Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I've dabbled in media studies over the years, and one of the best lessons I can remember is to look at what the news ISN'T telling you.
Looking at Trump's proposals to vet immigrants from certain nations associated with terrorism, I was reminded of this lesson.
If, say, for example, a country was the source of the bombers that planned and executed the biggest terrorist attack in history on American soil, you would think they would be on Trump's list.
If that same country was funding ISIL, a group that Trump has vowed to wipe out, a reasonable man would assume that the same nation would again be on that list.
I hope I'm not the only person to notice this massive elephant in the room that is shaped like a particular Middle Eastern country
How do i say this, you're thinking too deep.
His actions are those of a persons who reads Twitter feed posts and responds. This is not a secret machiavelli, but a reality star.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Not a lot a outrage in here about the amount of executive orders he has been signing.
Odd.
wuestenfux wrote: Trump - doesn't he make already a great job?
The pace is impressive. Not sure whether all decisions made so far are good or not such as the pipeline.
Why is he doing a great job? He has already stopped job growth by freezing federal hiring. His changes to healthcare are going to kill people/ruin peoples lives. Insurance is not required to cover mental health or maternity services? Seriously?
Finally, some common sense (tm) immigration reform. Curious to see what else this entails.
"Trump, who tweeted that a "big day" was planned on national security on Wednesday, is expected to ban for several months the entry of refugees into the United States, except for religious minorities escaping persecution, until more aggressive vetting is in place."
Hmmm, I wonder what this could mean.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/25 16:16:01
Dreadwinter wrote: Not a lot a outrage in here about the amount of executive orders he has been signing.
Odd.
Which one would you consider an Executive overreach?
Yeah, because that is what we heard from you. Not the amount it had been used, despite us telling you Obama has done nothing extraordinary with the number of orders issued.
Dreadwinter wrote: Not a lot a outrage in here about the amount of executive orders he has been signing.
Odd.
Which one would you consider an Executive overreach?
Yeah, because that is what we heard from you. Not the amount it had been used, despite us telling you Obama has done nothing extraordinary with the number of orders issued.
I argued the opposite bucko... it's *you* who said he wrote fewer EOs over his tenure.
Dreadwinter wrote: Not a lot a outrage in here about the amount of executive orders he has been signing.
Odd.
Which one would you consider an Executive overreach?
Yeah, because that is what we heard from you. Not the amount it had been used, despite us telling you Obama has done nothing extraordinary with the number of orders issued.
I argued the opposite bucko... it's *you* who said he wrote fewer EOs over his tenure.
I argued the context/content of those EOs...
lol, that is one of those "alternative facts" I have been hearing about lately.
Anyways, I assume you were against Obama's EO to stop DAPL. How do you feel about his EO attempting to push it through?
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is preparing a sweeping executive order that would clear the way for the C.I.A. to reopen overseas “black site” prisons, like those where it detained and tortured terrorism suspects before former President Barack Obama shut them down.
President Trump’s three-page draft order, titled “Detention and Interrogation of Enemy Combatants” and obtained by The New York Times, would also undo many of the other restrictions on handling detainees that Mr. Obama put in place in response to policies of the George W. Bush administration.
If Mr. Trump signs the draft order, he would also revoke Mr. Obama’s directive to give the International Committee of the Red Cross access to all detainees in American custody. That would be another step toward reopening secret prisons outside of the normal wartime rules established by the Geneva Conventions, although statutory obstacles would remain.
And while Mr. Obama tried to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and refused to send new detainees there, the draft order directs the Pentagon to continue using the site “for the detention and trial of newly captured” detainees — including not just more people suspected of being members of Al Qaeda or the Taliban, like the 41 remaining detainees, but also Islamic State detainees. It does not address legal problems that might raise.
The draft order does not direct any immediate reopening of C.I.A. prisons or revival of torture tactics, which are now banned by statute. But it sets up high-level policy reviews to make further recommendations in both areas to Mr. Trump, who vowed during the campaign to bring back waterboarding and a “hell of a lot worse” — not only because “torture works,” but because even “if it doesn’t work, they deserve it anyway.”
Elisa Massimino, the director of Human Rights First, denounced the draft order as “flirting with a return to the ‘enhanced interrogation program’ and the environment that gave rise to it.” She noted that numerous retired military leaders have rejected torture as “illegal, immoral and damaging to national security,” and she said that many of Mr. Trump’s cabinet nominees had seemed to share that view in their confirmation testimony.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story
“It would be surprising and extremely troubling if the national security cabinet officials were to acquiesce in an order like that after the assurances that they gave in their confirmation hearings,” she said.
A White House spokesman did not immediately respond to an email inquiring about the draft order, including when Mr. Trump may intend to sign it. But the order was accompanied by a one-page statement that criticized the Obama administration for having “refrained from exercising certain authorities” about detainees it said were critical to defending the country from “radical Islamism.”
Specifically, the draft order would revoke two executive orders about detainees that Mr. Obama issued in January 2009, shortly after his inauguration. One was Mr. Obama’s directive to close the Guantánamo prison and the other was his directive to end C.I.A. prisons, grant Red Cross access to all detainees and limit interrogators to the Army Field Manual techniques.
In their place, Mr. Trump’s draft order would resurrect a 2007 executive order issued by President Bush. It responded to a 2006 Supreme Court ruling about the Geneva Conventions that had put C.I.A. interrogators at risk of prosecution for war crimes, leading to a temporary halt of the agency’s “enhanced” interrogations program.
Mr. Bush’s 2007 order enabled the agency to resume a form of the program by specifically listing what sorts of prisoner abuses counted as war crimes. That made it safe for interrogators to use other tactics, like extended sleep deprivation, that were not on the list. Mr. Obama revoked that order as part of his 2009 overhaul of detention legal policy.
One of the Obama orders Mr. Trump’s draft order would revoke also limited interrogators to using techniques listed in the Army Field Manual. But in 2015, Congress enacted a statute locking down that rule as a matter of law, as well as a requirement to let the Red Cross visit detainees. Those limits would remain in place for the time being.
Still, the draft order says high-level Trump administration officials should conduct several reviews and make recommendations to Mr. Trump. One was whether to change the field manual, to the extent permitted by law. Another was “whether to reinitiate a program of interrogation of high-value alien terrorists to be operated outside the United States” by the C.I.A., including any “legislative proposals” necessary to permit the resumption of such a program.
It was not clear whether the C.I.A. would be enthusiastic about resuming a role in detaining and interrogating terrorism suspects after its scorching experience over the past decade. In written answers to questions by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mr. Trump’s C.I.A. director, Mike Pompeo, said he would review whether a rewrite of the field manual was needed and left the door open to seeking a change in the law “if experts believed current law was an impediment to gathering vital intelligence to protect the country.”
While Mr. Trump’s order says no detainee should be tortured or otherwise subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment “as prescribed by U.S. law,” it makes no mention of international law commitments binding the United States to adhere to humane standards even if Congress were to relax domestic legal limits on interrogations, such as the Convention Against Torture or the Geneva Conventions.
Another core national security legal principle for Mr. Obama was to use civilian courts, not military commissions, whenever possible in terrorism cases — and to exclusively use civilian law enforcement agencies and procedures, not the military, to handle cases arising on domestic soil. The draft order also signals that the Trump administration may shift that approach as well.
In 2012, after Congress enacted a statute mandating that the military initially take custody of all foreign Qaeda suspects, Mr. Obama issued a directive that pre-emptively waived that rule for most domestic circumstances, such as if the F.B.I. had arrested the suspect and was already in the process of an interrogation.
But Mr. Trump’s draft order calls for the attorney general, in consultation with other national-security officials, to review that directive and recommend modifications to it within 120 days.
Many Republicans — including Senator Jeff Sessions, Mr. Trump’s attorney general nominee — criticized the Obama administration’s approach as weak, even though the civilian court system has regularly convicted terrorists at trial while the military commissions system has proved to be dysfunctional. During the campaign, Mr. Trump said he would prefer to prosecute terrorism suspects at Guantánamo — including American citizens, although the law currently limits the commissions system to foreign defendants.
Against that backdrop, Mr. Trump’s draft order would direct Defense Secretary James N. Mattis, along with the attorney general and the director of national intelligence, to “review the military commissions system and recommend to the president how best to employ the system going forward to provide for the swift and just trial and punishment of unlawful enemy combatants detained in the armed conflict with violent Islamist extremists.”
Tom Malinowski, who was assistant secretary of state for human rights in the Obama administration, said the draft order showed that everyone who thought the office of the presidency or the advice of cabinet secretaries like Mr. Mattis would temper Mr. Trump “is being shown wrong again.”
“He’ll listen to his worst instincts over his best advisers unless restrained by law,” Mr. Malinowski said.
CptJake wrote: Freezing Fed hiring is stopping job growth?
Okay. Guess we were broken anyway if we relied on the growth of the Federal Gov't for job growth.
We didn't rely on growth of the federal gov't for job growth. Aren't you always complaining about people putting words in your mouth?
You're the guy who stated:
He has already stopped job growth by freezing federal hiring.
How do I read that without understanding freezing fed hiring = stopping job growth?
And no, I'm not "always complaining about people putting words" in my mouth.
I thought you would be able to understand that stopping job growth in one area is a major hit to overall job growth. I assumed you understood that there were other areas where jobs were created and that since I did not refer to it as overall job growth, you would not associate it with the entire economy..
That was my fault. I put a lot of faith in the reader.
Dreadwinter wrote: Not a lot a outrage in here about the amount of executive orders he has been signing.
Odd.
Which one would you consider an Executive overreach?
Yeah, because that is what we heard from you. Not the amount it had been used, despite us telling you Obama has done nothing extraordinary with the number of orders issued.
I argued the opposite bucko... it's *you* who said he wrote fewer EOs over his tenure.
I argued the context/content of those EOs...
lol, that is one of those "alternative facts" I have been hearing about lately.
Anyways, I assume you were against Obama's EO to stop DAPL. How do you feel about his EO attempting to push it through?
The Keystone project?
After multitudes of surveys by the EPA, Corps of Engineer (etc..) and Congressional bills actually passed... I'm okay with Trumpesto giving the greenlight for the project to proceed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/25 16:45:08
CptJake wrote: Freezing Fed hiring is stopping job growth?
Okay. Guess we were broken anyway if we relied on the growth of the Federal Gov't for job growth.
We didn't rely on growth of the federal gov't for job growth. Aren't you always complaining about people putting words in your mouth?
You're the guy who stated:
He has already stopped job growth by freezing federal hiring.
How do I read that without understanding freezing fed hiring = stopping job growth?
And no, I'm not "always complaining about people putting words" in my mouth.
I thought you would be able to understand that stopping job growth in one area is a major hit to overall job growth. I assumed you understood that there were other areas where jobs were created and that since I did not refer to it as overall job growth, you would not associate it with the entire economy..
That was my fault. I put a lot of faith in the reader.
So now you are still of the belief that stopping job growth in the Fed gov't is a major hit to overall job growth, and according to your post in this case it is enough of a hit that it 'stopped job growth'. So my reply "if we relied on the growth of the Fed gov't for job growth we were broken' still stands. I'm not misunderstanding a damned thing you typed. Either the freeze stopped job growth, or it did not. Which is it? If you now want to move the goal posts to "I meant it SLOWED job growth', that is fine. My next question is How Much?
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Easy E wrote: Durable medical Equipment? You mean like Diabetes supplies? I heard that was kind of a big deal in the US lately.
Meh, let them die. Just ask Libertarians such as Ron Paul.
My guess is this refers less to diabetes supplies, as the majority of those are expendable (you use a needle once and put it in the sharp container), and more to things such as a C-PAP machine, or something like oxygen tanks and whanot.
If you look again, Diabetes is specifically listed as its own special thing
Unless you are a Type I (Also called Juvenile Diabetes) on an insulin pump. That is DME (Durable medical Equipment) as is testers and other newer, better technology where the names escape me at the moment. Either way they improve/save lives and cost a ton of money. I wonder if those are exempted too.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
CptJake wrote: Freezing Fed hiring is stopping job growth?
Okay. Guess we were broken anyway if we relied on the growth of the Federal Gov't for job growth.
We didn't rely on growth of the federal gov't for job growth. Aren't you always complaining about people putting words in your mouth?
You're the guy who stated:
He has already stopped job growth by freezing federal hiring.
How do I read that without understanding freezing fed hiring = stopping job growth?
And no, I'm not "always complaining about people putting words" in my mouth.
I thought you would be able to understand that stopping job growth in one area is a major hit to overall job growth. I assumed you understood that there were other areas where jobs were created and that since I did not refer to it as overall job growth, you would not associate it with the entire economy..
That was my fault. I put a lot of faith in the reader.
So now you are still of the belief that stopping job growth in the Fed gov't is a major hit to overall job growth, and according to your post in this case it is enough of a hit that it 'stopped job growth'. So my reply "if we relied on the growth of the Fed gov't for job growth we were broken' still stands. I'm not misunderstanding a damned thing you typed. Either the freeze stopped job growth, or it did not. Which is it? If you now want to move the goal posts to "I meant it SLOWED job growth', that is fine. My next question is How Much?
You are still on this 'stopped job growth' kick, even though I went back and I explained what I meant. So now you are ignoring what I said in order to continue this. Which is fine, it explains a lot to me.
It is not moving the goal posts when one assumes that a person is capable of understanding that the entire nations job growth is not dependent on federal job growth. But it is clear you really really want to argue about this for some reason. Which again, is fine. It just makes zero sense. You are attempting one of those "HA I GOTCHA" arguments and it is kind of amusing.
If you are going to continue using the same argument no matter what I do to fix what was said, there is no point in your next question. Because it will all come down to "lol 'stopped job growth'" which is not what I said, but you seem to think it was implied.
"Trump, who tweeted that a "big day" was planned on national security on Wednesday, is expected to ban for several months the entry of refugees into the United States, except for religious minorities escaping persecution, until more aggressive vetting is in place."
Hmmm, I wonder what this could mean.
It likely means that if you're Christian he'll let you in, but if you're not he'll leave you there to die.
If it places a heavy burden on the shoulders of the American tax payer, then so be it - that's what they voted for.
What they voted for was a pipe dream. What they'll get is a crushing dose of reality that I assume they will ignore because why stop now?
The promise to build a wall was of course never understood as literal but as a promise to be extra racist against latinos.
Funny cause I was at work for about 7 or so hours, and during lunch there were three guys talking about how they hoped the Wall would get built soon (though I suspect what you say is also true to some).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/25 18:30:35
Dreadwinter wrote: "Trump, who tweeted that a "big day" was planned on national security on Wednesday, is expected to ban for several months the entry of refugees into the United States, except for religious minorities escaping persecution, until more aggressive vetting is in place."
Hmmm, I wonder what this could mean.
Christians. Because they matter more than non-christians.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Ugh we're only 6 days in and it seems like the country is already taking a turn for the blegh.
I dont think we can last 4 years of this
Our president is a man of action good sir
Good News: Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen
No Saudi Arabia no care - they need to GO
Good news is my two good friends got their parents out of Egypt and one has grandparents in Turkey. They both agree immigration is a huge problem (but their parents view it a bit different).
I've barely researched the pipeline issue for how it's faring now - It was a joke a few months back and needed to get shutdown then. Not sure if much changed.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/25 18:39:39
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
If it places a heavy burden on the shoulders of the American tax payer, then so be it - that's what they voted for.
What they voted for was a pipe dream. What they'll get is a crushing dose of reality that I assume they will ignore because why stop now?
The promise to build a wall was of course never understood as literal but as a promise to be extra racist against latinos.
Says the foreigner who literally doesn't know what he's talking about or ever ever met a Trump supporter.
Trump supporters are dead serious in wanting a wall barrier system.
Preferably with sharks with frigging lazer beams.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Rosebuddy wrote: The promise to build a wall was of course never understood as literal but as a promise to be extra racist against latinos.
Too bad he was literal with it. He is honest in that at least he's doing precisely what he says. He might be lying out of ignorance effect(he won't be bringing jobs back because that's not possible. Too much automation) but actions? "I build wall". He builds wall. "I'm going to repel ACA". Well there it goes without even replacement in sight.
" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever." 
3000
4000 /https%3A%2F%2Fblueprint-api-production.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Fcard%2Fimage%2F361386%2Fb72e8a38-b0fe-418e-8230-ed3645c76566.jpg)
