President Trump's executive orders discussion thread

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 1:35 pm

tude dog;1505892 wrote: The responsibility of securing our borders belongs to the federal government.

I hear the Canadians are think of building a wall, there has been a suggestion the rest of us could have a whip round and get a lid...................sorted.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 1:36 pm

Wandrin;1505876 wrote: This could be a real test for Congress. How are they going to budget for the $25 billion it would cost? How does the cost of the wall stack up against the tax cuts for the rich that they want, as well as the other items on their agenda? Will they anger part of their base by increasing the deficit to pay for it to gain points from the part of their base that wants the wall?

In practicality, it will take years just to acquire the land and many trips to court. There is both private property and federally protected natural land that would have to be acquired to build the wall.

[img]https://s30.postimg.org/s2uv4200x/holb_ ... 120100.jpg" alt="" />image hosting free[/IMG]

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 1:40 pm

tude dog;1505893 wrote: Illegals come here and suck off everybody and everything around them.

Ya know, I don't blame them, just trying to get along, survive. I don't think it's fair to the rest of us who have to pay/suffer the expense of their problem.

A record number of U.S. billionaires are immigrants

Wonder how many are or were illegals ?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:35 pm

Yeah, like congress will do anything. Still............interesting thought:

Congress: Require Trump to prove no Dakota Access Pipeline conflicts of interest

RS

"Dear fellow MoveOn member,

President Trump just signed an executive order that could allow work on the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) to proceed—threatening the water of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and 17 million people who live and work along the shore of the Missouri River.1

Trump's team has claimed he has no conflict of interest, but their word is not enough. Will you sign and share this petition urging Congress to require Trump to prove he is not profiting off this executive order?

Require President Trump to provide the audit trail of papers proving he is no longer involved in any way, shape, or form with the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Federal disclosure forms filed in May of 2016 showed that President Donald Trump held shares in Energy Transfer Partners and Phillips 66, both part of the DAPL entity. A Trump spokesperson announced that he had sold off his shares in Energy Transfer Partners, but the Trump team would not say whether he had sold his stake in Phillips 66.2

This presents a clear conflict of interest if he cannot prove he is fully divested of all interest in the pipeline, and was before he signed his executive order.

If the President has truly divested, he should easily be able to prove it and put the claim to rest. If he cannot, he has no business signing executive orders that cause conflicts of interest.

Thanks!

—Roxanne Saxton

Sources:

1. "Trump Pins Keystone, Dakota Pipeline Fate on Renegotiation," Bloomberg, January 24, 2017

https://act.moveon.org/go/7790?t=5&akid ... 718._7OWUk

2. "Trump Owns Stake In Hotly Disputed $3.8 Billion Oil Pipeline, Conflict Of Interest Looms," Forbes, November 26, 2016

http://act.moveon.org/go/7791?t=7&akid= ... 718._7OWUk"

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:37 pm

AnneBoleyn;1505899 wrote: Yeah, like congress will do anything. Still............interesting thought:

Congress: Require Trump to prove no Dakota Access Pipeline conflicts of interest

RS

"Dear fellow MoveOn member,

President Trump just signed an executive order that could allow work on the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) to proceed—threatening the water of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and 17 million people who live and work along the shore of the Missouri River.1

Trump's team has claimed he has no conflict of interest, but their word is not enough. Will you sign and share this petition urging Congress to require Trump to prove he is not profiting off this executive order?

Require President Trump to provide the audit trail of papers proving he is no longer involved in any way, shape, or form with the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Federal disclosure forms filed in May of 2016 showed that President Donald Trump held shares in Energy Transfer Partners and Phillips 66, both part of the DAPL entity. A Trump spokesperson announced that he had sold off his shares in Energy Transfer Partners, but the Trump team would not say whether he had sold his stake in Phillips 66.2

This presents a clear conflict of interest if he cannot prove he is fully divested of all interest in the pipeline, and was before he signed his executive order.

If the President has truly divested, he should easily be able to prove it and put the claim to rest. If he cannot, he has no business signing executive orders that cause conflicts of interest.

Thanks!

—Roxanne Saxton

Sources:

1. "Trump Pins Keystone, Dakota Pipeline Fate on Renegotiation," Bloomberg, January 24, 2017

https://act.moveon.org/go/7790?t=5&akid ... 718._7OWUk

2. "Trump Owns Stake In Hotly Disputed $3.8 Billion Oil Pipeline, Conflict Of Interest Looms," Forbes, November 26, 2016

http://act.moveon.org/go/7791?t=7&akid= ... 718._7OWUk"

[img]https://s29.postimg.org/ewhymjd7r/Somet ... d_move.jpg" alt="" />free picture hosting[/IMG]

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:40 am

Notes US trampling on Native American Rights granted by Treaty, when it suits the suits.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 28, 2017 4:34 am

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -full-text

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

January 27, 2017

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES

It's a bit long, I'll not paste it.

The nationals banned from entry to America are those traveling on passports from Countries of Particular Concern: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law.

So where on earth is Saudi Arabia in among that list of banned nationals?

Whose nationals predominated among the alleged 9/11 hijackers? Weren't they Saudi passport holders?

What nationality were Al-Qaeda's founders? Which country is funding ISIS? Iraq crisis: How Saudi Arabia helped Isis take over the north of the country | The Independent

Or is President Trump one of the House of Saud's running dogs like the Bushes were.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 28, 2017 5:04 am

Wandrin;1505876 wrote: In practicality, it will take years just to acquire the land and many trips to court. There is both private property and federally protected natural land that would have to be acquired to build the wall.The problem of ownership of the land on which the wall will be built could be solved by America annexing perhaps 200 yards of Mexico along the entire length of the border, and building the wall on that. I can't see Mexico going to war over such an insult.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jan 28, 2017 7:09 am

spot;1505957 wrote: The problem of ownership of the land on which the wall will be built could be solved by America annexing perhaps 200 yards of Mexico along the entire length of the border, and building the wall on that. I can't see Mexico going to war over such an insult.And Trump could spin that as a form of payment.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Sat Jan 28, 2017 8:31 am

spot;1505957 wrote: The problem of ownership of the land on which the wall will be built could be solved by America annexing perhaps 200 yards of Mexico along the entire length of the border, and building the wall on that. I can't see Mexico going to war over such an insult.

Wouldn't that be an overt act of war?

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Sat Jan 28, 2017 8:32 am

spot;1505956 wrote:

So where on earth is Saudi Arabia in among that list of banned nationals?

Whose nationals predominated among the alleged 9/11 hijackers? Weren't they Saudi passport holders?

What nationality were Al-Qaeda's founders? Which country is funding ISIS? Iraq crisis: How Saudi Arabia helped Isis take over the north of the country | The Independent

Or is President Trump one of the House of Saud's running dogs like the Bushes were.

Trump exempted any countries in the region with whom his company does business.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 28, 2017 8:36 am

Wandrin;1505965 wrote: Wouldn't that be an overt act of war?

Undoubtedly. How many other American overt acts of war can you recall from the last thirty years? What's one more?

He could call it a GPS adjustment.

He could say it was part of the USA before it was a part of Mexico and it's now been reclaimed, a bit like the Malvinas.

He could have Halliburton fill in the Chicxulub Depression to make up the missing area of the commandeered border strip, and charge that to Mexico too.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jan 28, 2017 9:25 am

Based on now new Trumpian precedence, Mexico could say they'll pay for the wall and then after completion refuse based on results that are inferior to expectation.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 28, 2017 12:21 pm

I note that Iran is the first country to impose mirror diplomacy on America, announcing that no American visas are valid for Iran and no more will be issued until President Trump's restriction on Iranians entering America is lifted. I can see mirror diplomacy catching on, it's a sensible way forward.

The current abbreviation of "President Trump" seems to be Trumpolini, given the near-perfect imitation of Mussolini's posed frown the President is using this week. And I've not seen President Trump stand and address people without waving his arms continuously either.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 28, 2017 2:09 pm

There's a clause I'd missed, first time through, in that order about foreigners:Agencies shall, to the extent consistent with applicable law, ensure that their privacy policies exclude persons who are not United States citizens or lawful permanent residents from the protections of the Privacy Act regarding personally identifiable information.

That's me, that is. I'm not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident. Any US agency can plant intercepts and monitor all my phone and internet traffic without constraint.

Though I'd thought what it says there is what US law said before Trumpolini took office anyway. I'm not aware of any time when US agencies couldn't spy on Brits to the best of their ability.

I'd point out that British law allows Brit-spooks to spy on American citizens in America, it's not just one way. And I bet the US agencies can access the Brit-spook intercept database on US nationals and vice versa, in which case nobody's immune anywhere. I thought getting round protections was why the five nations agency intelligence sharing had stayed together all this while.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Sat Jan 28, 2017 2:22 pm

The immigrant ban from those countries seems to also include those who already hold green cards (permanent residency in US). There are a lot of news stories about people stranded and unable to fly back to the US from vacations.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sat Jan 28, 2017 2:52 pm

I am just thrilled somebody actually takes our borders seriously. :guitarist

There is no way to calculate the expense and misery of open borders.

It is too bad his first action isn't against so-called SANCTUARY CITIES or other jurisdictions of similar ilk. When he does the entertainment will be fabulous entertainment watching the hysteria among the intelligentsia elite.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Jan 28, 2017 3:09 pm

tude dog;1505989 wrote: I am just thrilled somebody actually takes our borders seriously. :guitarist

There is no way to calculate the expense and misery of open borders.

It is too bad his first action isn't against so-called SANCTUARY CITIES or other jurisdictions of similar ilk. When he does the entertainment will be fabulous entertainment watching the hysteria among the intelligentsia elite.

He's allowing saudi terrorists free access does that not concern you?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat Jan 28, 2017 4:03 pm

gmc;1505992 wrote: He's allowing saudi terrorists free access does that not concern you?

This seems to fit in w/my message #54. It's all about his conflicts of interest. Anyone else would be impeached. It's insane, the whole thing.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sat Jan 28, 2017 4:40 pm

gmc;1505992 wrote: He's allowing saudi terrorists free access does that not concern you?

You mean he didn't change Obama's policy yet?

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 28, 2017 4:42 pm

Prince Bandar, last I looked.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Jan 28, 2017 4:45 pm

tude dog;1505996 wrote: Name one.

How many can you name from the other 7 countries ?

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Sat Jan 28, 2017 4:48 pm

AnneBoleyn;1505995 wrote: This seems to fit in w/my message #54. It's all about his conflicts of interest. Anyone else would be impeached. It's insane, the whole thing.

Too late to impeach Obama. Would be great to throw him in prison next to Hilary.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 28, 2017 5:08 pm

Did US law change after Ford pardoned Nixon? I do hope it's now impossible for any future President to pardon anyone for something done while part of any White House administration, from previous Presidents down to the press secretaries.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Jan 29, 2017 11:27 am

Let me throw a couple of links into the mix.

Kim Kardashian, whoever she is Tweeted this HERE

And the fears of a Jew HERE

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Jan 29, 2017 11:35 am

AnneBoleyn;1505995 wrote: This seems to fit in w/my message #54. It's all about his conflicts of interest. Anyone else would be impeached. It's insane, the whole thing.

Sorry hadn't read all the thread befiore Im posted. What about all tye national parks? Bey you;re about to see the largest scale takingb in to private hands of public owned assets since the 19th century. The thing is americans seem so brainwashed that querying whom actually should profit from all the coal and oil and why should it be a few companies' shareholders is seen as communism.

posted by tudedog

Too late to impeach Obama. Would be great to throw him in prison next to Hilary.

What would you impeach him for - being an uppity ******?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Feb 04, 2017 6:05 pm

Got to love this piece. In it, Cohn links all the violations.

On January 27, 2017, President Trump made good on his campaign promise to institute a ban on Muslims entering the US. Trump's executive order ("EO") is titled "Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States."

The EO bars nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries from the US for at least 90 days. They include Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, and Sudan. The EO also indefinitely prevents Syrian refugees, even those granted visas, from entering the US. And it suspends the resettlement of all refugees for 120 days.

None of the 9/11 hijackers came from the seven countries covered by the EO; 15 of the 19 men hailed from Saudi Arabia, which is not on the list. No one from the seven listed countries has mounted a fatal terrorist attack in the United States.

Countries exempted from the EO include Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates — countries where Trump apparently has business ties.

Trump's EO violates the Establishment Clause, the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Take Care Clause of the Constitution. It also violates the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); both are treaties the United States has ratified, making them part of US law under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. The EO violates the Immigration and Nationality Act as well.

JURIST - Trump's Unconstitutional Muslim Ban

Post by **spot** » Sat Feb 04, 2017 7:17 pm

Genuine figures relating to deaths on US soil from terrorist attack by nationals of the seven nations picked out are available in a brief summary at https://www.cato.org/blog/little-nation ... mmigration

Foreigners from those seven nations have killed zero Americans in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1975 and the end of 2015. Six Iranians, six Sudanese, two Somalis, two Iraqis, and one Yemini have been convicted of attempting or carrying out terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Zero Libyans or Syrians have been convicted of planning a terrorist attack on U.S. soil during that time period.

The ordered ban on Muslim travel to the US from those countries is, as the report phrases it, a phantom menace drummed up for reasons unrelated to the safety of the Homeland. The actual risk of death on US soil from terrorist attack by nationals of the seven selected nations is trivial, not even a statistical blip on the nation's reasons to worry.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Feb 05, 2017 6:17 am

Think you are missing the point Spot.

Tutsi were no threat, Jews were no threat, it didn't stop the madness

Post by **spot** » Sun Feb 05, 2017 8:07 am

Bruv;1506336 wrote: Think you are missing the point Spot.

Tutsi were no threat, Jews were no threat, it didn't stop the madness

I don't think I'm missing the point at all.

Sufficient German and Rwandan citizens who were not Jews or Tutsi were persuaded by governmental propaganda to believe that Jews and Tutsi were a threat to their existence, civilization, way of life, ethnic purity or independence. There could have been no genocide without that mass belief.

Constantly pointing out and correcting the lies and propaganda might make the number of believers insufficient for the current destabilizing to continue. The number of believers in America was sufficient to elect this buffoon, so the number obviously needs to be reduced. That Cato Institute summary is truthful and checkable, it is not an alternative fact, it is factual.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Feb 05, 2017 9:16 am

I think the resistance to the people from these other countries is due to wanting to avoid the competition that another major religion poses by any means legally possible. Trump and company are pushing the boundaries of the legal language to find out how far it can be stretched. This is something that lawyers do. Unfortunately, it's an expensive exercise that is paid out of our taxes. I wouldn't mind as much as I do if lawyers didn't charge so damn much.

Post by **spot** » Sun Feb 05, 2017 9:53 am

This is worth reeding, I'm glad someone's making these points too.The crowds of demonstrators share something in common with our political and media elites: they still don’t understand how Trump got elected, or why millions of Americans continue to support him. Even now, recent polls show that more Americans support Trump’s executive order on immigration than oppose it, but you wouldn’t know it based on the media coverage.

Support for Trump’s travel ban, indeed his entire agenda for immigration reform, is precisely the sort of thing mainstream media, concentrated in urban enclaves along our coasts, has trouble comprehending. The fact is, many Americans who voted for Trump, especially those in suburban and rural areas across the heartland and the south, have long felt disconnected from the institutions that govern them. On immigration and trade, the issues that propelled Trump to the White House, they want the status quo to change.

During his first two weeks in office, whenever Trump has done something that leaves political and media elites aghast, his supporters cheer. They like that he told Mexican president Enrique PeÃ±a Nieto he might have to send troops across the border to stop “bad hombres down there. They like that he threatened to pull out of an Obama-era deal to accept thousands of refugees Australia refuses to admit. They want him to dismantle Dodd-Frank financial regulations for Wall Street and rethink US trade deals. This is why they voted for him.

The failure to understand why these measures are popular with millions of Americans stems from a deep sense of disconnection in American society that didn’t begin with Trump or the 2016 election. For years, millions of voters have felt left behind by an economic recovery that largely excluded them, a culture that scoffed at their beliefs and a government that promised change but failed to deliver.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... n-millions

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Feb 05, 2017 10:54 am

spot;1506337 wrote: I don't think I'm missing the point at all.

Sufficient German and Rwandan citizens who were not Jews or Tutsi were persuaded by governmental propaganda to believe that Jews and Tutsi were a threat to their existence, civilization, way of life, ethnic purity or independence. There could have been no genocide without that mass belief.

Constantly pointing out and correcting the lies and propaganda might make the number of believers insufficient for the current destabilizing to continue. The number of believers in America was sufficient to elect this buffoon, so the number obviously needs to be reduced. That Cato Institute summary is truthful and checkable, it is not an alternative fact, it is factual.

The point being FACTS didn't protect either the Jews or Tutsi.

And today the TRUTH will not protect those under attack from the perception they are to blame for all that ails the voters.

It would seem the American electorate are no more sophisticated than the Tutsi or those Germans way back then.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Feb 05, 2017 12:12 pm

"It would seem the American electorate are no more sophisticated than the Tutsi or those Germans way back then."

You're damn right! And damn proud of it too!!

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Feb 05, 2017 12:18 pm

Bruv;1506349 wrote: The point being FACTS didn't protect either the Jews or Tutsi.

And today the TRUTH will not protect those under attack from the perception they are to blame for all that ails the voters.

It would seem the American electorate are no more sophisticated than the Tutsi or those Germans way back then.I agree! No matter how hard we try, we're always subject to our nature. Sophistication is a concept, not nature. We'd like to believe it's exclusively a part of our human nature, but that's just another myth.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sun Feb 05, 2017 12:20 pm

"I agree! No matter how hard we try, we're always subject to our nature. Sophistication is a concept, not nature. We'd like to believe it's exclusively a part of our human nature, but that's just another myth."

Profound, imo.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 6:56 am

Sophistication and civilisation is a very thin veneer indeed. All you have to do to remove it is get people hungry.

Post by **spot** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 6:57 am

I've been hungry while remaining sophisticated and civilized.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 8:33 am

spot;1506404 wrote: I've been hungry while remaining sophisticated and civilized.

I don't mean peckish, I mean hungry. Days without any food hungry. Civilisation and sophistication would vanish within a month I think. When families can't feed their kids it would be the rule of the jungle.

Something like this topic came up with friends recently - I asked the 2 Mums there if they would be prepared to feed their kids human meat if it was that or they starved to death. Their reply was an unhesitating yes, though they would lie about what it was.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:57 am

I think I might come to the conclusion to end it all for the family as well as myself. Life is torturous anyway.