Trump's First 100 Days

[Rotobeast]

(02-13-2017, 12:56 PM)Griever Wrote: now they just need to do like republicans and start of list of things they will boycott

Isn't that a little sexist ?
I mean, nobody ever threatens with a GIRLcott.

[GMDino]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/13/flynn-apologizes-after-admitting-he-may-have-discussed-sanctions-russia/97852248/

Quote:National Security Adviser Michael Flynn has apologized amid reports that Flynn discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with the Russian ambassador in the days before President Trump's inauguration, a White House official said.


The apology was directed most notably to Vice President Pence, who had emphatically denied to CBS News last month that Flynn had discussed "anything having to do with the United States' decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia."

Flynn spoke to Pence by phone, the official said.

The White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive personnel matter, said Flynn now says he may have discussed sanctions, but cannot be 100% certain.

Despite the intense speculation about Flynn's future, no questions about Flynn were asked during the news conference Monday between Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Trump took two questions from U.S. reporters; both were from conservative-leaving media outlets. Flynn sat in the front row at the news conference with other administration officials.

The controversy involves a phone call in late December with Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the United States, amid the Obama administration's crackdown in retaliation for Russian hacking during the 2016 presidential campaign. The timing of the phone call — and Russia's decision not to retaliate against the U.S. measures — have raised further questions about the relationship between Trump's inner circle and the Kremlin.

Initially, Flynn said he did not discuss sanctions with Kislyak, a denial passed onto the public by Trump spokesman Sean Spicer and Pence, among others. In past weeks, Flynn has said the conversation was general in nature, including holiday greetings.

After a Washington Post story last week cited nine unnamed intelligence sources as saying Flynn and the Russian ambassador did discuss sanctions, the national security adviser adjusted his story. Pence is said to be particularly upset with Flynn's changed story, said another official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity because staff members were not authorized to speak publicly about the matter.

While no White House aides have publicly defended Flynn, many do not expect a major shake-up, at least not in the near term. Over the weekend, White House policy adviser Stephen Miller told ABC News that Flynn served "admirably and with distinction" as a three-star general, but declined to comment further because it was a "sensitive matter."

Read more:
[url=http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/2017/02/10/flynn-denied-discussing-sanctions-russia-new-reports-say-he-did/97767596/][/url]

Flynn denied discussing sanctions with Russia, new reports say he did

Reality check: After three weeks, Trump has hit a Washington wall
Trump to 'look into' reports Flynn discussed U.S. sanctions with Russia

Flynn's pre-inauguration phone call with the Russian ambassador has long made him a target. Critics accused him of violating the so-called Logan Act, though that prohibition on private citizens conducting foreign policy has never been successfully enforced.


Democrats, already suspicious of Flynn's ties to Russia, have called for his dismissal.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement Monday that Flynn should be fired.

“This Administration has exhausted its excuses," Pelosi of California said in a statement. "Vladimir Putin’s grip on President Trump must be investigated, exposed and broken. National security demands that General Flynn be fired immediately.”

The problems with Flynn are a "reflection on the president," Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said on MSNBC. "And this is a president who is erratic, who is inexperienced, who may be very well in over his head, who starts the day generally by Tweeting things that his national security team then has to chase after and make sense out of.”

Flynn accompanied Trump to his Palm Beach, Fla., estate this past weekend for presidential talks with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Speaking to reporters on Air Force One last Friday, Trump said he wasn't aware of the reports that Flynn discussed sanctions but promised to "look into" the matter.

[BmorePat87]

(02-13-2017, 06:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/13/flynn-apologizes-after-admitting-he-may-have-discussed-sanctions-russia/97852248/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/14/michael-flynns-letter-resignation-as-national-security-adviser.html

[Vas Deferens]

FAKE NEWS! SAD!

[BmorePat87]

[Vas Deferens]

Is it really that surprising the first botched job by this clown would be his pick in an INTELLIGENCE capacity.

But I've been told Repubes are better at businessiessy stuff.

[GMDino]

(02-14-2017, 02:00 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/14/michael-flynns-letter-resignation-as-national-security-adviser.html

I was at my parents last night and said he'd be gone by the end of the week.  surprised it was this fast.  

Clearly the best vetted people are getting jobs with the Trump Administration ™.

[BmorePat87]

and Andy Puzder has withdrawn his nomination for Labor Sec after Republicans discovered they lacked the votes within their party to nominate him after news of his hiring of an illegal immigrant and the recent resurfacing of a 1990 episode of Oprah in which his ex wife accused him of domestic abuse (something she later recanted this as part of a custody agreement).

[*bfine32*]

(02-15-2017, 05:26 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: and Andy Puzder  has withdrawn his nomination for Labor Sec after Republicans discovered they lacked the votes within their party to nominate him after news of his hiring of an illegal immigrant and the recent resurfacing of a 1990 episode of Oprah in which his ex wife accused him of domestic abuse (something she later recanted this as part of a custody agreement).

Kudos to the GOP for this bi-partisan move. 

[NATI BENGALS]

(02-15-2017, 08:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Kudos to the GOP for this bi-partisan move. 

I have been really impressed by the GOPs performance thus far as the majority running the show. Ensuring some mentally disabled could buy firearms was at the top of EVERYBODY'S list of importance. And making sure oil companies didnt have to disclose financial information was a top priority for the majority of Americans. Only the big time important issues first.

Special interests be damned. These GOP law makers have proved this will be an incredibly productive term for the American people.

[GMDino]

http://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2017/02/13/donald-trump-will-visit-mar-a-lago-again-this-friday-for-the-third-weekend-in-a-row#

Quote:Donald Trump, a man who claimed while campaigning that he would not be a president who took vacations, will return to the fabulous Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida for his third consecutive vacation this Friday. 




According to the Palm Beach Post, a recent Federal Aviation Administration advisory states that Trump will be in Palm Beach Monday through Friday.



This is a good time to think back to 2015, about a week after Donald Trump announced his candidacy. While opening the Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Virginia, Trump took a break from golfing to talk about how important it is, as a president, to be present at The White House and rarely take vacations. 

"I would rarely leave the White House because there’s so much work to be done,”  said Trump. "I would not be a president who took vacations. I would not be a president that takes time off. You don’t have time to take time off." 



Last weekend, Trump got his first taste of why he should probably heed his own advice and spend more time in Washington. 

While eating a salad last weekend at Mar-a-Lago, the president and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe were informed North Korea had just launched an intermediate-range ballistic missile. 

Instead of leaving the dining area, Trump and his advisors scrambled to figure out what was happening while guests at the club watched and took photos, reports CNN. 

Trump's national security adviser Michael Flynn, chief strategist Steve Bannon, and a crew of aides and translators huddled around the table. 

However, this apparently did not stop Trump from eating his dinner. 

From CNN: 

Quote:

Even as a flurry of advisers and translators descended upon the table carrying papers and phones for their bosses to consult, dinner itself proceeded apace. Waiters cleared the wedge salads and brought along the main course as Trump and Abe continued consulting with aides.

One guest, Richard DeAgazio, captured this surreal event and posted it to Facebook. 


This is fine. Everything is fine. 

[*bfine32*]

(02-15-2017, 10:14 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Ensuring some mentally disabled could buy firearms was at the top of EVERYBODY'S list of importance. 

You don't think the mentally disabled  are entitled to their Constitutional rights?

[GMDino]

Let me add that I am in the court with people who agree the POTUS is never *really* on vacation.

But then i don't know any who ran on saying they would almost never leave Washington because they had too much work to do and then left every weekend for the first month they were in office either.

[NATI BENGALS]

(02-15-2017, 10:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You don't think the mentally disabled  are entitled to their Constitutional rights?

You think ensuring mentally ill people are armed is a top priority?

[*bfine32*]

(02-15-2017, 10:57 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: You think ensuring mentally ill people are armed is a top priority?

Nope (See that's called answering a question).  Who made ensuring mentally ill people were armed a top priority? 

[NATI BENGALS]

(02-15-2017, 11:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nope (See that's called answering a question).  Who made ensuring mentally ill people were armed a top priority? 

The ones who in the first few weeks brought up and voted to make sure those incapable of handling their finances could still buy a gun. Other than appeasing the NRA the 75,000 people who could be affected probably dont know what happened.

And to answer your question I think the mentally disabled should have a harder time buying a gun. 

So felons cant vote?
But if you plead insanity you can still buy a gun?
IDK. Complicated issue. Lot of different catagories. Mental health isnt a current strong suit of our country. Seeing the GOP prioritize rolling back regulations so people unable to cash a check can buy a guns just doesnt sit well. 

[Rotobeast]

(02-16-2017, 01:37 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: The ones who in the first few weeks brought up and voted to make sure those incapable of handling their finances could still buy a gun. Other than appeasing the NRA the 75,000 people who could be affected probably dont know what happened.

And to answer your question I think the mentally disabled should have a harder time buying a gun. 

So felons cant vote?
But if you plead insanity you can still buy a gun?
IDK. Complicated issue. Lot of different catagories. Mental health isnt a current strong suit of our country. Seeing the GOP prioritize rolling back regulations so people unable to cash a check can buy a guns just doesnt sit well. 

Just curious....
Do you think all Vets with PTSD should be denied firearms ?
Do you feel that anyone that has ever taken anti-depressants should be denied.
Both have happened to people I know and I'd trust them with my life.
Furthermore, such restrictions have prevented people from admitting they have an issue and seeking help.
Mind you, I don't think people that have been committed and have continued treatment need the right to rush right out and become armed.
We just need highly defined language in such a bill/law.

Honestly though, anybody can get damn near anything.
It just takes money.

P.S. the NRA sucks !

[NATI BENGALS]

(02-16-2017, 02:40 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: Just curious....
Do you think all Vets with PTSD should be denied firearms ?
Do you feel that anyone that has ever taken anti-depressants should be denied.
Both have happened to people I know and I'd trust them with my life.
Furthermore, such restrictions have prevented people from admitting they have an issue and seeking help.
Mind you, I don't think people that have been committed and have continued treatment need the right to rush right out and become armed.
We just need highly defined language in such a bill/law.

Honestly though, anybody can get damn near anything.
It just takes money.

P.S. the NRA sucks !

No and no. 

My half assed attempt at understanding the law led me to believe people receiving social security checks who were mentally incapable of handling their finances without a 3rd party were subject to this rule. If someone felt the rule unfairly hurt them they could object on a case by case basis.

I have no idea how any of this is kept track of. I had a friend who went off the rails. Couple stays in a mental hospital. He is stable to say the least. He should have some extra hoops to jump through at a minimum if he wanted to buy a gun. 

There are people i grew up with that were always in special ed classes. And they will always be dependent on a government check and they will never be able to make their own financial decisions so someone else will do it for them. They shouldnt be able to buy guns. 

[Rotobeast]

(02-16-2017, 04:03 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: No and no. 

My half assed attempt at understanding the law led me to believe people receiving social security checks who were mentally incapable of handling their finances without a 3rd party were subject to this rule. If someone felt the rule unfairly hurt them they could object on a case by case basis.

I have no idea how any of this is kept track of. I had a friend who went off the rails. Couple stays in a mental hospital. He is stable to say the least. He should have some extra hoops to jump through at a minimum if he wanted to buy a gun. 

There are people i grew up with that were always in special ed classes. And they will always be dependent on a government check and they will never be able to make their own financial decisions so someone else will do it for them. They shouldnt be able to buy guns. 

Ok, cool.
Thanks for clarifying.
I thought we'd pretty much be on the same page.

[*bfine32*]

(02-16-2017, 01:37 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: The ones who in the first few weeks brought up and voted to make sure those incapable of handling their finances could still buy a gun. Other than appeasing the NRA the 75,000 people who could be affected probably dont know what happened.

And to answer your question I think the mentally disabled should have a harder time buying a gun. 

So felons cant vote?
But if you plead insanity you can still buy a gun?
IDK. Complicated issue. Lot of different catagories. Mental health isnt a current strong suit of our country. Seeing the GOP prioritize rolling back regulations so people unable to cash a check can buy a guns just doesnt sit well. 

Sounds like you're just looking for something to be mad about; however, that's just me. I'm sure many here feel you bring up a legitimate concern

As to the Can felons vote: I think it depends on their state.