Political Piper

Jan 31 2017, 10:30 PM

1. James Clapper shouldn't be anywhere near national security, not after he lied under oath to congress and to every single American. In my opinion, he should be in jail. He's also no fan of the Trump administration, and there's a theory floating around that either he or John Brennon were responsible for the alleged leaks given to Buzzfeed regarding the "peegate" scandal. Clapper even gave a statement where he politicized a disagreement between him and Kellyanne about when and where Trump received classified information regarding Russia. Eric Geller from Politico even expressed how it was very rare to see the DNI do something like that. The peegate is rumored speculation, but the latter is confirmed.

Quote:

 

2. He didn't remove Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, that is a distortion of the truth. Spicer said in his press briefing that the Joint Chief is not "required" to attend every council meeting but he still has the voluntary option to do so. There was no replacing Bannon with the Joint Chiefs, there was no reversal of roles. Bannon was also an officer in the Navy for 7 years as well as special assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations at the Pentagon. He also has two Master's degrees one of them being in National Security Studies at Georgetown University. So despite what people think about him personally, he is qualified to be a member on the council. He may only meet minimum qualifications in some people's eyes, but qualifications nonetheless.

Copy_Ninja

Jan 31 2017, 11:58 PM

Clapper is not the Director of National Intelligence any more though. I don't know why people keep bringing this up, he left with Obama. Mike Dempsey is currently acting in that role until Dan Coats, Trump's own nominee, is confirmed by the Senate.

He has clearly changed their roles or why would they no longer be permanently on the Committee? I don't understand any kind of rationale for doing it, they have more right than most to be there. What this does is gives Trump the ability to bring them in or exclude them as needed, which is a bad call. Their job is to act as the military and intelligence advisors, they should never not be there.

As for Bannon, whether his background "qualifies" him or not is not the issue, it's how much power he's being given in the White House. We don't even know what he even does considering Trump just made up a position for him at the White House and only explained it with some a vague statement about long term strategies. It concerns me greatly that a man with such poisonous political views is allowed to do what he is doing.

Mihawk

Feb 3 2017, 07:41 PM

No. Give him more time to prove himself. While the majority of things he's done are not respectable, the best way to ensure that such an inexperienced person doesn't come back in office is that he's given a chance to prove himself. If he's not then he gets to say that they never gave him a chance and the door is still open in under qualified presidents in the future. More candidates will come that will just give brain dead simple solutions to complicated problems; candidates that just say things that are politically incorrect for the sake of those that want to hear them.

While overall there isn't much to be proud of so far (unless you enjoy what I was referring to above), I give him props for selecting Mattis. That was a really heads up choice and I think he could have brought the country together around his agenda if he made more of those choices.

Nagito Komaeda

Feb 3 2017, 07:54 PM

How long are people meant to give him, though? He's already proven that he's completely unfit for the job, and the longer he has, the more chance he has of seriously damaging the public and the country.

Nagito Komaeda

Feb 3 2017, 11:24 PM

Okay, so we need to wait four years to see that this immigration Executive Order is in complete shambles? That he's escalating tensions with Iran, something that can only lead to a lot more trouble down the line? That his removal or major gutting of Dodd-Frank doesn't spell trouble for Americans and shows that his 'hardline' stance on Wall Street during the campaign was complete bogus?

He's creating tensions with Iran, Mexico and Australia and he's only been in office two weeks, and these are all down to Trump and the way he operates. He's failed before he's even truly begun because these beginning moves are catastrophic.

Political Piper

Feb 3 2017, 11:39 PM

Nagito Komaeda

Feb 3 2017, 11:24 PM

Okay, so we need to wait four years to see that this immigration Executive Order is in complete shambles? That he's escalating tensions with Iran, something that can only lead to a lot more trouble down the line? That his removal or major gutting of Dodd-Frank doesn't spell trouble for Americans and shows that his 'hardline' stance on Wall Street during the campaign was complete bogus?

He's creating tensions with Iran, Mexico and Australia and he's only been in office two weeks, and these are all down to Trump and the way he operates. He's failed before he's even truly begun because these beginning moves are catastrophic.

1. Executive Order isn't in shambles. There are lies and distortions though.

2. Iran started the escalation, the US responded with sanctions, as we did in 2013, 1995, etc etc.. I'm no fan of Israel but I think a country who has publicly stated they will blow Israel off the map then they begin testing ballistic missiles should concern us all.

3. I don't remember him taking a hardline stance on Wallstreet during the election but I could be wrong? I'm no fan of big banks, I think we should end Fractional Reserve Lending and End the Fed Reserve, but I don't know all the pros and cons of Dodd-Frank so I can't say for sure what regulations were lifted and what impact they will have. The left says bad, the right says good. Times like these it's best to do independent research and not blindly believe the media or the politician who says it's good or bad. I will do some research and get back to you though. Unless you already know the ins and outs of Dodd-Frank and can fill me in? But I do agree in regulating big banks. However, not every person on Wall Street is evil, and not every corporation is greedy and ignorant of the working class.

4. Nothing has changed with Mexico and Australia besides heated discussion. We are not at war with them, they are not at war with us. I would argue that looking out for the interests of America first, than the interests of our allies second, is actually a good thing. Even friends argue before they find a resolution. It's not America's responsibility to willingly give in to every other nations request or demand. He said he would do what's best for America first, and if that is renegotiating policy with our allies, then I'd say let's do it.

Definitely not damaging to the country, and far, far from catastrophic.

Quote:

 

As for your fascist comment: I argue that Obama's 2009 comment that, "my administration is the only thing standing between you and the ptichforks of angry people," as well as his bailout of General Motors, which involved abrogating debt contracts under threats of coercion, closing car dealerships based on political considerations, and awarding equity in the company of his labor union allies that made the company unprofitable to begin with, is a much closer resemblance to fascism and the socialist ideology than Trump saying "we want to be strong so nobody messes with us."

Quote:

 

4. Nothing has changed with Mexico and Australia besides heated discussion. We are not at war with them, they are not at war with us. I would argue that looking out for the interests of America first, than the interests of our allies second, is actually a good thing. Even friends argue before they find a resolution. It's not America's responsibility to willingly give in to every other nations request or demand. He said he would do what's best for America first, and if that is renegotiating policy with our allies, then I'd say let's do it.

Political Piper

Jan 31 2017, 02:39 AM

Ketchup Revenge

Jan 31 2017, 02:11 AM

People misunderstand what "impeach" means.

Most people think it means to throw a politician out of office, but it doesn't. It simply means to charge them with something.
For example, Bill Clinton was impeached, but he stayed the remainder of his term in office.

However, I agree with your premise. Trump is not fit for office. He's taking away the rights of legal US citizens via Executive Orders, and it has to stop.

Correct. The House files articles of impeachment, if it passes it goes to the Senate where they do a formal investigation than they vote on dismissal. You can be impeached but not removed from office, which is the case with Bill Clinton.

What rights has Trump taken away from US citizens?

EDIT: Buck Sexton, radio host and past CNN contributor tweeted - If the Acting Attorney General won't defend Trump's EO, maybe she should actually tell us what part of it is not legal. We can wait.

Quote:

 

Trump's ban encircled everyone from those countries, including legal visa and greencard holders, who are indeed legal US citizens, even if it's only temporary citizenship.

Quote:

 

but I do find it interesting people are still shocked about what he says and tweets though, it's like they didn't see it coming.

Quote:

 

For everyone who says Trump is wrong is for wanting to keep illegal immigrants out, there are families of loved ones who were killed or assaulted by illegal immigrants who say they support his stance on illegal immigration.
Because for all of those who say Trump's actions are wrong, unjust, racist, and evil, there are those who have lost loved ones who say it is wrong, evil, and unjust to allow people to break the law by coming or staying here illegally.