President Donald J. Trump

[Jackstar]

a low bar to use awesome

[starrmtn001]

LIVE Stream: Donald Trump Rally in Miami, FL 11/2/16.

https://youtu.be/D2_vecj2csI

[The King of Kings]

"Proud Donald"


He left a good job in the city
Developing land every night and day
And then he started losing lots of sleep
Worryin' bout how to Make America Great Again

Establishment keep on turnin'
Proud Donald keep on burnin'
An we votin' votin' votin' out the Clinton's

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nL1l0Fz5RlE

[Lt.Uhura]

"Proud Donald"


He left a good job in the city
Developing land every night and day
And then he started losing lots of sleep
Worryin' bout how to Make America Great Again

Establishment keep on turnin'
Proud Donald keep on burnin'
An we votin' votin' votin' out the Clinton's

I doubt that John Fogerty would be pleased to see you changing his lyrics to support your own hateful agenda.

But if you insist on CCR, the appropriate song for Donald Trump--with his three military deferments during the Vietnam War, and his secretive tax paying history--would a J.Fogerty tune that needs no editing.

Some folks are born silver spoon in hand
Lord, don't they help themselves, oh
But when the taxman comes to the door
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no millionaire's son, no
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no

Some folks inherit star spangled eyes
Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord
And when you ask them, "How much should we give?"
Ooh, they only answer More! more! more! yoh

It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no military son, son
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBfjU3_XOaA

[Jackstar]

his three military deferments during the Vietnam War

Staying out of that bullshit war should have been what every citizen did.

his secretive tax paying history

How familiar are you with the deliberate sinking of the heavily insured Titanic?

[21st Century Man]

The problem that forced the creation of DHS absolutely needed to be solved. The 9/11 Commission findings were very clear that the attacks could have been disrupted or prevented if agencies had been mandated to share critical information instead of sitting on it.

So far, DHS seems to have done a good job based on the number of serious terrorist attacks that law enforcement has prevented. The major attacks have all been abroad and none have been on a scale of 9/11 or the London attacks in the last ten years or so. If there was a better, more effective answer than DHS, what was it exactly?

There should have been a reorganization of existing bureaucracies and orders from on high insisting on information sharing between agencies,   The establishment of DHS was not necessary to fix the problems.

[starrmtn001]

LIVE Stream: Donald Trump Rally In Orlando Florida (11/02/16).

https://youtu.be/9srDbAlufBM

[Value Of Pi]

There should have been a reorganization of existing bureaucracies and orders from on high insisting on information sharing between agencies,   The establishment of DHS was not necessary to fix the problems.

That was the first thing they looked at. The consensus was that simply making new rules and giving out orders wasn't enough to ensure compliance. It was necessary to create a new entity solely devoted to getting agencies to work together. That's how bad the problem was.

[Jackstar]

"And then they huffed, and they puffed, and they blew the whole House of Terror down. Mission Accomplished! The End."

Adorable.

[albrecht]

That was the first thing they looked at. The consensus was that simply making new rules and giving out orders wasn't enough to ensure compliance. It was necessary to create a new entity solely devoted to getting agencies to work together. That's how bad the problem was.

The point is compared to the Chinese, Russians, N.Koreans, or any other state actor the crazy Muslims are not that large of a one (here,) at least prior to Obama's policies of importation of them. But before redesigning whole-scale our nation's security apparatus, starting wars on almost a whim, and shipping pallets of cash to Arab countries we should've looked to our border, our VISA system, and immigration system. If I'm worried that there might be a criminal in my home or neighborhood who is going to attack I first ensure my gate is locked, my doors are locked, and there is nobody inside. Then I might building or redesigning my fence, setting up security cameras, work with neighbors and local police to figure out how to better secure the neighborhood.

Currently I'm not convinced that a part of the government really want to protect us at all but it is more about protecting and growing budgets, deals for contractors and industry, etc. Because, for the most part, they are safe. They have armed guards and fences, walls, etc between them and potential threats. Their children get to go to safe, private schools. They get chauffeured everywhere they go in armored cars. If they wanted to protect us why import unvetted Muslims? Why have an open-border with a near narco-state and where anyone, even OTM, can waltz across? Why allow people to overstay their VISAs? Why not ACT on intelligence we've had on terrorists- but don't until afterwards due to political correctness, or worse? Why not look at an immigrant's social media when vetting him for a VISA or emigration? Why not profile based on known threats? We spend billions protecting OTHER people's borders around the world- but not ours? That is logical.

[Value Of Pi]

The point is compared to the Chinese, Russians, N.Koreans, or any other state actor the crazy Muslims are not that large of a one (here,) at least prior to Obama's policies of importation of them. But before redesigning whole-scale our nation's security apparatus, starting wars on almost a whim, and shipping pallets of cash to Arab countries we should've looked to our border, our VISA system, and immigration system. If I'm worried that there might be a criminal in my home or neighborhood who is going to attack I first ensure my gate is locked, my doors are locked, and there is nobody inside. Then I might building or redesigning my fence, setting up security cameras, work with neighbors and local police to figure out how to better secure the neighborhood.

Currently I'm not convinced that a part of the government really want to protect us at all but it is more about protecting and growing budgets, deals for contractors and industry, etc. Because, for the most part, they are safe. They have armed guards and fences, walls, etc between them and potential threats. Their children get to go to safe, private schools. They get chauffeured everywhere they go in armored cars. If they wanted to protect us why import unvetted Muslims? Why have an open-border with a near narco-state and where anyone, even OTM, can waltz across? Why allow people to overstay their VISAs? Why not ACT on intelligence we've had on terrorists- but don't until afterwards due to political correctness, or worse? Why not look at an immigrant's social media when vetting him for a VISA or emigration? Why not profile based on known threats? We spend billions protecting OTHER people's borders around the world- but not ours? That is logical.

The question I was addressing was about how DHS came to be created. While it is additional bureaucracy, it doesn't represent a wholesale redesign of our national security agencies. They each have the same basic mission, the same structure and the same kinds of budgets they had prior to 9/11. The differences between then and now are mostly about how they've refocused on the terrorism threat.

How immigration policy, and lack thereof, figures into the security picture is another issue. But at least to this point, the security apparatus in the U.S. seems to have done a good job of stepping up their game. I wish I could say the same about some other countries, France and Belgium in particular.

[albrecht]

The question I was addressing was about how DHS came to be created. While it is additional bureaucracy, it doesn't represent a wholesale redesign of our national security agencies. They each have the same basic mission, the same structure and the same kinds of budgets they had prior to 9/11. The differences between then and now are mostly about how they've refocused on the terrorism threat.

How immigration policy, and lack thereof, figures into the security picture is another issue. But at least to this point, the security apparatus in the U.S. seems to have done a good job of stepping up their game. I wish I could say the same about some other countries, France and Belgium in particular.

Germany, Sweden, Italy, Austria, etc also have problems. They suffer from the same leftist idealism and immigration schemes that looked after the immigrant/"refugee" first and their citizens second (like the Obama Doctrine where an illegal, if caught, will often get better treatment and 'free' stuff than a homeless veteran or average citizen.) But almost all of it (not all because they had bad policies before) but the destabilization of the region under Obama/Clinton, especially in N.Africa and Syria resulted in the massive hordes invading and literally raping and trashing out Europe. There were pitched battles in France yesterday between differing "migrant" groups (because often they hate each other also.)

We are doing better against the rampaging Muslim hordes, despite Obama's best efforts, because of distance from the region. But still on his watch, likely due to political correctness, several bombings and mass shootings happened by Muslims "on the radar" but will never acted upon the information. Political correctness, government ineptness, "never let a good crisis go to waste" for hopeful gun policy? Who knows? Obama even had a policy (now changed) that State Dept couldn't view social media for people applying for VISAs, asylum, or emigration! Lest we offend Muslims. But, sure, ok to spy on all US citizens' emails etc, including Congress! But still failing (almost every day I hear about some rape, crime, DUI death, etc arrest or of bodies being found on ranches on the border that involve illegals.) And much of the damage caused by the Obama Doctrine of "catch and release" and open-border are fellow Hispanics and especially women and girls- even other illegals.

[Jackstar]

We are doing better against the rampaging Muslim hordes,

It's not clear here, to whom you are referring as 'we.'

[Lt.Uhura]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/suppress-black-vote-trump-campaign-230616

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3896784/U-S-militia-girds-trouble-presidential-election-nears.html

Voter suppression, threats of post election violence...No, not a banana republic but the good ol' U.S of A. It looks like these self-described 'disenfranchised' nationalist groups are indeed planning to don their camouflage and take their guns to the streets if Trump loses/Hillary "steals" the election. 

Never mind that Hillary has been favored to win from the get-go and there were clear indications early on that the Rs might lose seats/control of congress due to their own dysfunctional leadership, and lack of anything resembling party cohesiveness. But rather than work together to examine where they failed, they let their followers blame the Dems and others for their own fuck-ups.  Even with the recent wave of negativity surrounding Hillary, she'll still win because Donald is patently unelectable. If the angry mob wants answers they should start with the GOP.

[GravitySucks]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/suppress-black-vote-trump-campaign-230616

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3896784/U-S-militia-girds-trouble-presidential-election-nears.html

Voter suppression, threats of post election violence...No, not a banana republic but the good 'ol U.S of A. It looks like these self-described 'disenfranchised' nationalist groups are indeed planning to don their camouflage and take their guns to the streets if Trump loses/Hillary "steals" the election. 

Never mind that Hillary has been favored to win from the get-go and there were clear indications early on that the Rs might lose seats/control of congress due to their own dysfunctional leadership, and lack of anything resembling party cohesiveness. But rather than work together to examine where they failed, they let their followers blame the Dems and others for their own fuck-ups.  Even with the recent wave of negativity surrounding Hillary, she'll still win because Donald is patently unelectable. If the angry mob wants answers they should start with the GOP.

Serious post. I hope Trump wins but if the scenario you describe were to happen they will have to contend with me standing against them.

[SciFiAuthor]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/suppress-black-vote-trump-campaign-230616

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3896784/U-S-militia-girds-trouble-presidential-election-nears.html

Voter suppression, threats of post election violence...No, not a banana republic but the good 'ol U.S of A. It looks like these self-described 'disenfranchised' nationalist groups are indeed planning to don their camouflage and take their guns to the streets if Trump loses/Hillary "steals" the election. 

Never mind that Hillary has been favored to win from the get-go and there were clear indications early on that the Rs might lose seats/control of congress due to their own dysfunctional leadership, and lack of anything resembling party cohesiveness. But rather than work together to examine where they failed, they let their followers blame the Dems and others for their own fuck-ups.  Even with the recent wave of negativity surrounding Hillary, she'll still win because Donald is patently unelectable. If the angry mob wants answers they should start with the GOP.

That won't happen. It's just silly. If she wins, nothing will happen. That may not be the case if Trump wins, given that your side is perfectly happy to foment organized violence. Your peeps will just burn Ferguson and Baltimore down again for the hell of it and god knows where else.

I prefer patently unelectable to patently imprisonable.

[albrecht]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/suppress-black-vote-trump-campaign-230616

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3896784/U-S-militia-girds-trouble-presidential-election-nears.html

Voter suppression, threats of post election violence...No, not a banana republic but the good ol' U.S of A. It looks like these self-described 'disenfranchised' nationalist groups are indeed planning to don their camouflage and take their guns to the streets if Trump loses/Hillary "steals" the election. 

Never mind that Hillary has been favored to win from the get-go and there were clear indications early on that the Rs might lose seats/control of congress due to their own dysfunctional leadership, and lack of anything resembling party cohesiveness. But rather than work together to examine where they failed, they let their followers blame the Dems and others for their own fuck-ups.  Even with the recent wave of negativity surrounding Hillary, she'll still win because Donald is patently unelectable. If the angry mob wants answers they should start with the GOP.

The horrible divisive situation Obama encourages is indeed problematic but I think, hope, most citizens won't devolve to this crap? Who knows with people and gangs flooding across his open border here? If Obama cared one whit about the country he would solve that problem first.....instead of spending billions protecting borders in other countries.(Admittedly, this a policy of our government for other administrations also.)

[SciFiAuthor]

Serious post. I hope Trump wins but if the scenario you describe were to happen they will have to contend with me standing against them.

Do you really think David Duke is going to hand out pot to voters to get them to go home? Remember, this guy makes his living from that bravado stuff. All hot air. Won't happen. And if it does, then I have a problem with them too. But it won't.

[albrecht]

Do you really think David Duke is going to hand out pot to voters to get them to go home? Remember, this guy makes his living from that bravado stuff. All hot air. Won't happen. And if it does, then I have a problem with them too. But it won't.

As I've posted before it would be quite simple:
1) a decent and legit VISA and GUEST WORKER system.
2) severe civil, and criminal, penalties for ANY entity who hires, harbors, helps, moves, etc an illegal.
3) a rational, legal immigration policy (like pre-60s, as a bargain I would rather further back.)
4) end the Obama Doctrine of "Catch and Release" and amnesty.
5) cut off ALL Federal funding for a school system who provides education or meals to an illegal.
6) a legal way for workers (from high-tech to the low-tech farm workers) but tracked and with criteria of needs and tracking. And a system to bring GOOD people here into citizenship.

[theONE]

As I've posted before it would be quite simple:
1) a decent and legit VISA and GUEST WORKER system.
2) severe civil, and criminal, penalties for ANY entity who hires, harbors, helps, moves, etc an illegal.
3) a rational, legal immigration policy (like pre-60s, as a bargain I would rather further back)\
4) and end the Obama Doctrine of "Catch and Release" and amnesty.
5) cut off ALL Federal funding for a school who provides education or meals to an illegal.

makes sense

[SciFiAuthor]

As I've posted before it would be quite simple:
1) a decent and legit VISA and GUEST WORKER system.
2) severe civil, and criminal, penalties for ANY entity who hires, harbors, helps, moves, etc an illegal.
3) a rational, legal immigration policy (like pre-60s, as a bargain I would rather further back)\
4) and end the Obama Doctrine of "Catch and Release" and amnesty.
5) cut off ALL Federal funding for a school who provides education or meals to an illegal.

But that wouldn't generate a new voting bloc for the Democratic party while simultaneously providing cheap labor for the short-term goals of Republican special interests.

[GravitySucks]

Do you really think David Duke is going to hand out pot to voters to get them to go home? Remember, this guy makes his living from that bravado stuff. All hot air. Won't happen. And if it does, then I have a problem with them too. But it won't.

I didn't click on the links. I was responding to her comments about violence if Trump
Loses. I don't believe there is a chance in hell of that happening. If it didn't happen in 2008 it won't happen in 2016.

I do believe there is a chance for violence if Trump wins. Soros money in the inner cities can buy a lot of arson.

[Jackstar]

I do believe there is a chance for violence if Trump wins.

massive rolleyes

[Value Of Pi]

Serious post. I hope Trump wins but if the scenario you describe were to happen they will have to contend with me standing against them.

A lot will depend on what signals Trump is sending out on Election Day. If Trump senses defeat and decides he will contest the results any way he can, extremist groups may very well take that as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for them to "legitimately" make trouble.

Of course, if he wins, they will feel much the same way, since as far as they are concerned, he is their guy fighting for what they believe in.

[SciFiAuthor]

I didn't click on the links. I was responding to her comments about violence if Trump
Loses. I don't believe there is a chance in hell of that happening. If it didn't happen in 2008 it won't happen in 2016.

Or 1998. There's always this weird "shit's gonna go down with the militias or martial law" crap that precedes elections for the last 3 decades but never happens. And, of course, it shouldn't happen. But it never even close to pans out. Parts of the right are guilty of it too, and it's raging in those circles as well right now. The Clinton/Bush/Obama will find a way to be a dictator stuff.

I do believe there is a chance for violence if Trump wins. Soros money in the inner cities can buy a lot of arson.

That's because there already has been violence coupled with WikiLeaks info that show that the violence already has been agitated from positions of actual power within the Democratic party. That's something that's not quite right. It seems to be ridiculously unethical.

[GravitySucks]

A lot will depend on what signals Trump is sending out on Election Day. If Trump senses defeat and decides he will contest the results any way he can, extremist groups may very well take that as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for them to "legitimately" make trouble.

Of course, if he wins, they will feel much the same way, since as far as they are concerned, he is their guy fighting for what they believe in.

You look in the wrong place for ghosts and goblins

[WOTR]

As I've posted before it would be quite simple:
1) a decent and legit VISA and GUEST WORKER system.
2) severe civil, and criminal, penalties for ANY entity who hires, harbors, helps, moves, etc an illegal.
3) a rational, legal immigration policy (like pre-60s, as a bargain I would rather further back.)
4) end the Obama Doctrine of "Catch and Release" and amnesty.
5) cut off ALL Federal funding for a school system who provides education or meals to an illegal.
6) a legal way for workers (from high-tech to the low-tech farm workers) but tracked and with criteria of needs and tracking. And a system to bring GOOD people here into citizenship.

So, if you have a "good" white kid in one of these schools, you are going to stop edumacating them as well because there will not be the funds?  Seems like a progressive way forward to me.

[Lt.Uhura]

The horrible divisive situation Obama encourages is indeed problematic but I think, hope, most citizens won't devolve to this crap? Who knows with people and gangs flooding across his open border here? If Obama cared one whit about the country he would solve that problem first.....instead of spending billions protecting borders in other countries.(Admittedly, this a policy of our government for other administrations also.)

Oh albrecht, if it were only that easy for any US president to say, "Make it so" and simply "solve" all our problems. Are you like the those who've listened to and firmly believe Trump's promise to immediately deport millions of illegals in his first day of office (a ST transporter, perhaps)?

[Value Of Pi]

You look in the wrong place for ghosts and goblins

I saw one today with this guy on stage in a political debate at a black college. He looks and acts the part.

[Lt.Uhura]

A lot will depend on what signals Trump is sending out on Election Day. If Trump senses defeat and decides he will contest the results any way he can, extremist groups may very well take that as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for them to "legitimately" make trouble.

Of course, if he wins, they will feel much the same way, since as far as they are concerned, he is their guy fighting for what they believe in.

Either way, it's looking like, as coaster predicted here months ago--we're fucked.

Human beings' major design flaw in our evolution is the inability to sync our our higher reasoning (pre-frontal lobes), with our primal fears (amygdala). Neuroscientists have made some compelling discoveries in research* into this phenomenon, but as this election reminds us, we've got a long way to go.

*Buddhist monks who do compassion meditation have been shown to modulate their amygdala, along with their temporoparietal junction and insula, during their practice. In an fMRI study, more intensive insula activity was found in expert meditators than in novices. Increased activity in the amygdala following compassion-oriented meditation may contribute to social connectedness. --Wikipedia