The anti-Trump resistance takes shape: 'Government's supposed to fear us'

[kevkev1888]

Some like yourself will ALWAYS have a problem whatever.

The business is being run by his sons.

That he has a security detail is of no relevance.

To say that government agencies are forced to pay to support business operations, is a stretch. 

As I said, the cost would be the same if he went on a golfing holiday.

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, kevkev1888 said:

Some like yourself will ALWAYS have a problem whatever.

The business is being run by his sons.

That he has a security detail is of no relevance.

To say that government agencies are forced to pay to support business operations, is a stretch. 

As I said, the cost would be the same if he went on a golfing holiday.

You obviously didn't read the article....

[kevkev1888]

11 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

You obviously didn't read the article....

I read it. It is BS to say the tax payer is supporting the business.

The tax payer is providing security, as they always will, whatever he is doing and wherever he goes, zero sum game!

Basically the ONLY argument there is that he is the son of the President.

Yes he is the son of the President, everyone knows that already, that is all that is in this non story.

And to that fact some, such as yourself will never be satisfied. Hence the BS puff piece about the security cost etc etc etc.

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, kevkev1888 said:

I read it. It is BS to say the tax payer is supporting the business.

The tax payer is providing security, as they always will, whatever he is doing and wherever he goes, zero sum game!

Basically the ONLY argument there is that he is the son of the President.

Yes he is the son of the President, everyone knows that already, that is all that is in this non story.

And to that fact some, such as yourself will never be satisfied. Hence the BS puff piece about the security cost etc etc etc.

Let's see. He's on a trip for his private business, a deal worth 100k-1MM/year, and the US government is funding the security detail as well as providing embassy officials.  Yes, I'd say the US taxpayer is funding that.

 

If Trump's so rich, why doesn't he pay for it himself?  It's not a golfing holiday.  It's a trip to make money! LOL

[kevkev1888]

2 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Let's see. He's on a trip for his private business, a deal worth 100k-1MM/year, and the US government is funding the security detail as well as providing embassy officials.  Yes, I'd say the US taxpayer is funding that.

 

If Trump's so rich, why doesn't he pay for it himself?  It's not a golfing holiday.  It's a trip to make money! LOL

It don't make any difference.

You will never be happy, as you hate Trump.

Getting dizzy going round in circles now, lets leave it there. :)

[craigt3365]

6 minutes ago, kevkev1888 said:

It don't make any difference.

You will never be happy, as you hate Trump.

Getting dizzy going round in circles now, lets leave it there. :)

I'll be happy when Trump starts acting like the POTUS.  Not an actor in The Apprentice.

 

Trump has (had?) a chance to do some really good things.  He's not heading down that route.  Bannon could be the big problem.  I don't know.  But so far, he's not off to a good start.  No denying that.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

I'll be happy when Trump starts acting like the POTUS.  Not an actor in The Apprentice.

 

Trump has (had?) a chance to do some really good things.  He's not heading down that route.  Bannon could be the big problem.  I don't know.  But so far, he's not off to a good start.  No denying that.

I'll give you that Obama ACTED like a president, but IMO achieved sod all. If Trump acts like Trump but achieves some of his promises he'll be doing OK in my opinion. Some people seem to think that a president has to be a certain way, but who made that rule?

[kevkev1888]

4 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

I'll be happy when Trump starts acting like the POTUS.  Not an actor in The Apprentice.

 

Trump has (had?) a chance to do some really good things.  He's not heading down that route.  Bannon could be the big problem.  I don't know.  But so far, he's not off to a good start.  No denying that.

Some do not have that same opinion but time will tell.

So far as the business side of things go, Trump is the brand, nothing can change that fact. If he does well as President then the brand will benefit, just no way round it. 

However, if he does bad then he will damage the brand. So........

[thaibeachlovers]

7 hours ago, Skywalker69 said:

Strange that you seems to know where I have not been. America is unsafer now than before. 

before when? 9/11, Boston bombing, FBI building bombing, Pearl harbour? Your statement means nothing without clarification.

[craigt3365]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'll give you that Obama ACTED like a president, but IMO achieved sod all. If Trump acts like Trump but achieves some of his promises he'll be doing OK in my opinion. Some people seem to think that a president has to be a certain way, but who made that rule?

Obama achieved a bit, but not as much as he could have.  A dysfunctional congress didn't help.  Can't blame him for that one.  Most of his actions were blocked in his last 4 years.  And he did help us get out of a terrible recession.

 

What promises are you interested in from Trump?  So far, him going after the judiciary isn't on.  It's counter productive.  His press briefings are like a war zone.  His attack on the media is ridiculous.  His tweets sound like they come from a spoiled 12 year old boy.  I'll give him some more time, but so far, he's creating more problems than he's solving.  We don't need more "alternative facts". LOL

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Obama achieved a bit, but not as much as he could have.  A dysfunctional congress didn't help.  Can't blame him for that one.  Most of his actions were blocked in his last 4 years.  And he did help us get out of a terrible recession.

 

What promises are you interested in from Trump?  So far, him going after the judiciary isn't on.  It's counter productive.  His press briefings are like a war zone.  His attack on the media is ridiculous.  His tweets sound like they come from a spoiled 12 year old boy.  I'll give him some more time, but so far, he's creating more problems than he's solving.  We don't need more "alternative facts". LOL

Agreed he isn't helping himself going after the judge, but I really like him attacking the lying, hypocritical media. 

I don't ever read tweets and that includes all of them, from anyone, so can't comment on that. 

Can't agree that he's creating problems. I'm lovin it when he gets up the uber liberal noses of foreign diplomats. Most of them need taking down a peg or three.

Destroyed TPP- great, trying to build the wall- excellent, trying to block Muslim terrorists from entering the US- that's his job.

[LannaGuy]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Agreed he isn't helping himself going after the judge, but I really like him attacking the lying, hypocritical media. 

I don't ever read tweets and that includes all of them, from anyone, so can't comment on that. 

Can't agree that he's creating problems. I'm lovin it when he gets up the uber liberal noses of foreign diplomats. Most of them need taking down a peg or three.

Destroyed TPP- great, trying to build the wall- excellent, trying to block Muslim terrorists from entering the US- that's his job.

I am astounded that a Judge can overrule the POTUS I mean an UNELECTED Judge???  stopping the elected POTUS?  amazing just amazing

[RuamRudy]

4 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

I am astounded that a Judge can overrule the POTUS I mean an UNELECTED Judge???  stopping the elected POTUS?  amazing just amazing

 

If you do not have faith in your judiciary as being an impartial arbiter of your nation's laws, then how can you rely upon anything else in your country?

I actually think that this speaks volumes around the world about progressiveness - your president should be subject to the law, not the other way around.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

 

If you do not have faith in your judiciary as being an impartial arbiter of your nation's laws, then how can you rely upon anything else in your country?

I actually think that this speaks volumes around the world about progressiveness - your president should be subject to the law, not the other way around.

The president IS subject to the law. The writers of the constitution made that clear. The final arbiters of the ban will be the SCOTUS.

However to imply that a judge is impartial is . They are human beings after all.

[craigt3365]

27 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Agreed he isn't helping himself going after the judge, but I really like him attacking the lying, hypocritical media. 

I don't ever read tweets and that includes all of them, from anyone, so can't comment on that. 

Can't agree that he's creating problems. I'm lovin it when he gets up the uber liberal noses of foreign diplomats. Most of them need taking down a peg or three.

Destroyed TPP- great, trying to build the wall- excellent, trying to block Muslim terrorists from entering the US- that's his job.

Lying, hypocritical media?  If you are talking about MSM, then I've yet to see lies.  You'll have to show a link for that.  They are reporting the news, and with regards to Trump, don't have to make anything up.  He's throws them softballs almost every day. LOL

 

You should read his tweets.  Seriously.  They are scary.  And shows what kind of man he is.  If you support him, you need to read these.

 

He's creating problems.  Thus, the massive amount of legal proceedings over his last poorly conceived and executed EO for travel bans.  What a mess.  And costing us more money.

 

The current vetting, enhanced by Obama, for refugees and those entering the US is already stringent.  Trumps current EO will do nothing to make America more safe.  Quite the contrary.  It's great fooder for the crazies.  He's given them a lot of ammo to use.

 

It's also been proven walls don't help.  I lived in San Diego and read weekly about how they'd get around it.  Trust me, it was a weekly thing there.

[Rigby40]

3 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Regardless of which side of the fence you are sitting on, and regardless of which side one, the narrative is playing out exactly as it is meant to. If Hillary won, the republicans, with the support of democrat sponsored agitators,  would be behaving in exactly the same manner. Now you are seeing the blues behaving badly, egged on by red agents provocateur.

 

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." Noam Chomsky

That's unlikely but it really had nothing to do with my post. 

The violence, intimidation and bullying on campus towards conservatives / Trump supporters has been happening for a good year now.

[RuamRudy]

22 minutes ago, Rigby40 said:

That's unlikely but it really had nothing to do with my post. 

The violence, intimidation and bullying on campus towards conservatives / Trump supporters has been happening for a good year now.

 

Why is it unlikely? Politrical and private organisiations the world over infiltrate entities which scare them, whether to garner knowledge, destabilise or discredit. Do you seriously think that the Republicans are above all that?

[LannaGuy]

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

 

If you do not have faith in your judiciary as being an impartial arbiter of your nation's laws, then how can you rely upon anything else in your country?

I actually think that this speaks volumes around the world about progressiveness - your president should be subject to the law, not the other way around.

but supreme court is appointed?  anyway this has miles to run and this has politics written all over it so i wouldn't be too self-congratulatory over your 'impartial arbiters' if i were you

[amykat]

11 hours ago, Rigby40 said:

I don't know how many times we've been lied to by 'experts' about Trump or conservatives in general over the last year. And I'm not going to start trusting people / media outlets now who have been proven liars to give me the facts. 

 

But for arguments sake let's say that is the case, private donations to these schools are going down. After the events at the University of Missouri, alumni donations went down in the tens of million of dollars, enrollment went down and they had to close down some dorms. That's not the only school to have lost funding or enrollment numbers because of these antics. 

So as long as university continue on this trajectory, they will continue to lose money and Trump doesn't have to do a single thing about it himself. 

 Rigby I don't know what your argument has to do with this point?  Private people can do what they like.  But was that even about the same issue and how did that help/hurt the cause (your cause?) ...dorms got shut, students got hurt ...poor students who rely on alumni funds maybe went to other schools and that caused enrollment to go down which caused dorms to get shut due to no need?

 

I'm not sure "experts" are "lying to you" ...the people you depend you to get your version of the news ..tell you THAT and you believe it. The laws are there for you to read!  You may not be able to understand them fully and interpret them yourself and therefore we have some "experts" who can do that for you.  Those things aren't always 100% black and white ..but they are not "lies".  You have to put on your critical thinking skills cap ..pull up your big boy pants and get to work!  Do the research,  don't sit back and drink the kool-aid if you don't trust people as you say!!  You are accepting one version as the truth and all others as the the liars!!

 

You also have to think about what is the purpose of these federal funds and who will they really hurt??  You don't just cut them because you are pissed off one day and "think" you are supporting free speech!! Trump is just supporting his own damn ego.

[RuamRudy]

27 minutes ago, Rigby40 said:

Sure, anything is possible. But your missing the point of my posts which is that we've been attacked and bullied on college campuses and rallies all last year.

Since you're not addressing my point, I'll just say if republicans and conservatives were bullying, attacking and intimidating leftist speakers on college campuses this whole last year I'd be more inclined to believe we would be acting the same way if Hillary had won, but alas we're just not the rioting, violent, melting-snowflake type.

There are some exceptions but for every one of those incidents I'll show you 100 videos of leftists doing worse.

I think that you are missing the point. How do you know that there are not republican agitators fomenting the aggro? I am not saying this as a partisan observer because I think it happens from both sides - they equally have an agenda to discredit the oppostition in the eyes of their own supporters. So those 100 videos that you have - maybe none, some or all are the result of republican agitators infiltrating the ranks of the protestors. The fact is that we little people are going to be hoodwinked no matter who is in power.

[Rigby40]

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

I think that you are missing the point. How do you know that there are not republican agitators fomenting the aggro? I am not saying this as a partisan observer because I think it happens from both sides - they equally have an agenda to discredit the oppostition in the eyes of their own supporters. So those 100 videos that you have - maybe none, some or all are the result of republican agitators infiltrating the ranks of the protestors. The fact is that we little people are going to be hoodwinked no matter who is in power.

hahaha that puts me in mind of some funny imagery. Trump supporters wearing bright colored hair, septum piercings and those obnoxious 'problem glasses'? Hmm.. I don't know if they could go through with it to be honest 

[AlexRich]

8 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

The point is to try to prevent terrorist attacks from those countries. It is absurd to fixate on statistics from the past. Islamic terrorism is spreading. These countries are hotbeds of Islamic terrorism and it is only a matter of time until a refugee from these countries commits a violent act unless they are carefully vetted.

To eliminate all risk you would simply need to close the airports and the ports, let no foreigners into the US, and expel some citizens and green card holders that you already have ... and even then, you'd still have the risk that those actions angered some internal muslims (not expelled) sufficiently to radicalise them. You're not making any citizen safer. You're helping fanatics with their recruitment!

 

And why not Tunisia ... the Salafists there have sent more people to Isis than any other country. And this is now, not history. Or Saudi Arabia or Lebanon?

 

The sad fact is that Trump is interested in keeping Americans safe ... as long as it does not interfere with his business interests ... so no ban for those countries he does business with? He's a fraud.

[AlexRich]

7 hours ago, beechguy said:

No, it's pretty easy to find connections worth noting, the Underwear Bomber was Nigerian, but suspected of being trained in Yemen. There have been U.S. Operations out of Djibouti for years, because of training camps and activities in Sudan, Somalia, etc. As I said, living in the region is a good eye opener, not just sitting and reading the crap on CNN or MSNBC.

 

The US ban covers no country where Trump does business ... but Saudi Arabia and Lebanon have citizens who are involved in funding terrorist groups. The 9/11 hijackers came from countries in that region, none of which are covered in the ban. Tunisia has sent more young people to join ISIS than any other, through the Salafists who are influential in that country. Pakistan is another. Neither are included in the ban. If you think that Trump cares about the safety of Americans why did he not ban countries that he has business interests in? He's a fraud.

[amykat]

1 hour ago, Rigby40 said:

Yes, they took a hit and had to adjust accordingly. The funds will role in again once they start playing nice and respecting the rights to free speech of everyone, not just their own liberal ilk. You'd be surprised at how fast your attitude changes when you're getting hit right in the pocket book. 

 

"You have to put on your critical thinking skills cap ..pull up your big boy pants and get to work!  Do the research,  don't sit back and drink the kool-aid if you don't trust people as you say!!  You are accepting one version as the truth and all others as the the liars!!"

I totally agree! That's why I research what I've been told(even by people on my side of the fence) and cross-reference. I didn't always do this but I've started to a year ago when I became 'woke' by world events and the presidential election.

 

"You also have to think about what is the purpose of these federal funds and who will they really hurt??  You don't just cut them because you are pissed off one day and "think" you are supporting free speech!! Trump is supporting his own damn ego."

If you think he's just supporting his own ego then, sorry bro but I can't in any way believe you've been paying the slightest bit of attention to the cultural / social climate the last few years. We're so sick and tired of free speech being suppressed and what Trump said is largely a reflection of how we feel. I was so gosh darn elated when I realized that he was going to finally do something about this and put his foot down against this hate for free speech, we all were.

 

I BELIEVE what Trump SAYS is often a REFLECTION of what his supporters FEEL!!!  BELIEVE ME!!!  That is why we are here today and he WON!!  My statement was meant to tell you that regardless, you can't just do whatever you want.  That federal money is not in place to support "free speech" specifically and at schools and so it stands to reason that you can't take it away and punish indiscriminately students around the country, because you feel that you are supporting your version of "free speech" one day in a tantrum on Twitter and your supporters "feel good" about that!!

 

We have laws in place and regulations and procedures and those must be followed.  People must be dealt with fairly. It you want to sue someone re "free speech" than you are free to do that various ways.

 

[Rigby40]

7 minutes ago, amykat said:

 

I BELIEVE what Trump SAYS is often a REFLECTION of what his supporters FEEL!!!  BELIEVE ME!!!  That is why we are here today and he WON!!  My statement was meant to tell you that regardless, you can't just do whatever you want.  That federal money is not in place to support "free speech" specifically and at schools and so it stands to reason that you can't take it away and punish indiscriminately students around the country, because you feel that you are supporting your version of "free speech" one day in a tantrum on Twitter and your supporters "feel good" about that!!

 

We have laws in place and regulations and procedures and those must be followed.  People must be dealt with fairly. It you want to sue someone re "free speech" than you are free to do that various ways.

 

Well we're going to have to agree to disagree. Free speech is the thread of society in this country and there are too many canaries in the coal mines of Europe for us to take these issues lightly. 

 

Have a good one.

[beechguy]

15 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

A lot of them learned these skills on the playing fields of Iraq where they battled the Americans.

And those people were contained there, until Obama took his foot off their throat.

[beechguy]

8 hours ago, AlexRich said:

 

The US ban covers no country where Trump does business ... but Saudi Arabia and Lebanon have citizens who are involved in funding terrorist groups. The 9/11 hijackers came from countries in that region, none of which are covered in the ban. Tunisia has sent more young people to join ISIS than any other, through the Salafists who are influential in that country. Pakistan is another. Neither are included in the ban. If you think that Trump cares about the safety of Americans why did he not ban countries that he has business interests in? He's a fraud.

So why didn't Obama ban those countries?

[beechguy]

14 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Why selectively stop making those connections at a point that suits your point of view? The smart thing would to go back further than the 80's to understand why the fundamentalism and anti-western sentiment is rife throughout Africa and the middle east. Of course, for westerners in general and Americans in particular, that would require a lot of humility, acceptance of guilt and huge financial reparations...

I've done the smart thing numerous times, when discussing why the Middle East situation wasn't all of George Bush's fault. Usually falls on deaf ears of the MSNBC crowd. The U.S. has had some less than successful involvements, generally, I blame Africa on the Europeans. On the whole though, I would rather have lived on the west side of the Berlin Wall, south of the Korean border, etc. so not all are failures.

[Scott]

10 minutes ago, beechguy said:

So why didn't Obama ban those countries?

It's not generally necessary to impose a ban on a country.   The issuing of visa regulations can be changed to assure that only those whom we want to allow in are permitted entry.   In some cases, that is a snail's pace for visas.  

 

There is almost always someone that deserves entry.   Whether it is a spouse who happens to be from the wrong country or a person in need of specialized medical care.   In the case of Iranians, a lot of the people who wish to travel to the US went to Turkey and the American embassy in Turkey was involved in issuing the visas.  There is an NGO which operates in Turkey and assists with the screening of refugees from Iran.   Most of these are people from minority religious groups that face persecution in Iran.  

 

The ban causes major problems not only for the people involved, but for refugees, there is a lot of paperwork and travel plans which are the responsibility of the Embassy to coordinate because these people are not traveling with a passport.   

[AlexRich]

40 minutes ago, beechguy said:

So why didn't Obama ban those countries?

I'll take a guess? No doubt for the same reason he did not ban the one's on Trump's list, he didn't think it necessary.