Trump is tearing our country apart

Robert, I prefer offering background to my articles. Also, I wish to anticipate questions and answer them for the readers. This results to somewhat lengthy articles, but the reader is well-informed. In any case, that is my style. I find that writing style to be effective because I get very little criticism of what I wrote. I already covered all the bases.

Other posters here are somewhat cryptic. I find myself asking what the posters are talking about or where they got their information. I try to answer those questions in my articles.

 

Why didn't you provide me the link to your source? I provided a link to prove I was correct. The fifteen years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan cost approximately $6 trillion, and please don't tell me what I "know darned well."

I never mentioned Bush or Obama.

Former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno told CBS This Morning that sending as many as 150,000 troops to Iraq to crush ISIS would only end in futility without long-term cooperation from the Iraqi government.

“I could put 150,000 soldiers on the ground and defeat ISIS? Yes. But then what?” he added. “A year later it would be right back to where we are today.”

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/12/s...d-be-totally-futile-army-chief-of-staff-says/

The Daily Caller launched on January 11, 2010 as a more politically conservative news and commentary outlet and alternative to the liberal The Huffington Post. Don't accuse me of using a liberal source as you usually do.

 

I watch two to three hours of Fox News daily. Today a Fox News story gave me the idea for the Flynn timeline I wrote.

I am not angry with Trump per se. I am angry with what he says and does. You will notice that what Trump does and says are the sole basis for my articles. Democrats aren't the only ones criticizing Trump. These are headlines from a Google search.

(growing) list of Republicans in Congress who have criticized Trump's ...

Republicans threaten to subpoena ethics director for daring to criticize ...

Growing Number of GOP Lawmakers Criticize Trump's Refugee Policy

Trump's criticism of intelligence on Russia is dividing Hill GOP - The ...

 

Interesting. A National Security Officer lying to the Vice-President doesn't bother you. Man, that is really interesting. It bothers the hell out of me. If he lies to the Vice-President, who else will he lie to? The President? Can he be trusted? Strange those questions don't bother you.

It doesn't bother you because you suspect that Flynn was acting under orders from Trump who wanted to make a deal with the Russians in return for their help with ISIS?

 

Robert, you differ from Trump. Trump ordered Mattis to come up with a plan in 30 days to destroy ISIS. That was ten days ago.

Democrats (Obama) came up with extreme vetting. Before Trump took office it took 18 months to two years of grueling examination by the DHS before a refugee could step foot on our soil. That is why there has never been a successful Islamic terrorist attack in the U.S. by a refugee. That's a 100% success rate. Pretty good, huh.

Now you are going to say I am defending Democrats. No, I'm not. I'm stating a fact. I'll even defend Trump when someone lies about him.

- - - Updated - - -

That's true.

- - - Updated - - -

To be negative just because he is Trump is wrong.

 

Well, I think more facts are in order. this article is enlightening but not a shock. It encapsulates a lot of what I have been saying. Trump is engaging in meaningless fear mongering.

So much of President Trump’s approach to terrorism is centered on the idea that Muslims, specifically, are dangerous. It’s the thinking behind the plans he floated during the campaign to ban Muslims from entering the United States and to potentially set up a “registry” of Muslims living in the country.

The study found that only 46 Muslim Americans (defined as “Muslims who lived in the US for an extended period”) were linked to violent extremism at home or abroad in 2016. The total Muslim American population is 3.3 million.

Of those 46, only 24 were actually implicated in a concrete terrorist plot (the others did things like attempting to travel to Syria to join ISIS). Those plots claimed 54 lives, the vast majority of which (49) came in a single attack — the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando.

By contrast, roughly 11,000 Americans were killed in gun homicides in 2016 — yet Trump has never said anything about creating a registry of gun owners.

“The 54 fatalities caused by Muslim-American extremists in 2016 brought the total since 9/11 to 123,” Kurzman writes. “More than 240,000 Americans were murdered over the same period.”

http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/27/1...ca-islam-trump

Now you can be afraid ... but not of Muslim terrorists.

 

Mattis is a good general and, as SecDef, he controls the Pentagon. In the Pentagon there is plenty of support for the supposition that Islamic terrorism is a problem that does not have a military solution. As an example, former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno once told CBS This Morning that sending as many as 150,000 troops to Iraq to crush ISIS would only end in futility without long-term cooperation from the Iraqi government. Odierno is particularly qualified to discuss the prospect of success and failure in Iraq, given that he’s spent six years in the region. For two of those years, from 2008 to 2010, he served as head of all foreign troops.

“I could put 150,000 soldiers on the ground and defeat ISIS? Yes. But then what?” he added. “A year later it would be right back to where we are today.”

No Islamic terrorist group has ever been destroyed by military force. Why? They are guerilla fighters. They will not stand and fight to hold ground. The have no capital, no state to defend. They meld into the populace. They move from place to place. Eventually, Mosul and Raqqa will be taken. That will not destroy ISIS. It will only be a setback from which they will recover. That has been the history of Islamic terrorist organizations during the entire course of modern history.

In addition, sending American combat troops to the Middle East is exactly what the enemy wants. They wish to kill the soldiers of the Great Satan. It worked in Iraq where nearly 5,000 Americans were killed. It can work again. They will be waiting.

I believe for these reasons Mattis will be somewhat ambivalent to Trump's orders to come up with a plan to defeat ISIS. Hopefully, he will make Trump see the light.

Only Islamic nations can destroy Islamic terrorist organizations. As long as Western nations are attempting to do that for them, Islamic nations won't even try although Islamic extremism kills more Muslims than any other ethnicity.

 

Robert, context, put your gripes about Obama in the proper context. Be my guest and start a thread of your own. But when a article is critical of Trump, changing the subject to Obama, Clinton, or the liberals is a sign of weakness, particularly if you support Trump. If you do, defend him. Don't change the subject.

Generally speaking, if an article, any article, is about one man, and the reader changes the subject to another man, that is rather strange.

 

Donald Trump called for 50,000 more Army troops, more than 70 new Navy warships, 13 new Marine battalions and nearly 100 Air Force planes, proposing a massive surge in defense spending he said is needed to stop the rise of the Islamic State and to be better prepared for other global threats.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/7/donald-trump-wants-bigger-military-bigger-defense-/

 

So, maybe Trump should have a new executive order called the Airplane Ban, in which he forbids any aircraft form flying over U.S. soil.

You are suggesting we live in fear, and we should isolate ourselves from a world full of evil. My friend, you have my sympathies. It must be terrible to be a Trump supporter. Now you are required to live in fear.

 

I think you are right. On this thread most of his supporters change the subject rather than defend him, because they can't. It has to be frustrating to his fans. A small few attempt to defend him, and they should be congratulated for taking on a difficult task. Unfortunately, they don't have much to work with. It's hard to argue with reality. The latest White House fiasco over Flynn is a good example. Prior to that both Trump and a White House spokesperson, Kellyann Conway, hawked Ivanka's wares on national television, a no-no if ever there was one.

 

When did I say Trump was elected by "sub normal people?"

I am a retired Marine officer whose last post was S-2 at 11th Marines. I served during the Vietnam War.

Yes, of course, there is danger from "unlimited immigration." I haven't said anything different. That is why we have immigration laws and they should be enforced. Trump has done nothing yet to strengthen our immigration laws, but it is early yet. The current crackdown has little to do with Trump except, perhaps, his blessing.

The government says it’s simply enforcing the laws and conducting routine enforcement targeting immigrants in the country illegally with criminal records. Authorities say it’s no different than what happened during the Obama years on a regular basis. Under President Barack Obama, the government focused on immigrants in the country illegally who posed a threat to national security or public safety and recent border crossers. But despite the narrower focus, more than 2 million people were deported during Obama’s time in office, including a record of more than 409,000 people in 2012. At one point, he was dubbed the “Deporter in Chief” by his critics.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/12/ap-fact-check-are-immigration-raids-result-of-trump-policy-2/

 

With Obama we had the same we got from Clinton in the late 1990's.

Keep ignoring the warning signs like Uncle Bill did.

 

.....is this a "California" Forum?.....

 

We were divided because of the rampant bigotry of the radicals that infested and assumed control of the Left.

These would be the very people who Trump would have engage in order to "make an attempt to heal" as you say.

Why exactly should Trump bother to do this?

The very nature of these vicious radicals is what put us into this situation.

Generally speaking, such a side would have no interest in "healing" the very divide they created.

Literally speaking, they clearly don't as these people welcomed the Trump Presidency with rioting, vandalism, hate crimes, fake news, and ...herp de derp ...more bigotry.

Leftists let this radicalism take hold because they were so smug and sure of their own everlasting victory that they never questioned the fact that an ultra small faction of radicals was belligerently seeking to obtain dictator like powers over the uber majority of Americans ...and that those Americans jusssttt might disagree.

You want to heal the division?

Drop the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing radicalism from your party.

See my signature.

All of those items and more have to go then you'll find the division is healed because it was garbage like that which created the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing division in the fist place!!!

 

Trump to Flynn, "You're fired!."

Yes, I know, technically speaking, Trump asked Flynn to resign, but in the real world the two circumstances are identical in this case. However, the matter will not end there, and it is getting far more serious.

As it turns out, it seems that Trump had known about Flynn's indiscretions at least three weeks ago. The L.A. Times reports, "President Trump knew for three weeks that former national security advisor Michael Flynn misrepresented his contacts with a Russian diplomat before firing him under pressure, the White House acknowledged Tuesday in offering an account of Flynn’s downfall that differed strikingly from what it said a day earlier."

That lends credence to the speculation in the OP. It would appear the White House and Flynn have been lying about this from the very beginning. It follows that Trump may have known about this from the very beginning because Trump runs a tight ship. It is not likely the White House was lying in his name and he was unaware of that fact. That would be extremely un-Trump-like.

If Trump knew about it from the very beginning, something else is unlikely. General Flynn was a loyal and obedient soldier who did what he was told. It is not likely that Flynn, who was simply a private citizen at the time, decided on his own to talk to Russian authorities. Who is the one person who could order Flynn to do such an outrageous thing? President-elect Trump, of course. And it just so happens that Trump wants Russian help to destroy ISIS. Is there quid pro quo at work here?

It could go back further than that. Russia interfered in our election. The damage done by the Russians was one-sided. All the damage was inflicted on the Clinton campaign. This obviously aided Trump's election, but it is uncertain how much. Were the Russians assured by the Trump staff not to worry about sanctions for helping the Trump campaign?

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Trump in the end sought Flynn’s resignation because of “trust” issues, not legal ones. However, the veracity of that statement is in serious question because there has been little truth from the White House in this matter.

It is for that reason the Republican Congress is getting involved. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell boldly declared Tuesday it's "highly likely" the Senate intelligence committee will investigate former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's discussions with the Russian ambassador. "I think the fundamental question for us is what is our involvement in it, and who ought to look at it," McConnell said. "And the intelligence committee is already looking at Russian involvement in our election. As Sen. (Roy) Blunt has already indicated, it is highly likely they will want to take look at this episode as well. They have the broad jurisdiction to do it."

Wow! It appears the speculation in the post written yesterday is becoming more and more likely.

 

My friend, you have no idea the changes that have been made since 9/11. Those changes have been a great success. Since 9/11 there has not been a successful terrorist attack in the U.S. by a person who entered our country illegally or a refugee. That is a 100% success rate, and those restrictions were put in place long before Trump took office. So, what are you afraid of?

The chances of being killed in a terrorist attack are about 1 in 20 million. A person is as likely to be killed by his or her own furniture, and more likely to die in a car accident, drown in a bathtub, or in a building fire than from a terrorist attack.

www.lifeinsurancequotes.org/additional-resources/deadly-statistics/

 

Nope, anyone can join. Robert is just kind old man who needs a little bit of counseling once in a while.

 

Why do we have borders and immigration laws? Think about it, would you want anyone to just walk into your home and move into your spare room without your knowledge or permission? It is exactly the same thing America is our home and if someone wants to come and visit or live here then they should ask permission just like they would in your home. If someone out of the ordinary comes into my home I watch them every minute just like the rest of you do, if you don't then you have lost your minds.

 

We are divided by the actions and words of President Trump. You took the sentence out of context. Review the rest of it. You will find that every bit of it is reality. And every bit of it is a consequence of Trump's actions.

You are badly mistaken when you say that all those who oppose him are "vicious radicals." Nothing could be further from the truth. If you read past the first sentence you would find out that members of his own party have issues with him. Trump wants an investigation of voter fraud. Senate Majority Leader McConnell won't fund the investigation. Would you call him a "vicious radical?" Senators McCain and Graham have been critical of Trump's stance on Russia. Would call them "vicious radicals?" Speaker of the House Ryan took issue with the roll-out of Trump's Muslim ban. Would you call him a "vicious radical?" In case you didn't know this, those are all members of Trump's own party.

"Drop the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing radicalism from your party." I am a conservative. I have voted Republican for 25 years.

 

What a heaping load of crap.We were divided before President Trump ran for office.

 

No one here has spoken out against immigration laws. "It is exactly the same thing America is our home and if someone wants to come and visit or live here then they should ask permission just like they would in your home." That is exactly what is happening now and the restrictions have been in place long before Trump took office. We are not talking here about illegal immigration coming across our southern border. We are talking here about Trump's executive orders that resulted in a Muslim ban involving seven predominantly Muslim nations.

The restrictions that have been in place for years and have a 100% success rate. Since 9/11 there has not been a successful terrorist attack in the U.S. by a person who entered our country illegally or a refugee.

Trump's Muslim ban was un-American. We are a nation of immigrants. His travel ban punished thousands of people for what they might do. Fortunately, it was struck down by the courts.

 

That is what I said in the OP. Perhaps you should review it to get the proper perspective. Things like Flynn's lies, Trump and Conway hawking Ivanka"s wares, the Muslim travel ban, his ludicrous investigation of voter fraud which the Republican Congress won't fund, his lying about Mexico paying for his wall, all continue to divide the nation. Trump is making no attempts to heal the divide. Indeed, he is doing everything he can to make the divide worse. His approval rating during the first 100 days is lowest of any President in our history.

 

Trump is not the problem. He is a symptom of the problem. He could not have become president in a different time. The problem had to develop first, and the problem is . . . . . well, I'll let Mark Blyth, political science professor and professor of international political economy at Brown University, tell you. It's happening around the world....

[video]https://youtu.be/-K8bf6dbYt4[/video]

 

Oh my you are so woefully uninformed...........