BS: reign of terror

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 29 Jan 17 - 08:28 AM

Trump's Muslim ban will have exactly the opposite effect of its stated goal of "Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by Foreign Nationals". That is if one defines "nation" as a group of citizens, not just as a plot of land. Expect a severe backlash aimed at the thousands of American workers and visitors overseas, particularly those in predominately Muslim countries. Trump has just painted targets on the backs of all of them.

ISIS should send him a "Thank You" note for the huge bump in recruitment they're about to experience.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Jan 17 - 08:59 AM

That is what I sound like with a migraine.

The right wing message is to tell the people to shut up and take it, that the media is the enemy and marches and demonstration are all funded by Hillary and George Soros. They say there is always someone behind any opposition. It is one guy's fault not most of the people.

Even the left does this by saying it is all Trumps fault when in reality it is white Nationalist advisors like Bannon and his son in law who are really at the helm of incessant Presidential orders with no Congressional input so far.

Ignoring won't help anyone but the administration.
Instead we have to join and do a small part someplace somehow.
Eventually a division will open up on the right and we must embrace that division and welcome some of that right into our ranks.

Will this include welcoming anti abortion forces? Yes. At least some of them. The next Supreme court judge is bound to break the tie.
Will the left take this well? no.

It will take time for Senate and House seats to change over.
The irony of Obama being bound so tightly to the Constitution while Trump is successful by ignoring the Constitution is something I was too naïve about. I think we all were.

If war breaks open then you will always need to present papers and there will be no guaranteed rights or freedoms.

and that is the rest of my version of Bull Shit.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Jan 17 - 10:46 AM

HEY UK Are you ready for some serious inflation? Prepare yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: robomatic
Date: 29 Jan 17 - 11:45 AM

Bee-dubya:
I agree with you that Trump's recent orders will have negative effects. I think this is only the beginning. I'm concerned that we are going into an era of negative-plus, sort of like when the Republicans put out the "Contract With America" which the Dems called the "Contract ON America". The effects are not merely deleterious, but likely to sow disorganization.
some music

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: bobad
Date: 29 Jan 17 - 09:45 PM

Surprise, surprise.......a former Russian spy chief, Oleg Erovinkin, who was allegedly the source of much of the information Christopher Steele harvested on Trump in Russia is mysteriously found dead in the back of his car.......the FSB (formerly KGB) is investigating, lol. Christopher Steele remains in hiding.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jan 17 - 03:48 AM

"BBC News this morning has reported that the petition has been rejected by the Tory government"
I knew nothing of this petition - I assume this is a different petition I received this morning (message dated yesterday)

"Ian Saville 20 hrs ·
There is a petition asking that Trump not be invited for a state visit, which I have signed. However, I have also put up a petition saying he should not be invited for any sort of visit:
I've made a petition – will you sign it?
Click this link to sign the petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/…/spons…/yPupbe6AYDPTwro9b8Tq
My petition:
Donald Trump should be banned from visiting the United Kingdom.
Given Donald Trump's executive order barring citizens from 7 Muslim countries from entering the United States, his views on climate change, his attitude to women, his encouragement of violence and the authoritarian tone of his statements, it is not in the interests of the UK to allow him to visit.
It is clear that Donald Trump is an authoritarian President, whose views pose a grave danger to UK citizens and to the whole world. Allowing him to visit our country as though he were a normal leader will add to his authority and strengthen his power. He must not be treated as normal. He has already demonstrated that the rhetoric he spouted during his election campaign was not just bluster, and he is prepared to put extreme anti-humanitarian policies into practice. We must not give him credence.
Click this link to sign the petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/…/spons…/yPupbe6AYDPTwro9b8Tq
I attempted to sign it only to find that it has been blocked pending investigation
What the **** is happening?
This is totally unprecedented.
This is appalling - an open case of an attempt to block protest on behalf of an extremist right wing foreign leader.
"It would be wise Not to antagonise President Donal John in this manner."
And we have our own home-grown little crop of right wing Mudcat quislings ready to sell out our democracy on behalf of this monster.
One of Trump's first actions on being elected was to demand that Farage, the fascist residue of British politics, be appointed Ambassador
This piece of work jas his supporters here as well - 'bout time we dug out our "be careful of who you talk to - wall have ears" notices.
Getting our front doors kicked in by jackboots seems the logical next step.
And still our home-grown Trumpeters refuse to address either Trump's extremist nature and the effect it is beginning to have on all of us.
'Bout time they crawled out of their woodwork and justified themselves.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jan 17 - 10:39 PM

bobad another FSB Russian spy was imprisoned 2 weeks ago .


TRUMP FIRES ATTORNEY GENERAL Sally Yate would not enforce Muslim ban

the new yes man will be Dana Boetner (Bentner)

Sounds like Nixon all over again

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Iains
Date: 31 Jan 17 - 04:54 AM

Disobey a direct order in any organisation and you tend to get fired.
You can always try your luck in court if you have an issue with it, unless in the military where the word fire just may mean that literally.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Jan 17 - 05:33 AM

Regarding this "reign of terror" and the seeming cascade of Presidential Memoranda and Executive Orders. Is the man doing anything that he said he wouldn't do during his election campaign? Is he doing what he said he would do?

If the answer to the first question is NO, and the answer to the second is YES, then there can be no complaint as he is giving the American electorate exactly what it said on the box.

As for the Attorney General, I am with Iains on that. Under the system of Government in the USA any political appointee who gets into a pissing contest with the President is going to end up on the losing side of the argument.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Jan 17 - 05:59 AM

"For you stevie how about "Your Supreme Arrogance"?
and for you Jimmy "The Lord High Ranter"."
Wheren't you the one whingeing about people being rude to you
It seems Trump has dragged you out of your closet too
You have offered vacuous rudeness rather that actual ideas - you'll have to join the list to become a member of that sect - they have their stars already - all you are doing is borrowing their phraseology - not even original in your abuse
Give is a break Iains - this I a debating forum not an abuse column
And now we have Teribus "not supporting Trump"
Why don't you people have the balls to admit where you stand?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jan 17 - 06:27 AM

Interesting that I should be accused of "dropping by." An idle quick count shows that this is approximately my 40th post in this thread. It's a bit like accusing Theresa May of "dropping by" Number Ten! 😂

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: gillymor
Date: 31 Jan 17 - 08:52 AM

In 1933 a lot of Germans adopted a wait and see attitude toward Herr Hitler and by the time they "saw" it was too late.

Subject: RE: BS: reign of terror
From: Stu
Date: 31 Jan 17 - 09:18 AM

"if the woman disagreed with the policy she should have resigned"

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation and the issues it raise. Sally Yates is responsible for ensuring adherence to the law and the constitution; it's her job to tell the incumbent President whether what they are doing follows the letter of the law. In this case, she did the only thing she could. She swears an oath to the constitution, not the president.

Nice to see you're supporting the breakdown of law and order.