport.
  

  They can't just say what they really want. They just don't want more immigration. Was listening to a professor at Fordham on NPR yesterday that a gOP congressman tried to cite saying refugees are aources of terrorism but of course he misrepresented her work. Most terrorism in the U.S. comes from radicalization of native born citizens.
  
  People are just generally anti-immigrant and this is probably part of evolution. Blaming it on dubious national security concerns sounds better though.
• QuakerOats

  http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/02/10/ninth-circuit-s-putsch-america-watches-as-activist-judges-issue-rambling-misguided-opinion.html
  
  It will be fun to see the 9th Circuit take another well-deserved beatdown.
• QuakerOats

  [h=3]WPost Analysis: Trump Pursuing Biggest Rollback Of Regulations Since Reagan.[/h]The Washington Post (2/12, Eilperin) reports President Trump is undertaking “the most aggressive campaign against government regulation in a generation,” in which he is “targeting dozens of Obama-era policies.” NAM Vice President for Labor, Legal and Regulatory Policy Rosario Palmieri is quoted saying that, under the Trump administration, there’s “great optimism that all of them will be addressed.” While the administration’s effort “has alarmed labor unions, public safety advocates and environmental activists,” business groups are said to be “thrilled” at the attempt to address “long-standing complaints.” One path is the Congressional Review Act, a second is “an executive order that requires agencies to offset the cost of every significant new regulation,” and a third is the freeze on new regulations “a mainstay of new administrations.” The Post says the overall effort is the biggest since the Reagan administration and cites an OMB report finding that regulation has increased every year since 1982.
  
  
  Big.
• QuakerOats

  Congressman Introduces Bill Gutting EPA. The Hill (2/10, Cama) reported Rep. Sam Johnson “introduced the Wasteful EPA Programs Elimination Act on Thursday,” which would “do away with large portions of the Environmental Protection Agency” and leave the agency with a sub-$1 billion budget. The bill “would also close all of the EPA’s regional offices, halt new regulations on ground-level ozone pollution and require the agency to lease unused property.”
  
  
  Really big.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  QuakerOats;1836934 wrote:WPost Analysis: Trump Pursuing Biggest Rollback Of Regulations Since Reagan.
  
  The Washington Post (2/12, Eilperin) reports President Trump is undertaking “the most aggressive campaign against government regulation in a generation,” in which he is “targeting dozens of Obama-era policies.” NAM Vice President for Labor, Legal and Regulatory Policy Rosario Palmieri is quoted saying that, under the Trump administration, there’s “great optimism that all of them will be addressed.” While the administration’s effort “has alarmed labor unions, public safety advocates and environmental activists,” business groups are said to be “thrilled” at the attempt to address “long-standing complaints.” One path is the Congressional Review Act, a second is “an executive order that requires agencies to offset the cost of every significant new regulation,” and a third is the freeze on new regulations “a mainstay of new administrations.” The Post says the overall effort is the biggest since the Reagan administration and cites an OMB report finding that regulation has increased every year since 1982.
  
  
  Big.

  QuakerOats;1836935 wrote:Congressman Introduces Bill Gutting EPA. The Hill (2/10, Cama) reported Rep. Sam Johnson “introduced the Wasteful EPA Programs Elimination Act on Thursday,” which would “do away with large portions of the Environmental Protection Agency” and leave the agency with a sub-$1 billion budget. The bill “would also close all of the EPA’s regional offices, halt new regulations on ground-level ozone pollution and require the agency to lease unused property.”
  
  
  Really big.

  I read those today as well. My only concern is I do hope there is actual thought laid out in cutting all these regulations. I agree with most on here that there are too many regulations, but I am not a fan of just cutting just to cut. There could be bad consequences from say, environmental disasters, death from food illness, death from new drugs in the market, etc.
  If there is a well thought out process, and they determine, yeah this regulation is out dated or too narrow, then fine, kill it.
• QuakerOats

  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/14/trump-gop-lawmakers-eye-illegal-leaks-in-wake-flynn-resignation.html
  
  
  It will be good to get to the source of the illegal leaks.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  QuakerOats;1837216 wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/14/trump-gop-lawmakers-eye-illegal-leaks-in-wake-flynn-resignation.html
  
  
  It will be good to get to the source of the illegal leaks.

  
  That's your fucking contribution to this?
  You are taking that line of thinking...wow.
  
  Leaks happen, always have and always will. Good luck trying to stop them.
  The leaks are the wrong angle. The more important issue and what exactly does Trump know and is there any more Russia related info that needs unearthed?
• sleeper

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1837224 wrote:That's your fucking contribution to this?
  You are taking that line of thinking...wow.
  
  Leaks happen, always have and always will. Good luck trying to stop them.
  The leaks are the wrong angle. The more important issue and what exactly does Trump know and is there any more Russia related info that needs unearthed?

  Did you expect anything different?
  
  Republicans have no integrity. These leaks might be the only thing we have to save Democracy.
• QuakerOats

  ptown_trojans_1;1837224 wrote:That's your fucking contribution to this?
  You are taking that line of thinking...wow.
  
  Leaks happen, always have and always will. Good luck trying to stop them.
  The leaks are the wrong angle. The more important issue and what exactly does Trump know and is there any more Russia related info that needs unearthed?

  
  Apparently they stole the election. Is that what you want to hear, or believe?
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  QuakerOats;1837228 wrote:Apparently they stole the election. Is that what you want to hear, or believe?

  It's not what I want to hear or believe.
  Flynn talked to the Russians, lied about it, the White House knew for weeks, had evidence from other agencies, and did nothing. Is there anything else that Flynn knew or did with the Russians. Did they talk about the DNC hack at all, the kicking out of the Russian agents? Was there any deal on the table about relief of sanctions?
  As I mentioned, this opens the whole Russia story again.
  
  Leaks happen man. DC was built on them. Sorry if just now you are upset about them cause it is going against your man crush.
• rocketalum

  Republicans 2012: "Romney is right that Russia is our biggest threat. How stupid is Obama for laughing him off during the debate!"
  
  Republicans 2017: "Nothing to see here"
• superman

  ptown_trojans_1;1837231 wrote:It's not what I want to hear or believe.
  Flynn talked to the Russians, lied about it, the White House knew for weeks, had evidence from other agencies, and did nothing. Is there anything else that Flynn knew or did with the Russians. Did they talk about the DNC hack at all, the kicking out of the Russian agents? Was there any deal on the table about relief of sanctions?
  As I mentioned, this opens the whole Russia story again.
  
  Leaks happen man. DC was built on them. Sorry if just now you are upset about them cause it is going against your man crush.

  Leaks happen?
  This coming from a guy who would sucked off Obama if given the chance. The same Obama that went after whistleblowers harder than anyone ever?
• superman

  rocketalum;1837232 wrote:Republicans 2012: "Romney is right that Russia is our biggest threat. How stupid is Obama for laughing him off during the debate!"
  
  Republicans 2017: "Nothing to see here"

  Democrats 2012: Russia, haha why are you still living in the 80's?
  Democrats 2017: OMG! Russia is the greatest enemy the world has ever known.
  See how it goes both ways, dipshit?
• QuakerOats

  rocketalum;1837232 wrote:Republicans 2012: "Romney is right that Russia is our biggest threat. How stupid is Obama for laughing him off during the debate!"
  
  Republicans 2017: "Nothing to see here"

  
  Maybe you did not check the links above; Republicans are the ones saying they will investigate it.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  superman;1837236 wrote:Leaks happen?
  This coming from a guy who would sucked off Obama if given the chance. The same Obama that went after whistleblowers harder than anyone ever?

  I actually agree that Obama and his administration was way too hard on leakers. For example, former Gen. James Cartwright was railroaded in his background info on the Stuxnet story.
  
  Still, leaks happen and the trump administration will have to deal with them.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  QuakerOats;1837239 wrote:Maybe you did not check the links above; Republicans are the ones saying they will investigate it.

  Wrong. They are not investigating Russia. They want to go after the source of the news story. Totally different.
• majorspark

  

  ptown_trojans_1;1837242 wrote:Wrong. They are not investigating Russia. They want to go after the source of the news story. Totally different.

  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday it's "highly likely" the the Senate intelligence committee will investigate former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's discussions with the Russian ambassador.

  http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/14/politics/republicans-want-flynn-investigations/
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  majorspark;1837248 wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/14/politics/republicans-want-flynn-investigations/

  Good.
  The article posted by Quaker made it seem the R just wanted to after the source, not the Ruskies.
• QuakerOats

  Which is why I used "links", instead of "link".
• QuakerOats

  Markets shrugging it off. Since the election we are running at a 60% annualized clip on the Dow.
  Too much winning; that needs to slow down.
• rocketalum

  While throwing the "dipshit" in there makes your argument immediately weaker, I'm willing to admit when I made a bad point. What you've pointed out though is that there are idiots on both sides of the isle. If you remove the groups from my example and yours it doesn't change the fact that there are relationships between this administration (don't forget Paul Manafort resigned due to Russian ties as well) and what we'll call a "less than friendly" foreign power. Is that not worth looking into?
  

  superman;1837237 wrote:Democrats 2012: Russia, haha why are you still living in the 80's?
  Democrats 2017: OMG! Russia is the greatest enemy the world has ever known.
  See how it goes both ways, dipshit?

• rocketalum

  QuakerOats;1837263 wrote:Markets shrugging it off. Since the election we are running at a 60% annualized clip on the Dow.
  Too much winning; that needs to slow down.

  So economic growth Trumps (pun intended) all else in how you rate a President? Not an attack on you I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from. I love what's happening with my portfolio in '17. If I had to trade lower returns for a more competent administration I would though.
• sleeper

  

  rocketalum;1837264 wrote:While throwing the "dipshit" in there makes your argument immediately weaker, I'm willing to admit when I made a bad point. What you've pointed out though is that there are idiots on both sides of the isle. If you remove the groups from my example and yours it doesn't change the fact that there are relationships between this administration (don't forget Paul Manafort resigned due to Russian ties as well) and what we'll call a "less than friendly" foreign power. Is that not worth looking into?

  Add in Carter Page as well.
  
  Trump and Russia = Connected.
  
  Republicans don't care.