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

[beechguy]

22 minutes ago, Scott said:

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.   

I agree many people are victims of their governments, and circumstances. I just do not agree that every country's citizens, should have access to the U.S. I don't think they should be ignored or abandoned, but the aid should be provided in their own country if possible, or nearby.

[beechguy]

2 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

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.

Apparently he had an issue with Iraq, at one time.

As stated above, I believe we should render aid, but it doesn't necessarily have to be allow access to the U.S. Sooner, rather than later, we will be facing the same problems as Europe, or worse than we already have.

[Scott]

The issue I was addressing was not necessarily related to only refugees.   It is related to all people applying for various kinds of visas.   Refugees are really a separate process because they are being admitted on a permanent basis.  

 

Here is an article that might shed some light on the vetting process.   It is slightly emotional in nature, but gives some idea of how the vetting process works.   Having been in many interviews, a lot of officers grow pretty hardened to the sad stories; some even callous.  

 

Once this part is over, there is still another layer that goes on with the actual issuing of the travel documents and the preparation for travel.  

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/02/01/refugees-are-already-vigorously-vetted-i-know-because-i-vetted-them/?postshare=2461486389270584&tid=ss_fb-bottom&utm_term=.a74f782f20ab

[JetsetBkk]

On Monday, February 06, 2017 at 0:29 AM, Skywalker69 said:

So why didn´t he ban the country´s that some of the 9/11 bombers came from?

Because it was Obama's list of countries.

[JetsetBkk]

23 hours ago, Skywalker69 said:

So a functioning government doesn´t harbor terrorists? 15 of the terrorist came from Saudi Arabia, not  included in the ban.

2 of terrorists came from United Arab Emirates, not included in the ban.

1 terrorist came from Egypt, not included in the ban

Finally 1 terrorist came from Lebanon, not included in the ban.

 

I see a pattern, Trump do business in the abowe country´s but not in the banned once.

 

 

 

It was Obama's list. Maybe he did a lot of business with the Saudis? Something about oil, maybe?

 

[JetsetBkk]

17 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

On Sunday, February 05, 2017 at 6:36 PM, kevkev1888 said:

Boo hoo. Totally standard procedure for family members to receive protection.

So what? 

It's called nepotism.  And shouldn't be allowed.  Trump's pushing the boundaries there.  Put together with all the other dodgy stuff he's doing, it doesn't sit well with most people. 

 

Nepotism? Why didn't you Google it and save yourself the embarrassment?

 

"By law, the Secret Service protects the president and his family, the vice president and her family, the president-elect and his family and the vice president-elect and her family.

Former presidents and their spouses also get lifetime protection. A spouse will lose a Secret Service detail if he or she gets remarried. Children of former presidents under the age of 16 are also covered.

Some Cabinet members in the presidential order of succession, U.S. Senators and members of Congress receive protection."

“If we were to ask the Secret Service bureau who gets the protection and who doesn’t, they’re not going to tell us,"

 

I won't give the link, I'll let you Google it - good practice for you.

 

[craigt3365]

5 hours ago, JetsetBkk said:

 

Nepotism? Why didn't you Google it and save yourself the embarrassment?

 

"By law, the Secret Service protects the president and his family, the vice president and her family, the president-elect and his family and the vice president-elect and her family.

Former presidents and their spouses also get lifetime protection. A spouse will lose a Secret Service detail if he or she gets remarried. Children of former presidents under the age of 16 are also covered.

Some Cabinet members in the presidential order of succession, U.S. Senators and members of Congress receive protection."

“If we were to ask the Secret Service bureau who gets the protection and who doesn’t, they’re not going to tell us,"

 

I won't give the link, I'll let you Google it - good practice for you.

 

Well aware of this.  But thanks for the help.

 

You might want to read this.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/14/13608960/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interest-corruption

 

Quote

 

President Trump and the Trump Organization are the biggest conflict of interest in US history

Trump is mixing business and government in a way that will allow for massive corruption.

 

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/#Blind-Trust

Quote

President Donald Trump still has not taken the necessary steps to distance himself from his businesses while in office. In accordance with a plan that he and one of his lawyers, Sheri Dillon, laid out at a press conference on January 11, Trump has filed paperwork to remove himself from the day-to-day operation of his eponymous organization. However, numerous ethics experts have voiced strenuous objections to the plan, which they say does very little to resolve the issue: As long as Trump continues to profit from his business empire—which he does whether or not he is nominally in charge—they say, the possibility that outside actors will attempt to affect his policies by plumping up his pocketbook will remain very much in play.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/21/jared-kushner-donald-trump-job-white-house-nepotism

 

Quote

 

Jared Kushner cleared for Trump job, breaking with decades of legal advice

The president’s son-in-law will serve as a ‘senior advisor’ in the White House, despite an anti-nepotism law, following a justice department review

 

The justice department has cleared Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to serve in the White House, with an opinion that upends four decades of legal advice regarding a federal law against nepotism.

 

 

Funny.  They used nepotism in that last article also. LOL

[craigt3365]

https://qz.com/852836/donald-trump-brought-his-daughter-ivanka-to-meet-japans-shinzo-abe-as-she-was-doing-a-deal-with-sanei-international/

 

Quote

 

Ivanka Trump was working out a deal with a Japanese government-backed company when she met Shinzo Abe

When president-elect Donald J. Trump brought along his daughter Ivanka to meet Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe in mid-November, observers raised their eyebrows. While family members often accompany heads of state on diplomatic visits, Ivanka’s presence in the meeting itself was highly unusual.

 

It also came as she was negotiating a deal with a Japanese company, which is backed by a government-owned development bank.

..............

The potential partnership highlights the troubling overlap between the Trump family’s corporate deals and president-elect Trump’s diplomatic efforts.

 

 

 

[Opl]

This was to be the revenge of Main Street against Wall Street, far from the populist accents of the campaign trail, when Trump claimed to denounce the betrayal of American elites,

 

Trump yields to Wall Street pressure groups against the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ,  by attacking :

-  the so-called "Volcker" regulation which forbids banks to speculate on their own account

-  the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) responsible for regulating credit cards and real estate loans  

- the fiduciary law, which was due to enter into force in April: it forced financial professionals to act in the interest of their clients in the management of their pension funds and not direct them to High commissions.

 

Financial regulation has been imposed on banks that do not want it. They prefer to continue to privatize profits to the benefit of shareholders and pool losses at the expense of taxpayers, ie middle classes; to justify this decree, Trump claimed  that some of his friends had had difficulty obtaining credits under this law..." “I have so many people, friends of mine, with nice businesses, they can’t borrow money, because the banks just won’t let them borrow because of the rules and regulations and Dodd-Frank.”

 so ..  a fiduciary rule must be broken because of problems encountered by Trump's relatives?  Is' nt this, moreover, the very principle of the law? That it serves the private interests of  friends to the detriment of public needs?

That's what Trump calls " fighting the Establishment"

[Opl]

President Trump blasted luxury department store Nordstrom for dropping his daughter Ivanka Trump’s label, a move that drew immediate criticism for further blurring the line between Trump’s administration and his family’s businesses.

 

"“My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person -- always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible!” Trump tweeted Wednesday morning."

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-nordstrom-tweet-ivanka-234791

 

"Last week, employees at T.J. Maxx and Marshalls got very clear instructions about where to put signs for Ivanka Trump products: in the garbage." “I think they all have probably been looking closely at Ivanka’s sales numbers and weighing whether they’re worth all the problems she’s brought them,” said Shannon Coulter, who helped found #GrabYourWallet, an online campaign to boycott Trump products.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/business/ivanka-trump-nordstrom-tj-maxx.html?_r=0

 

 

Edited February 8, 2017 by Opl

[Ulysses G.]

Pretty typical of the left attacking an innocent person. Ivanka Trump is not responsible for her father's policies.

[Credo]

6 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

Pretty typical of the left attacking an innocent person. Ivanka Trump is not responsible for her father's policies.

Her stuff is overpriced crap and the Trump brand does not add any value to it.   Thus it is being relegated to the dustbin.   

[Ulysses G.]

We all know that the reason for her products being discontinued has nothing to do with price. Non-partisan retail workers say her line sells well.

[AlexRich]

26 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

We all know that the reason for her products being discontinued has nothing to do with price. Non-partisan retail workers say her line sells well.

Not to worry. In a few months she'll be backing up a truck at Fort Knox ... as Trump behind looting the country.

[craigt3365]

4 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

Pretty typical of the left attacking an innocent person. Ivanka Trump is not responsible for her father's policies.

Agreed.  But Trump, as the POTUS, should know better than to tweet garbage like that.  I'm sure you agree.  It looks like a tweet from a spoiled 12 year old.

 

I see more lawsuits coming.  Like this one:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/trump-suing-washington-dc-again.html

Quote

President-elect Trump Is Suing Washington, D.C. (Again)

 

But as the article says, he can just fire some government employees and have them do what he wants:

Quote

Soon this will be much less of a headache for Trump. As president he will be able to appoint the head of the General Services Administration, and that appointee will negotiate future leases for the property with the new heads of Trump’s companies: his children.

 

He needs to separate himself from his businesses.  But I know he won't do that until he's forced to.  Hopefully, that will happen.

[Ulysses G.]

5 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Agreed.  But Trump, as the POTUS, should know better than to tweet garbage like that.  I'm sure you agree.  I

 

Not necessarily. I do not blame him for defending his daughter. Personally, I wish that he would do a lot of things differently, but I am not the one who won an election that was supposedly impossible to win. IMO, the man deserves some leeway. He is not a typical politician, he did the unimaginable and he is keeping the campaign promises that he made. How unusual is that?

[craigt3365]

12 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

Not necessarily. I do not blame him for defending his daughter. Personally, I wish that he would do a lot of things differently, but I am not the one who won an election that was supposedly impossible to win. IMO, the man deserves some leeway. He is not a typical politician, he did the unimaginable and he is keeping the campaign promises that he made. How unusual is that?

Agreed, it's OK to defend his daughter.  Sad you don't understand why a tweet like this is totally inappropriate coming from the POTUS considering what's going on.  Seems like this is the problem with Trump supporters.  They can't see any of the problems he is creating.  Just blindly support him.

 

Enough with the "he won the election".  That's getting old and is just a deflection.  He's had enough time to sort things out.  The honeymoon is over and he's still doing ridiculous things.  Time to man up and bring the country together.  Not go after retail outlets because they didn't do something good for his daughter.  100% inappropriate.

[Ulysses G.]

16 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Agreed, it's OK to defend his daughter.  Sad you don't understand why a tweet like this is totally inappropriate coming from the POTUS considering what's going on.  Seems like this is the problem with Trump supporters.  They can't see any of the problems he is creating.  Just blindly support him.

 

Anyone who has read my posts knows that I do not blindly support him. That is a deflection. I am sometimes critical, but only when - IMO - he deserves it. 

[craigt3365]

13 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

Anyone who has read my posts knows that I do not blindly support him. That is a deflection. I am sometimes critical, but only when - IMO - he deserves it. 

But you are not critical of this tweet to Nordstrom?  It's totally out of order and a conflict of interests.  100% improper, yet you are OK with it.  Hmm....

 

http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/08/news/companies/donald-trump-nordstrom-ivanka/index.html

Quote

Nordstrom responded Wednesday by repeating that the decision to drop Ivanka Trump items was "based on performance."

 

"Over the past year, and particularly in the last half of 2016, sales of the brand have steadily declined to the point where it didn't make good business sense for us to continue with the line for now," the company said.

 

"We've had a great relationship with the Ivanka Trump team.

 

Now that's the way to communicate.  Polite, professional, not mean.

[rijb]

I wonder how much revenue, from her brand, they're talking about.

[Credo]

19 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

Anyone who has read my posts knows that I do not blindly support him. That is a deflection. I am sometimes critical, but only when - IMO - he deserves it. 

Pretty much everyone who has read your posts knows you make endless excuses for inexcusable behavior, you defend the indefensible and you justify and deflect rather consistently.    

 

Ivanka's stuff is being removed because it is not selling.   It is not selling because it is overpriced crap which has value because of the Trump name and that name is losing value.   Trump has no business tweeting about his adult daughter's business.   Her husband is part of the administration and she was peddling her brand in a news conference; you may recall, the $10,000 bracelet.

 

He is a boil on the butt of humanity.   

[craigt3365]

The Trump brand might be getting into trouble.  I sure hope so if it helps to get rid of his tweets!

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/world/middleeast/in-istanbul-surprise-that-trump-towers-complex-is-linked-to-trump.html
 

Quote

 

Evin Sumeli, a 19-year-old training to be an anesthetist, was sitting down for a meal with her sister, Mizgin, 18, when she learned that Mr. Trump does indeed profit from the buildings. “O.K. — we’re leaving!” she declared.

.......

“Why should I respect a president who doesn’t respect my veil?” asked the younger Ms. Sumeli, who is studying child development. “We won’t be coming here again,” her elder sister added.

 

 

[Opl]

6 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

We all know that the reason for her products being discontinued has nothing to do with price. Non-partisan retail workers say her line sells well.

[Opl]

9 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

Pretty typical of the left attacking an innocent person. Ivanka Trump is not responsible for her father's policies.

 

so-called President Trump worries about the fact that his daughter's panties are no longer sold... It gives the impression that he uses his function to promote the commercial interests of his daughter

 

Trump also decided to give maximum echo to this attack by passing it on his personal account @realDonaldTrump as well as on the official one of the US presidency @POTUS.

 

Melania also accredits the image of a clan determined to derive a commercial advantage from the Trump Presidency. (for former model, by becoming First Lady, was "a unique opportunity in a lifetime, as an extremely famous person, (...) to launch a trademark on a Wide range of products, each of which would have guaranteed millions of dollars ".

 

Edited February 9, 2017 by Opl

[Ulysses G.]

2 hours ago, Credo said:

Pretty much everyone who has read your posts knows you make endless excuses for inexcusable behavior, you defend the indefensible and you justify and deflect rather consistently.    

 

 

As opposed to those who obsessively post negative spin,  distortions of the truth and seem to have nothing to do but dishonestly demonize the man who won the Presidential election in a vain attempt to delegitimize the office? I am just telling it like it is.

[craigt3365]

37 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

As opposed to those who obsessively post negative spin,  distortions of the truth and seem to have nothing to do but dishonestly demonize the man who won the Presidential election in a vain attempt to delegitimize the office? I am just telling it like it is.

Tapper, in his interview with Conway, addressed the negative media reports.  Loved what he said.  He said the media would love to cover important issues instead of negative ones.  But it means the administration needs to start acting properly, not call the media "fake news", stop telling lies, etc.  Conway just deflected to "we won the election, it's what the people want, etc".  Never addressed the issue.

 

Trump is his own worst enemy.  What truth has been distorted?  And winning the election has nothing to do with this.  He's delegitimizing the office of the president.  Nobody else to blame for that.

Edited February 9, 2017 by craigt3365

[funandsuninbangkok]

On 11/21/2016 at 3:33 PM, Jingthing said:

I am not contesting the legitimacy of the electoral college or the legality of the trump win. 

Mentioning Hillary Clinton's popular vote win simply gives power to the reality that even though trump completely controls the government, a majority segment of the people don't support most of his agenda (at least as stated in the campaign). So no mandate.

Remember, he's the MOST UNPOPULAR president elect in U.S. history and it's likely to go downhill from that before very long at all. 

 

Islamic ban very popular in US

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/318541-trump-tweets-poll-showing-popularity-of-travel-ban

 

 

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

 

Islamic ban very popular in US

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/318541-trump-tweets-poll-showing-popularity-of-travel-ban

 

 

Fake news! LOL

[Opl]

Conway may have broken key ethics rule by touting Ivanka Trump’s products, experts say

 

President Trump’s official counselor, Kellyanne Conway, may have broken a key ethics rule Thursday morning when she told TV audiences to “go buy Ivanka’s stuff.”

Federal employees are banned from using their public office to endorse products, regulations state.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/conway-may-have-broken-key-ethics-rule-by-touting-ivanka-trumps-products-experts-say/2017/02/09/fd1cc64a-eeda-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html?utm_term=.4e6d6a03536f

[Ulysses G.]

More nitpicking. Nothing will come of this latest ridiculous accusation.  The Trump-haters - "resistance" - are getting more and more petty and most people realize it. 

Edited February 9, 2017 by Ulysses G.