DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site

General => New Political and Religious Forum => Topic started by: cramx3 on January 25, 2017, 12:34:44 PM

Title: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on January 25, 2017, 12:34:44 PM
A lot has been said about how Trump has wanted to take significant action in his first 100 days in office.  Since a lot of this discussion was taking place in threads not specific about Trump's political moves I figured a thread specific to this topic would make sense.

It seems this week he has been very busy starting to execute the things he said he would on the campaign trail.

Let's discuss civilly...

Here is one article http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-trump-tells-abc-news-david-muir-construction/story?id=45007943 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-trump-tells-abc-news-david-muir-construction/story?id=45007943)  so it appears the construction of the wall will start soonish. 

I'm honestly surprised.  I thought this would be one of his campaign promises that wouldn't come to fruition.  I've also never been a big supporter of the wall.  I like a more controlled border, but never thought a wall fixes that, just creates another obstacle (that I feel will be overcome easily).  He is still saying Mexico will pay, so I am very interested in how that will work.  For me, it's hard to complain if we got the wall for free, although I don't believe anything is truly for free.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Adami on January 25, 2017, 12:36:36 PM
I'd be interested in seeing how far they get on the wall, since as it stands, America is actually paying for the whole thing, with Trump promising that Mexico will pay them back, and Mexico saying "lol no".
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: TAC on January 25, 2017, 12:38:13 PM
I'm not surprised. The Wall, in whatever shape it ultimately takes, is one of the real tangible promises he made. He cannot go back on that.

As far as Mexico paying, they will not be writing a check per se, but perhaps a renegotiating of NAFTA may free up funds in the US' favor that could pay for it.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on January 25, 2017, 12:48:31 PM
The Wall, in whatever shape it ultimately takes, is one of the real tangible promises he made. He cannot go back on that.

I would have thought so too, but Presidents of the past have not lived up to the campaign hopes and dreams.  I thought this would be one of them just because its a HUGE effort and very costly.  If in the end America does pay and we don't see any better border protection, that would be a huge stain on his presidency IMO (although I'm sure he will have many with his mouth alone).
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: jsbru on January 25, 2017, 12:52:46 PM
I sort of doubt there's much hidden value in NAFTA anyway.  If there is, Trump certainly hasn't studied it enough, nor does he have the economic background to figure out if there is.  I think his promise to renegotiate is little more than campaign trail bloviation.

Also, the wall isn't going to stop much illegal immigration.  Net migration to our country from Mexico these days is pretty close to zero, and much of the people that do come here have much better ways to get in beyond trekking through the desert.  More campaign trail bloviation that won't do this country any good.  Except this one is going to cause us to waste a ton of money.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XJDenton on January 25, 2017, 01:03:01 PM
My main concern with his actions so far are with his muting of departments and employees with regards to climate science.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Implode on January 25, 2017, 01:09:46 PM
Seconded XJ. Also, I find it concerning that he's trying to start a huge investigation on voter fraud. Either that's going to be a huge waste of money when he finds next to nothing, or he has ulterior motives.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on January 25, 2017, 01:18:38 PM
Seconded XJ. Also, I find it concerning that he's trying to start a huge investigation on voter fraud. Either that's going to be a huge waste of money when he finds next to nothing, or he has ulterior motives.

He won, I don't understand his focus on this, unless it turns out to be a serious problem.  I'm not so sure that's the case though.  To me, this is his ego getting in the way. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: RuRoRul on January 25, 2017, 01:26:27 PM
My main concern with his actions so far are with his muting of departments and employees with regards to climate science.
Was coming to post this.

As for the voter fraud "investigation", the announcement from the President in the form of a Tweet (yes, this is the world we live in now, if there is a more in depth statement on it please let me know  :lol) is this:

"I will be asking for a major investigation into VOTER FRAUD, including those registered to vote in two states, those who are illegal and... even, those registered to vote who are dead (and many for a long time). Depending on results, we will strengthen up voting procedures!"

Emphasis mine, I believe if an "investigation" was to actually happen (which I doubt) that would be the real motivation. The opaque administration conducts some sort of "investigation", we'll hear something about "you won't believe how much voter fraud there was, believe me", and then they use it as a basis to push for tighter and tighter voter restriction laws.

My guess is there won't actually be any action on this, and it is just one of those statements from Trump to make himself feel better about the popular vote (even Paul Ryan, and I think Mike Pence, have  explicitly denied the baseless claims about widespread voter fraud). In terms of what he actually Tweeted about, being registered in two states isn't illegal as long as you don't vote in two states. Lots of people are registered in two states - including Trump's strategist Steve Bannon (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/25/steve-bannon-voter-registration-trump-election-voter-fraud), and his own daughter Tiffany Trump.

One last potentially interesting point on the VOTER FRAUD investigations - Trump's own lawyers (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/316075-trumps-attorneys-no-evidence-of-voter-fraud) claimed in court that there was no evidence of significant voter fraud, as part of their argument for not going ahead with major recounts in Michigan. If there was reason to suspect widespread voter fraud then those recounts should go ahead? Or shouldn't the results of the election be considered invalid, if it genuinely is as bad as Trump would have us believe with millions of fraudulent votes?

Since Trump won this election, there's only two reasons I can see to go out of his way to undermine the credibility of the election process; to massage his own ego about the fact he didn't win the popular vote (which clearly bothers him), or to undermine credibility of future elections. My guess would be that for Donald himself it's about the former, for the men behind the throne it's the latter.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: TAC on January 25, 2017, 01:32:23 PM
But what if he feels that there was voter fraud?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 25, 2017, 01:33:36 PM
But what if he feels that there was voter fraud?
Why would he feel that?

Oh yeah, because it makes him feel better about losing the popular vote.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on January 25, 2017, 01:35:59 PM
But what if he feels that there was voter fraud?
Why would he feel that?

Oh yeah, because it makes him feel better about losing the popular vote.

Or because it does happen.  The difference is on what scale does it happen, it's most likely a very small scale and not significant enough to change elections. But yes, his ego is the driving factor IMO for an investigation (if there is one).
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XJDenton on January 25, 2017, 01:36:19 PM
Quote
Hannah Arendt in her book The Origin of Totalitarianism provides a helpful guide for interpreting the language of fascists. She noted how decent liberals of 1930s Germany would "fact check" the Nazis' bizarre claims about Jews like they were meant to be factual. What they failed to understand, Arendt suggests, is that the Nazi Jew hating was not a statement of fact but a declaration of intent. So when someone would blame the Jews for Germany's defeat in WW1 naive people would counter by saying there's no evidence of that. What the Nazis were doing was not describing what was true, but what would have to be true to justify what they planned to do next. Did 3 million "illegals" cast votes in this election? Clearly not. But fact checking is just a way of playing along with their game. What Trump is saying is not that 3m illegals voted. What he's saying is: I'm going to steal the voting rights of millions of Americans.

-Elliott Lusztig
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: TAC on January 25, 2017, 01:40:03 PM
But what if he feels that there was voter fraud?
Why would he feel that?

Oh yeah, because it makes him feel better about losing the popular vote.

Maybe. But maybe he believes it was happening. I mean, at this point, I'm not sure why this is even a story. Let him investigate. Why is it an issue?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on January 25, 2017, 01:47:54 PM
If he gave a shit about the democratic process he wouldn't have scoffed at intelligence reports that suggested problems. Legitimate concerns are merely a smear campaign against him. Stuff he pulls out of his ass deserve investigations. As demonstrated over and over, he's only concerned about things that effect him negatively. Right or wrong is completely inconsequential. Comes with having the emotional temperament of a 7 year old.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: mikeyd23 on January 25, 2017, 01:49:01 PM
But what if he feels that there was voter fraud?
Why would he feel that?

Oh yeah, because it makes him feel better about losing the popular vote.

Maybe. But maybe he believes it was happening. I mean, at this point, I'm not sure why this is even a story. Let him investigate. Why is it an issue?

I'm with you on that one TAC, well said. If his administration wants to investigate voter fraud, they can go ahead and do it. There's a lot of things happening that seem to be more important. This move by Trump and his team doesn't bother me greatly.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: RuRoRul on January 25, 2017, 01:51:21 PM
Quote
Hannah Arendt in her book The Origin of Totalitarianism provides a helpful guide for interpreting the language of fascists. She noted how decent liberals of 1930s Germany would "fact check" the Nazis' bizarre claims about Jews like they were meant to be factual. What they failed to understand, Arendt suggests, is that the Nazi Jew hating was not a statement of fact but a declaration of intent. So when someone would blame the Jews for Germany's defeat in WW1 naive people would counter by saying there's no evidence of that. What the Nazis were doing was not describing what was true, but what would have to be true to justify what they planned to do next. Did 3 million "illegals" cast votes in this election? Clearly not. But fact checking is just a way of playing along with their game. What Trump is saying is not that 3m illegals voted. What he's saying is: I'm going to steal the voting rights of millions of Americans.

-Elliott Lusztig
:clap:

Anyway, at this point the VOTER FRAUD investigation really is just all talk with nothing substantial to discuss. Genuine evidence-based investigation or study into the existence of voter fraud would be welcome. My previous post contains my thoughts on this particular Tweet statement.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Adami on January 25, 2017, 01:53:12 PM
But what if he feels that there was voter fraud?
Why would he feel that?

Oh yeah, because it makes him feel better about losing the popular vote.

Maybe. But maybe he believes it was happening. I mean, at this point, I'm not sure why this is even a story. Let him investigate. Why is it an issue?

He also railed against a look into voter fraud into states that he won. That says a lot.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: TAC on January 25, 2017, 01:55:25 PM
Is that right?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: mikeyd23 on January 25, 2017, 01:57:36 PM
Quote
Hannah Arendt in her book The Origin of Totalitarianism provides a helpful guide for interpreting the language of fascists. She noted how decent liberals of 1930s Germany would "fact check" the Nazis' bizarre claims about Jews like they were meant to be factual. What they failed to understand, Arendt suggests, is that the Nazi Jew hating was not a statement of fact but a declaration of intent. So when someone would blame the Jews for Germany's defeat in WW1 naive people would counter by saying there's no evidence of that. What the Nazis were doing was not describing what was true, but what would have to be true to justify what they planned to do next. Did 3 million "illegals" cast votes in this election? Clearly not. But fact checking is just a way of playing along with their game. What Trump is saying is not that 3m illegals voted. What he's saying is: I'm going to steal the voting rights of millions of Americans.

-Elliott Lusztig
:clap:

Anyway, at this point the VOTER FRAUD investigation really is just all talk with nothing substantial to discuss. Genuine evidence-based investigation or study into the existence of voter fraud would be welcome. My previous post contains my thoughts on this particular Tweet statement.

Catch me up, cause I guess I'm a little slow... So now we are saying that Trump's administration investigating voter fraud somehow makes Trump the next Hitler who is trying to take away voting rights from Americans...?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Adami on January 25, 2017, 01:58:23 PM
Is that right?

Yup. When Jill Stein wanted to look into voting problems in states that Trump won, he got super pissed about it.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: RuRoRul on January 25, 2017, 02:00:53 PM
Trump's own lawyers (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/316075-trumps-attorneys-no-evidence-of-voter-fraud) claimed in court that there was no evidence of significant voter fraud, as part of their argument for not going ahead with major recounts in Michigan.


Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: TAC on January 25, 2017, 02:03:28 PM
If he gave a shit about the democratic process he wouldn't have scoffed at intelligence reports that suggested problems. Legitimate concerns are merely a smear campaign against him. Stuff he pulls out of his ass deserve investigations. As demonstrated over and over, he's only concerned about things that effect him negatively. Right or wrong is completely inconsequential. Comes with having the emotional temperament of a 7 year old.

Can't argue with that.

Is that right?

Yup. When Jill Stein wanted to look into voting problems in states that Trump won, he got super pissed about it.

OK. Thanks.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: TAC on January 25, 2017, 02:11:52 PM
In reading this article, it mentions a lot of what you guys are saying.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-seeks-%e2%80%98major-investigation%e2%80%99-into-unsupported-claims-of-voter-fraud/ar-AAmejnl?li=BBnb7Kz

I have a question though. In the article there is this paragraph:
“Republicans in statehouses across America have passed restrictive laws that impair the ability of legitimate voters to participate, and they use the myth of voter fraud to justify their abuses,” Cummings said in a statement.

What is an example of a restrictive law that impairs one's ability to vote?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on January 25, 2017, 02:39:32 PM
In reading this article, it mentions a lot of what you guys are saying.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-seeks-%e2%80%98major-investigation%e2%80%99-into-unsupported-claims-of-voter-fraud/ar-AAmejnl?li=BBnb7Kz

I have a question though. In the article there is this paragraph:
“Republicans in statehouses across America have passed restrictive laws that impair the ability of legitimate voters to participate, and they use the myth of voter fraud to justify their abuses,” Cummings said in a statement.

What is an example of a restrictive law that impairs one's ability to vote?
Voter ID requirements. Statistically speaking, the poor and minorities are going to be slightly less likely to possess a license or passport. They're also going to be more likely to vote democrat.

Truth be told, in-person voter fraud is trivial, at best. It's the larger scale instances that are problematic. A great example is people canvassing the neighborhoods to register people to vote, and then throwing the registrations of people unlikely to vote for their candidate in the nearest river.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: TAC on January 25, 2017, 02:51:21 PM


What is an example of a restrictive law that impairs one's ability to vote?
Voter ID requirements. Statistically speaking, the poor and minorities are going to be slightly less likely to possess a license or passport. 

But if you want to vote, shouldn't you be able to prove who you say you are?

I can see the Republicans not wanting the Democrats to put 50 homeless guys on a bus and bring them to a voting facility, but is it really too much to ask that if you want to vote, you have some sort of legal identification.

I'm not looking at this politically because I don't care who wins, but I'm trying to look at it with some common sense. Unless I'm missing something.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Scorpion on January 25, 2017, 02:56:34 PM
I agree with that to a point, but there are a lot of shenanigans going on. For instance, I read that in a certain state (I forgot which it was) the Republican legislature pushed to enforce that a gun license was legitimate ID to vote, but a student's ID was not because of the vote breakdown between the two groups. And I wouldn't be surprised if you had reverse efforts in Democratically-dominated states, though I haven't read of any examples of that specifically.

Coming from a country where having ID is mandatory, I always found it rather weird that that's not the case in the US. I'd probably be in favour of a system where you have to have some form of ID, but I often see complaints about that when an election is immanent, which seems like changing the rules just before the end of the game. If there is a push toward needing ID to vote, it should be done directly after an election to give everyone a chance to adjust to the new laws in time before the next election.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: RuRoRul on January 25, 2017, 03:05:32 PM
Yeah, Voter ID laws were something I think I might have first became aware of seeing them discussed on here many years ago... one of those things that seem like common sense to me, and if done in conjunction with making sure that there is a valid ID that is free and easy to obtain for voting, it would be great. But it seems as though they are often implemented as a way to strategically suppress voting from groups that would vote against whoever is in charge.

Here's an example I recall of one of these laws in North Carolina: Supreme Court won't let North Carolina use strict voting law (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-wont-let-north-carolina-use-strict-voting-law/2016/08/31/b5187080-6ed6-11e6-8533-6b0b0ded0253_story.html). Since this was struck down by the Supreme Court this is probably a good example of the type of Voter ID laws that you wouldn't want to see, rather than a fair and sensible one.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on January 25, 2017, 03:06:00 PM
It seems the Airlines might end up having an influence on ID in the US as many states Driver License will not be good enough proof of ID to fly soon.  I haven't researched this, but I believe it's states that give out license to pretty much anyone that TSA is saying those IDs are not good enough proof to fly.  It's leading states to change their ID laws so you don't need a passport to fly domestically.  It may have an impact indirectly to proof of ID for voting in some states.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 25, 2017, 03:10:58 PM
That airline thing isn't new; that's been floating in the water now for the better part of five years.  Most states are now up to snuff but there's still about five or so that aren't.


As for IDs, there was a great video of an on the street interview where the guy was asking black people on the street about IDs and voting places, and they pretty much shot holes in the notion that "minorities and poor are disadvantaged".   It wasn't scientific, and I'm sure we could poke holes in it all day long, but it's still anecdotal evidence.

I have no problem in being required to show WHO you are.   It's not spoof proof - as most of my drinking from the age of 17 to 21 is proof of - but there are compromises all the time if the state has a compelling interest, and the integrity of our elections is likely sufficient for that.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on January 25, 2017, 03:14:34 PM


What is an example of a restrictive law that impairs one's ability to vote?
Voter ID requirements. Statistically speaking, the poor and minorities are going to be slightly less likely to possess a license or passport. 

But if you want to vote, shouldn't you be able to prove who you say you are?

I can see the Republicans not wanting the Democrats to put 50 homeless guys on a bus and bring them to a voting facility, but is it really too much to ask that if you want to vote, you have some sort of legal identification.

I'm not looking at this politically because I don't care who wins, but I'm trying to look at it with some common sense. Unless I'm missing something.
Of course. The polling places have a role book of people in the district and they're checked off as the person votes. In the past anything that had your name and address was acceptable. You take your water bill (you're old enough to remember when that was ID), they check your name, into the booth you go. The only fraud is if somebody voted instead of you. In those cases you vote a contested ballot and it's sorted out later. Worked just fine for 100+ years.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on January 25, 2017, 03:17:05 PM
I agree with that to a point, but there are a lot of shenanigans going on. For instance, I read that in a certain state (I forgot which it was) the Republican legislature pushed to enforce that a gun license was legitimate ID to vote, but a student's ID was not because of the vote breakdown between the two groups. And I wouldn't be surprised if you had reverse efforts in Democratically-dominated states, though I haven't read of any examples of that specifically.

Coming from a country where having ID is mandatory, I always found it rather weird that that's not the case in the US. I'd probably be in favour of a system where you have to have some form of ID, but I often see complaints about that when an election is immanent, which seems like changing the rules just before the end of the game. If there is a push toward needing ID to vote, it should be done directly after an election to give everyone a chance to adjust to the new laws in time before the next election.
Americans have traditionally been resistant (the right, ironically) of having national IDs. As a rule The Man doesn't need to know who you are unless you have business with him. Paying taxes, for example. States don't require them, presumably for the same reason. It's just that there are plenty of things you can't do without one. Flying, for example.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on January 25, 2017, 03:21:18 PM
I have no problem in being required to show WHO you are.   It's not spoof proof - as most of my drinking from the age of 17 to 21 is proof of - but there are compromises all the time if the state has a compelling interest, and the integrity of our elections is likely sufficient for that.
I believe we're going to run into a compelling state interest problem here. As long as the polling stations know who's allowed to vote, and that still is the case I believe, then there's no problem with too many people voting. Only one vote per registered voter, name and address, is accepted. Did you need ID the first day of 5th grade when your teacher called role? Since there is the potential for hardship, you're going to need a legitimate reason for the requirement, and the reason at the moment is pretty damned squirrelly.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: TAC on January 25, 2017, 03:26:24 PM


Here's an example I recall of one of these laws in North Carolina:  
 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-wont-let-north-carolina-use-strict-voting-law/2016/08/31/b5187080-6ed6-11e6-8533-6b0b0ded0253_story.html)

This paragraph stood out to me:
For instance, the law allowed the use of photo IDs, such as driver’s licenses and passports, held disproportionately by whites, but not photo IDs issued by colleges or state assistance programs, which blacks were more likely to possess

OK,  I can see that.

But honestly, I feel like if you want to vote, then get the necessary paperwork done. You have 4 years to do so.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: jsbru on January 25, 2017, 03:59:46 PM
Seconded XJ. Also, I find it concerning that he's trying to start a huge investigation on voter fraud. Either that's going to be a huge waste of money when he finds next to nothing, or he has ulterior motives.

Both this and The Wall are absolute wastes of money entirely for Trump's own vanity.

Welcome to government by emotion.  Twisted, messed-up, pathological emotion.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: skydivingninja on January 25, 2017, 04:05:38 PM
There are two things about Trump's voter fraud agenda that worry me.

First, we've already seen that he is very in favor of silencing parts of the government that he disagrees with, particularly the EPA and National Parks Service. He's already trying to keep the government from confirming the existence of climate change. What's to stop him from obfuscating the results of any "investigation" he chooses to pursue, say that the investigation showed that there were millions of illegal votes, and implement voter suppression laws based on that?

Second, in a study from 2000 to 2012, there were a total of 2,068 cases of alleged election fraud across all fifty states. 10 of those cases were voter impersonation, which is what voter ID laws would stop. There were 146 million registered voters in the US in that 12-year span. So in 12 years, assuming no one tried to commit fraud twice and all of those cases of fraud were legitimate, 0.0014% of votes were fraudulent. Unless we get a future election that's even closer than Bush v. Gore, this is a nonissue. But like the Wall, Trump would spend my money to look into it. *sigh*
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: jsbru on January 25, 2017, 04:10:04 PM
The other thing with voter ID is that poor people are more likely to move around a lot, and also from state to state.  Because they are more likely to be renters, more likely not to have long-term employment, etc.  So even if they have ID, it's from their old polling location, or old polling state, etc.  If your ID has the wrong address, you can be denied the chance to vote even though you're already registered to vote.  Or you can be forced to go to another precinct to vote and wait in line for another 2 hours.  Not to mention, a lot of poor people don't own cars, so they have to take a bus system across the city.  And a lot of them do have jobs--the kinds of jobs that fire you if you take too much time to ovte.

It's very difficult for poor people to vote.  Polling locations are usually under-staffed in urban areas.  You have to wait in line for hours.  I have first-hand experience with this.  It's very shameful, and this nation should do something to fix that...not to make it harder.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: TAC on January 25, 2017, 04:36:30 PM
It's very difficult for poor people to vote.  Polling locations are usually under-staffed in urban areas.  You have to wait in line for hours.  I have first-hand experience with this.  It's very shameful, and this nation should do something to fix that...not to make it harder.

So what would you propose?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on January 25, 2017, 04:39:39 PM
There are two things about Trump's voter fraud agenda that worry me.

First, we've already seen that he is very in favor of silencing parts of the government that he disagrees with, particularly the EPA and National Parks Service. He's already trying to keep the government from confirming the existence of climate change. What's to stop him from obfuscating the results of any "investigation" he chooses to pursue, say that the investigation showed that there were millions of illegal votes, and implement voter suppression laws based on that?
I heard a few minutes about muting the EPA on ATC today, and the takeaway was that it's not at all uncommon for incoming heads to institute gag orders while they get things together. Putting a halt to press releases, blogging and whatnot is considered reasonable at the moment. But then came the problem you'd expect given the juvenile nature of the administration. This includes scientific studies and academic papers, which have always been kept separate from the political aspect for very obvious reasons (to adults, at least). So according to the head of the transition team the research won't go before peer review, but rather vetted on a case by case basis "so that the voice coming from the EPA is one that's going to reflect the new administration." That's not how science works. It is how politics work, though.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on January 25, 2017, 05:22:46 PM
Seconded XJ. Also, I find it concerning that he's trying to start a huge investigation on voter fraud. Either that's going to be a huge waste of money when he finds next to nothing, or he has ulterior motives.

Both this and The Wall are absolute wastes of money entirely for Trump's own vanity.

I can agree with the voter fraud.  However, the wall was a huge selling point for Trump.  The wall was a big voting point for lots of people so I disagree with that being for his own vanity.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 25, 2017, 06:53:22 PM
The other thing with voter ID is that poor people are more likely to move around a lot, and also from state to state.  Because they are more likely to be renters, more likely not to have long-term employment, etc.  So even if they have ID, it's from their old polling location, or old polling state, etc.  If your ID has the wrong address, you can be denied the chance to vote even though you're already registered to vote.  Or you can be forced to go to another precinct to vote and wait in line for another 2 hours.  Not to mention, a lot of poor people don't own cars, so they have to take a bus system across the city.  And a lot of them do have jobs--the kinds of jobs that fire you if you take too much time to ovte.

It's very difficult for poor people to vote.  Polling locations are usually under-staffed in urban areas.  You have to wait in line for hours.  I have first-hand experience with this.  It's very shameful, and this nation should do something to fix that...not to make it harder.

From the age of say four to the age of say 14, my daughter never went to the same school two years in a row because we moved so much.  I had to redo licenses and what not at every stop.  I traveled for work, so I needed an up-to-date license.  In Philly, I couldn't get the cars registered (and thus I'd get booted) if it wasn't updated.  Where there's a will, there's a way, and I figured it out.   The DMVs in every state I've lived in - PA (twice), GA, NC, and CT (twice) - all had flex hours and Saturday hours.   Some you could even do by mail.  At some point, rich or poor, you have to put in the effort.  Honestly, if you don't want to vote badly enough to get your ID right, well, that's on you.   The one thing I can concede is subsidies for the IFD payment is an issue, but everything else seems to me to be rationalizations. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 25, 2017, 06:55:21 PM
Seconded XJ. Also, I find it concerning that he's trying to start a huge investigation on voter fraud. Either that's going to be a huge waste of money when he finds next to nothing, or he has ulterior motives.

Both this and The Wall are absolute wastes of money entirely for Trump's own vanity.

Welcome to government by emotion.  Twisted, messed-up, pathological emotion.

I think Cram already said this, but that's sour grapes. He promised the wall from day one, when there were 17 GOP candidates.  He was duly elected.  He's delivering on his promises.  You wouldn't be calling "closing Gitmo" a vanity project, now would you?  (And I'll avoid pointing out the obvious, that it's yet another campaign promise not kept, and nothing to do with Republicans.)
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: pogoowner on January 25, 2017, 06:57:44 PM
The other thing with voter ID is that poor people are more likely to move around a lot, and also from state to state.  Because they are more likely to be renters, more likely not to have long-term employment, etc.  So even if they have ID, it's from their old polling location, or old polling state, etc.  If your ID has the wrong address, you can be denied the chance to vote even though you're already registered to vote.  Or you can be forced to go to another precinct to vote and wait in line for another 2 hours.  Not to mention, a lot of poor people don't own cars, so they have to take a bus system across the city.  And a lot of them do have jobs--the kinds of jobs that fire you if you take too much time to ovte.

It's very difficult for poor people to vote.  Polling locations are usually under-staffed in urban areas.  You have to wait in line for hours.  I have first-hand experience with this.  It's very shameful, and this nation should do something to fix that...not to make it harder.

From the age of say four to the age of say 14, my daughter never went to the same school two years in a row because we moved so much.  I had to redo licenses and what not at every stop.  I traveled for work, so I needed an up-to-date license.  In Philly, I couldn't get the cars registered (and thus I'd get booted) if it wasn't updated.  Where there's a will, there's a way, and I figured it out.   The DMVs in every state I've lived in - PA (twice), GA, NC, and CT (twice) - all had flex hours and Saturday hours.   Some you could even do by mail.  At some point, rich or poor, you have to put in the effort.  Honestly, if you don't want to vote badly enough to get your ID right, well, that's on you.   The one thing I can concede is subsidies for the IFD payment is an issue, but everything else seems to me to be rationalizations. 
Well of course if you truly want to vote you should put in the effort. But it doesn't NEED to be a pain in the ass to vote. Surely there are ways to make it easier, and ways that could increase voter turnout.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 25, 2017, 07:07:01 PM
No question. But then don't make it an issue of "poor" or "minority".  Unless of course you want imply that the poor and minorities are inherently lazy, but I'm not willing to say that. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: jsbru on January 25, 2017, 08:19:55 PM
It's very difficult for poor people to vote.  Polling locations are usually under-staffed in urban areas.  You have to wait in line for hours.  I have first-hand experience with this.  It's very shameful, and this nation should do something to fix that...not to make it harder.

So what would you propose?

First step is to not make it harder.

Second step is to actually fund more polling places in urban areas.

Honestly, vote by mail alleviates a lot of these problems.  Especially finding the right polling location, and solving the transportation and getting time off from work issue.  I think Washington or Oregon have gone full vote-by-mail, and it has significantly increased turnout.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: TAC on January 25, 2017, 08:51:40 PM
So what would you propose?
First step is to not make it harder.

OK. I asked you out of respect and good faith. Please, man.


Second step is to actually fund more polling places in urban areas.

I don't have any issue with that. I'm not sure what is funded. Is it a certain amount of machines per 1000 people? I know my grandmother volunteered at the polls for every election. In the city, as it were.

Honestly, vote by mail alleviates a lot of these problems.  Especially finding the right polling location, and solving the transportation and getting time off from work issue.   
How is personal validation done by mail?
As far as polling location/transportation, that sounds like an issue for big cities to figure out. My voting is at a local school. Cities should be able to figure out how to make things easier for their citizens to vote. It shouldn't be a Republican/Democrat thing, no?

As far as time off, I'd have no problem if there was a law passed that on, at least Presidential elections, that Tuesday be deemed a freebie at work. It'd have to be unpaid, and I know some may not be able to give up that day's pay, but at least they'd have the freedom to vote and not suffer ramifications at work.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: KevShmev on January 25, 2017, 09:07:26 PM
Of all of the stuff Trump said today, cracking down on sanctuary cities is definitely something I can get behind.

But honestly, I feel like if you want to vote, then get the necessary paperwork done. You have 4 years to do so.

Agreed.  Also, getting a photo ID should be made easier by state governments.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: jsbru on January 25, 2017, 09:16:26 PM
It shouldn't be a Democrat/Republican thing, but it is.  Democrats just get more votes from populations that have a more difficult time registering (poor folk, college students that are usually away from their home state and may not be able to register in time in their school's state, etc.).  Republicans get more votes from old people, who are more likely to vote, because they already have the day off, don't have families to take care of, are less likely to be moving around every year, etc.

Therefore, Republicans are always looking to add more hurdles in registering to vote and actually voting.

As for funding more polling locations, most cities don't have the money or available space.  There's a finite number of gymnasiums and/or public space in any given neighborhood, and population density is usually higher.  On top of that, I don't really know why voting access in poor urban neighborhoods is not better, but it isn't.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Cool Chris on January 25, 2017, 09:43:37 PM
How is personal validation done by mail?

In WA, you sign the envelope you place your ballot in. It theoretically should match the signature on your registration card. Which makes me wonder, do I even have a voter registration card? I have voted for 20 years without any problems. Hmm...

I know voting by the internet is going to open up too many possibilities for hacking. But I am still amazed I can pay my federal taxes from my cell phone but some people have to wait in line for hours to walk in to a school gym to push some buttons in order to vote.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XJDenton on January 25, 2017, 11:55:09 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/trump-bernhard-langer-voting-fraud.html

Hmmmm.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: jsbru on January 26, 2017, 12:35:59 AM
Exhibit A of "Is This Really Happening?"

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/01/26/donald_trump_abc_interview_shows_how_little_the_president_knows_about_anything.html
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Adami on January 26, 2017, 12:39:44 AM
Exhibit A of "Is This Really Happening?"

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/01/26/donald_trump_abc_interview_shows_how_little_the_president_knows_about_anything.html

I skipped the article itself and just watched the clips............eesh.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: jsbru on January 26, 2017, 01:02:23 AM
Exhibit B:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/trump-bernhard-langer-voting-fraud.html

 :o
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: mikeyd23 on January 26, 2017, 07:04:26 AM
Of all of the stuff Trump said today, cracking down on sanctuary cities is definitely something I can get behind.

Agreed.

Also - I have never understood why showing a form of ID in order to vote is such an issue, like Stadler said, voting is important so put in the (minimal effort) and do your due diligence as an adult and make sure you can legally vote.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on January 26, 2017, 07:35:48 AM
Of all of the stuff Trump said today, cracking down on sanctuary cities is definitely something I can get behind.

Agreed.

Also - I have never understood why showing a form of ID in order to vote is such an issue, like Stadler said, voting is important so put in the (minimal effort) and do your due diligence as an adult and make sure you can legally vote.

+1
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 26, 2017, 07:57:22 AM
It shouldn't be a Democrat/Republican thing, but it is.  Democrats just get more votes from populations that have a more difficult time registering (poor folk, college students that are usually away from their home state and may not be able to register in time in their school's state, etc.).  Republicans get more votes from old people, who are more likely to vote, because they already have the day off, don't have families to take care of, are less likely to be moving around every year, etc.

Which is at least in part why pesky little things like ID seem to be such a problem.   I've lived in urban settings (Atlanta, Philly) and in my experience the problem isn't on the government end.   Atlanta, churches would have "election day cookouts", and all parishoners would be invited, and they would run buses to the local polling station, and provided you were voting for the right candidate, you could get a ride.   If you weren't voting for the right candidate, well, it was a little harder.  I notice no one was really that concerned about "mobilizing the vote" when it benefited the Republican and/or white candidates.  :)   

In Philly, any non-turnout was largely apathy.  At least when I was there, the young were engaged and the mayor - African American - made sure his constituency voted.  No one really gave a shit about the suits that trained in from the burbs, but the locals were well accounted for. 

Quote
Therefore, Republicans are always looking to add more hurdles in registering to vote and actually voting.

No, not "adding" hurdles.  Asking for just a barest level of personal accountability.   

Quote
As for funding more polling locations, most cities don't have the money or available space.  There's a finite number of gymnasiums and/or public space in any given neighborhood, and population density is usually higher.  On top of that, I don't really know why voting access in poor urban neighborhoods is not better, but it isn't.

I've already said the answer.  I'm sorry it doesn't fit the narrative.  APATHY.   Put simply, a lot of people just can't be bothered.   They'll walk five blocks, and come up with ID of some sort to drink at their local, but they can't be arsed to go three block and come up with an ID to vote.   See Atlanta; do you think those pastors would put that effort in if it wasn't necessary (though there is a bit of political favor that comes of it as well). 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on January 26, 2017, 08:18:13 AM
Of all of the stuff Trump said today, cracking down on sanctuary cities is definitely something I can get behind.

Agreed.

Also - I have never understood why showing a form of ID in order to vote is such an issue, like Stadler said, voting is important so put in the (minimal effort) and do your due diligence as an adult and make sure you can legally vote.
Getting an ID has never been an issue for me. I've got a driver's license and a passport. I've been a worker, a traveler and a driver for 35+ years. At the same time I have no problem understanding that there are plenty of people with vastly different situations than mine. A little old lady who hasn't had to driver for 20 years. A broke-dick family of 5 with far more pressing concerns than to spend money and time replacing an unneeded driver's license. A college student with the same issues. Just because most of us have no problem in this regard, it's foolish arrogance to apply that reality to others. Moreover, even if it only affects .01% of the voting public, that's still too much for a hurdle that serves no purpose.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 26, 2017, 08:31:26 AM
Just because most of us have no problem in this regard, it's foolish arrogance to apply that reality to others. Moreover, even if it only affects .01% of the voting public, that's still too much for a hurdle that serves no purpose.
This, FFS. 

State after state, Republican legislatures have passed "Voter fraud prevention" laws placing more restrictions that have no effect whatsoever on groups that generally lean Republican, and have large effects on groups that lean Democrat.  It's about suppressing the vote, it's not about protecting against voter fraud, because statistically speaking, individual voter fraud pretty much doesn't happen.  It's not a thing that needs to be legislated against.  It's a red herring that Republican legislatures came up with to limit the number of people voting Democrat.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 26, 2017, 08:33:18 AM
Of all of the stuff Trump said today, cracking down on sanctuary cities is definitely something I can get behind.

Agreed.

Also - I have never understood why showing a form of ID in order to vote is such an issue, like Stadler said, voting is important so put in the (minimal effort) and do your due diligence as an adult and make sure you can legally vote.
Getting an ID has never been an issue for me. I've got a driver's license and a passport. I've been a worker, a traveler and a driver for 35+ years. At the same time I have no problem understanding that there are plenty of people with vastly different situations than mine. A little old lady who hasn't had to driver for 20 years. A broke-dick family of 5 with far more pressing concerns than to spend money and time replacing an unneeded driver's license. A college student with the same issues. Just because most of us have no problem in this regard, it's foolish arrogance to apply that reality to others. Moreover, even if it only affects .01% of the voting public, that's still too much for a hurdle that serves no purpose.

I understand that.  But when we're talking about ".01% of the pop can't get an ID" as compared to 40% of the population HAS an ID and just doesn't give a shit, I'm really having a hard time with this.  We don't have any problem inconveniencing whole number percentages of people when it comes to pet projects like "healthcare", we don't have any problem inconveniencing people when it comes to other rights, I don't know why here there is a "zero tolerance" attitude to ANY administration related to voting. 

The only thing I will say is, wherever we draw the line, it has to be the same everywhere.  We can't demand PASSPORTS in Oklahoma, but accept pinkie swears that that's who you are in California. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: mikeyd23 on January 26, 2017, 08:36:19 AM
Getting an ID has never been an issue for me. I've got a driver's license and a passport. I've been a worker, a traveler and a driver for 35+ years. At the same time I have no problem understanding that there are plenty of people with vastly different situations than mine. A little old lady who hasn't had to driver for 20 years. A broke-dick family of 5 with far more pressing concerns than to spend money and time replacing an unneeded driver's license. A college student with the same issues. Just because most of us have no problem in this regard, it's foolish arrogance to apply that reality to others. Moreover, even if it only affects .01% of the voting public, that's still too much for a hurdle that serves no purpose.

I get what you are saying, but I think the part in which we diverge is when you refer to this idea as a "hurdle". I see it as meeting a bare minimum requirement. There are a lot of ways, even the folks you described could get some form of legal, photo ID (which by the way are the only requirements I would enforce, legal, photo, and ID as long as it is all of those you are good to go).

People that don't drive can get a non-driver ID card from any DMV (I think they still do these), they cost like $20 and last like 6 years. College students nowadays have student photo IDs, etc... I'd be fine with accepting all these sorts of things.

I'm not trying to apply my reality to others, I'm not being arrogant, I'm not trying to suppress people from voting... I'm merely saying that a legal, citizen of the US in 2017 can easily accomplish this task, one way or the other, if voting is at all important to them.

I've already said the answer.  I'm sorry it doesn't fit the narrative.  APATHY.   Put simply, a lot of people just can't be bothered.   They'll walk five blocks, and come up with ID of some sort to drink at their local, but they can't be arsed to go three block and come up with an ID to vote.   See Atlanta; do you think those pastors would put that effort in if it wasn't necessary (though there is a bit of political favor that comes of it as well). 

This basically.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on January 26, 2017, 08:38:22 AM
Of all of the stuff Trump said today, cracking down on sanctuary cities is definitely something I can get behind.

Agreed.

Also - I have never understood why showing a form of ID in order to vote is such an issue, like Stadler said, voting is important so put in the (minimal effort) and do your due diligence as an adult and make sure you can legally vote.
Getting an ID has never been an issue for me. I've got a driver's license and a passport. I've been a worker, a traveler and a driver for 35+ years. At the same time I have no problem understanding that there are plenty of people with vastly different situations than mine. A little old lady who hasn't had to driver for 20 years. A broke-dick family of 5 with far more pressing concerns than to spend money and time replacing an unneeded driver's license. A college student with the same issues. Just because most of us have no problem in this regard, it's foolish arrogance to apply that reality to others. Moreover, even if it only affects .01% of the voting public, that's still too much for a hurdle that serves no purpose.

So knowing the requirements to vote, there isn't enough time to figure out what is needed to get the proper form of ID?  I understand it's not a given that everyone has a driver's license, but is it that hard to go to the DMV and get a state ID?  The little old lady can't ask her children or who ever is overseeing her to give her a ride to the DMV (if she lives on her own then I am sure she is able to figure this stuff out after living a life in the US, if she is in care of someone then that someone can make sure the elder is prepared)?  College students have no excuse, it's all over any college campus and the college will have ways for you to be registered to vote.   Someone mentioned you have 4 years to figure this out, that's more than enough time for anyone with a handicap to getting an ID to figure things out.

Just because most of us have no problem in this regard, it's foolish arrogance to apply that reality to others. Moreover, even if it only affects .01% of the voting public, that's still too much for a hurdle that serves no purpose.
This, FFS. 

State after state, Republican legislatures have passed "Voter fraud prevention" laws placing more restrictions that have no effect whatsoever on groups that generally lean Republican, and have large effects on groups that lean Democrat.  It's about suppressing the vote, it's not about protecting against voter fraud, because statistically speaking, individual voter fraud pretty much doesn't happen.  It's not a thing that needs to be legislated against.  It's a red herring that Republican legislatures came up with to limit the number of people voting Democrat.

As a mod I would have thought you could leave the "FFS" part out of this since there's plenty of good conversation about this topic.  Your opinion isn't a fact.  Yes the Republicans have pushed this agenda because it mostly makes sense to have a form of ID to prove you are an American voting for the POTUS, you can spin that to make it an agenda to keep the poor from voting, but that's not how everyone sees it (and I am not denying that some might agree with you and want it that way).
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: mikeyd23 on January 26, 2017, 08:46:41 AM
As a mod I would have thought you could leave the "FFS" part out of this since there's plenty of good conversation about this topic.  Your opinion isn't a fact.  Yes the Republicans have pushed this agenda because it mostly makes sense to have a form of ID to prove you are an American voting for the POTUS, you can spin that to make it an agenda to keep the poor from voting, but that's not how everyone sees it (and I am not denying that some might agree with you and want it that way).

Exactly, this is falling into Republicans = evil and bad because they are Republicans territory.

So knowing the requirements to vote, there isn't enough time to figure out what is needed to get the proper form of ID?  I understand it's not a given that everyone has a driver's license, but is it that hard to go to the DMV and get a state ID?  The little old lady can't ask her children or who ever is overseeing her to give her a ride to the DMV (if she lives on her own then I am sure she is able to figure this stuff out after living a life in the US, if she is in care of someone then that someone can make sure the elder is prepared)?  College students have no excuse, it's all over any college campus and the college will have ways for you to be registered to vote.   Someone mentioned you have 4 years to figure this out, that's more than enough time for anyone with a handicap to getting an ID to figure things out.

Good point on the college students here.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 26, 2017, 08:51:34 AM
But it IS an agenda.  There is no NEED for it, like I said it's used as a red herring.  There's never been a need for it before.  And it's easy to get other conservatives behind something like this because they often don't see how some of these laws could possibly be a burden or a hurdle for anyone, because it isn't one for THEM.  Of COURSE it makes sense.

Like in any other con, just follow the money.  See who really benefits and who really is burdened.  In every state this has been done, it's been done by Republican legislatures, for the very reason that the people most affected are people who historically vote Democrat, not Republican.

Remember, individual voter fraud is not really a thing.  Statistically, it doesn't really happen.  It certainly isn't a problem needing new regulations.  Funny how Republicans (generally) want little if any regulation on guns but now think that voter fraud is something worthy of regulation.

And I believe that if every minority/poor voter out there goes and gets the proper documentation for all of these ridiculous laws, then Republican legislatures will try to think up some new way to try to suppress the vote.

Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on January 26, 2017, 08:53:09 AM
Of all of the stuff Trump said today, cracking down on sanctuary cities is definitely something I can get behind.

Agreed.

Also - I have never understood why showing a form of ID in order to vote is such an issue, like Stadler said, voting is important so put in the (minimal effort) and do your due diligence as an adult and make sure you can legally vote.
Getting an ID has never been an issue for me. I've got a driver's license and a passport. I've been a worker, a traveler and a driver for 35+ years. At the same time I have no problem understanding that there are plenty of people with vastly different situations than mine. A little old lady who hasn't had to driver for 20 years. A broke-dick family of 5 with far more pressing concerns than to spend money and time replacing an unneeded driver's license. A college student with the same issues. Just because most of us have no problem in this regard, it's foolish arrogance to apply that reality to others. Moreover, even if it only affects .01% of the voting public, that's still too much for a hurdle that serves no purpose.

I understand that.  But when we're talking about ".01% of the pop can't get an ID" as compared to 40% of the population HAS an ID and just doesn't give a shit, I'm really having a hard time with this.  We don't have any problem inconveniencing whole number percentages of people when it comes to pet projects like "healthcare", we don't have any problem inconveniencing people when it comes to other rights, I don't know why here there is a "zero tolerance" attitude to ANY administration related to voting. 

The only thing I will say is, wherever we draw the line, it has to be the same everywhere.  We can't demand PASSPORTS in Oklahoma, but accept pinkie swears that that's who you are in California.
But where's the compelling interest? There are a finite number of eligible voters. If there are 7,263 voters in your precinct, and it shows up with 8,349 votes for Hillary, you think they're going to fly? At best you can vote for somebody else, but that's already very highly unlikely and easily detectable.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on January 26, 2017, 08:53:54 AM
Also, what about the homeless? Do they have a right to vote? Do they simply fall into the "they could do it if they really wanted to" category?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 26, 2017, 09:04:33 AM
This, FFS. 

State after state, Republican legislatures have passed "Voter fraud prevention" laws placing more restrictions that have no effect whatsoever on groups that generally lean Republican, and have large effects on groups that lean Democrat.  It's about suppressing the vote, it's not about protecting against voter fraud, because statistically speaking, individual voter fraud pretty much doesn't happen.  It's not a thing that needs to be legislated against.  It's a red herring that Republican legislatures came up with to limit the number of people voting Democrat.

As a mod I would have thought you could leave the "FFS" part out of this since there's plenty of good conversation about this topic.  Your opinion isn't a fact.  Yes the Republicans have pushed this agenda because it mostly makes sense to have a form of ID to prove you are an American voting for the POTUS, you can spin that to make it an agenda to keep the poor from voting, but that's not how everyone sees it (and I am not denying that some might agree with you and want it that way).

Good post, and I would add that while there ARE "Republicans" that are pushing their agenda with an eye on the vote, not all are, and I feel that the Dems are doing the same things in the opposite direction.   SOME Republicans are going too far, and hoping the turnout is less, but some Dems are going too far in the OTHER direction, and there needs to be some middle ground.   Getting an ID of some form or fashion is an acceptable middle ground in hundreds of other situations, I don't know why it's not here.   

If it makes those that are physically incapable of not reducing everything to a "Republican/Democrat" issue (or "Bad Guy/Good Guy", si vous plais) why not have the same standards for SNAP benefits or the like?  You DO have to prove who you are to receive welfare, but "driver's license" isn't the only way.   I am no SNAP expert, but I'm pretty sure every method to verify identity that works for SNAP would work for voting, except the "collateral contact" method (where the agency contacts someone who knows you and they confirm your identity; though even that could work, if we use mail in ballots or early balloting procedures).   

I can't speak for anyone else, but the point for me isn't to game the results.  It's to have a modicum of responsibility and accountability by ALL participants in the system. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on January 26, 2017, 09:09:25 AM
I'm just baffled that people actually believe this is something other than an attempt to remove a tiny amount of likely democrat voters. Since when is anybody here this idealistic?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on January 26, 2017, 09:12:38 AM
I can't speak for anyone else, but the point for me isn't to game the results.  It's to have a modicum of responsibility and accountability by ALL participants in the system.

Agreed.  And it should end doubts about some voter fraud.  I know it won't but it should help end some of this discussion.

I'm just baffled that people actually believe this is something other than an attempt to remove a tiny amount of likely democrat voters. Since when is anybody here this idealistic?

I think Stadler and I both agreed that some people will use this as attempt to do so, but that is far from the only logical reasoning for it.  To me, voting should be like any other form of communication we have with our government, it usually begins with proving who you are. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: DarkLord_Lalinc on January 26, 2017, 09:19:24 AM
Sorry guys, as some of you know I'm Mexican and I've been very aware of the news with Donald Trump and everything that's been going on.

How the crap was this guy elected?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/26/donald-trump-torture-absolutely-works-says-us-president-in-first-television-interview
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 26, 2017, 09:23:08 AM
I can't speak for anyone else, but the point for me isn't to game the results.  It's to have a modicum of responsibility and accountability by ALL participants in the system.

Agreed.  And it should end doubts about some voter fraud.  I know it won't but it should help end some of this discussion.

I'm just baffled that people actually believe this is something other than an attempt to remove a tiny amount of likely democrat voters. Since when is anybody here this idealistic?

I think Stadler and I both agreed that some people will use this as attempt to do so, but that is far from the only logical reasoning for it.  To me, voting should be like any other form of communication we have with our government, it usually begins with proving who you are.

Yeah, this is not at all about minimizing the number of democrat voters, and I don't know that it's "idealistic", though I can't really answer that one.  It's like answering "do you think you're funny?" ;)

I think it's more about the integrity of the system.  Not whether "there is or is not voter fraud" per se (one could argue that there's not voter fraud BECAUSE of controls like these), but whether moving forward it becomes more prevalent.  I think there's a level of engagement as well.   We are ostensibly a government of the people for the people and by the people.  Doesn't it seem a little incongruous that someone might want to reap the benefits of government (here, by availing themselves of the right to vote) but are unwilling to offer any concession to that government? 

What say you about this:   no ID, just a machine on every streetcorner (or maybe we have ATMs serve multiple functions), and you put a thumb print down.  If that thumb isn't already in the system, you get a vote.   If the thumb has already voted, no dice.   (or retinal scan, or semen sample, whatever, I say to the smart ass that asks "what if you have no hands")?  Votes can be sent in in absentia, with a thumbprint and a check box.   
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on January 26, 2017, 09:25:09 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2017/01/26/the-state-departments-entire-senior-management-team-just-resigned/?postshare=9331485447307908&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.64bf73500de2

"The State Department’s entire senior management team just resigned"

Quote
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s job running the State Department just got considerably more difficult. The entire senior level of management officials resigned Wednesday, part of an ongoing mass exodus of senior foreign service officers who don’t want to stick around for the Trump era.

Tillerson was actually inside the State Department’s headquarters in Foggy Bottom on Wednesday, taking meetings and getting the lay of the land. I reported Wednesday morning that the Trump team was narrowing its search for his No. 2, and that it was looking to replace the State Department’s long-serving undersecretary for management, Patrick Kennedy. Kennedy, who has been in that job for nine years, was actively involved in the transition and was angling to keep that job under Tillerson, three State Department officials told me.

Then suddenly on Wednesday afternoon, Kennedy and three of his top officials resigned unexpectedly, four State Department officials confirmed. Assistant Secretary of State for Administration Joyce Anne Barr, Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Michele Bond and Ambassador Gentry O. Smith, director of the Office of Foreign Missions, followed him out the door. All are career foreign service officers who have served under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

In addition, Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security Gregory Starr retired Jan. 20, and the director of the Bureau of Overseas Building Operations, Lydia Muniz, departed the same day. That amounts to a near-complete housecleaning of all the senior officials that deal with managing the State Department, its overseas posts and its people.

“It’s the single biggest simultaneous departure of institutional memory that anyone can remember, and that’s incredibly difficult to replicate,” said David Wade, who served as State Department chief of staff under Secretary of State John Kerry. “Department expertise in security, management, administrative and consular positions in particular are very difficult to replicate and particularly difficult to find in the private sector.”

Seems........not so great?

Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 26, 2017, 09:41:11 AM
Sorry guys, as some of you know I'm Mexican and I've been very aware of the news with Donald Trump and everything that's been going on.

How the crap was this guy elected?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/26/donald-trump-torture-absolutely-works-says-us-president-in-first-television-interview

He can't have an opinion that differs from yours?  He VERY CLEARLY said he would defer to his staff and that they would absolutely follow the law.  What's the problem?  How is this any different than a President that is pro-life himself, but respects the law of the land and upholds the current standard of "choice"?   

Personally, I'm not that far from Trump here.  I do believe that in certain cases, torture is effective at getting information that wouldn't ordinarily be gotten.  It's not universal, but it is case-by-case.  Having said that, just like I am for legalizing pot but do not smoke at all because it is currently illegal in my state, whether I felt it effective or not, I would follow the law.   

Add to that, I voted, though not for Trump, and I can honestly tell you, whether the candidate believed "torture was effective or not" was not even in the top 50 reasons why I voted the way I did.  Maybe not even Top 100.  In fact, I can't even tell you what the position is of the person I voted for.   

What's the problem here? 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XJDenton on January 26, 2017, 09:45:53 AM
He can't have an opinion that differs from yours?

Not when it comes to factual statements, no. Torture simply doesn't doesn't yield reliable information.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on January 26, 2017, 10:09:04 AM
I can't speak for anyone else, but the point for me isn't to game the results.  It's to have a modicum of responsibility and accountability by ALL participants in the system.

Agreed.  And it should end doubts about some voter fraud.  I know it won't but it should help end some of this discussion.

I'm just baffled that people actually believe this is something other than an attempt to remove a tiny amount of likely democrat voters. Since when is anybody here this idealistic?

I think Stadler and I both agreed that some people will use this as attempt to do so, but that is far from the only logical reasoning for it.  To me, voting should be like any other form of communication we have with our government, it usually begins with proving who you are.

Yeah, this is not at all about minimizing the number of democrat voters, and I don't know that it's "idealistic", though I can't really answer that one.  It's like answering "do you think you're funny?" ;)

I think it's more about the integrity of the system.  Not whether "there is or is not voter fraud" per se (one could argue that there's not voter fraud BECAUSE of controls like these), but whether moving forward it becomes more prevalent.  I think there's a level of engagement as well.   We are ostensibly a government of the people for the people and by the people.  Doesn't it seem a little incongruous that someone might want to reap the benefits of government (here, by availing themselves of the right to vote) but are unwilling to offer any concession to that government? 

What say you about this:   no ID, just a machine on every streetcorner (or maybe we have ATMs serve multiple functions), and you put a thumb print down.  If that thumb isn't already in the system, you get a vote.   If the thumb has already voted, no dice.   (or retinal scan, or semen sample, whatever, I say to the smart ass that asks "what if you have no hands")?  Votes can be sent in in absentia, with a thumbprint and a check box.
I think semen samples would be ideal. After all, the whole thing's just a giant circle jerk anyway.

And I've yet to hear anybody respond to the point that the system's integrity remains sound, despite Grabby's fairy tales. Eligible voters are white-listed. When they invent a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, but does theoretically benefit the side that's proposing it, yes, I think it's highly idealistic to assume altruistic reasoning.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on January 26, 2017, 10:12:40 AM
The torture thing follows the pattern I've been on about. Whether it's effective or not, and I'm not really sure one way or the other, you give away a ton of earned good will, which we're hemorrhaging pretty badly at the moment. The reason we get to go around fucking up governments that don't share our economic or sociopolitical system is because we're ostensibly the good guys. Announcing to the world that the Hague convention and Geneva accord can go fuck themselves blows a pretty big hole in that notion. It's middle school level thinking. "Sounds good. Feels good. Fuck, let's do it!"
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: jsbru on January 26, 2017, 10:15:43 AM
Priebus already wants to resign:

http://i.imgur.com/dXDl0I5.png

My question is why was he gullible enough to take the job in the first place?  Did he really think Trump is someone you can reason with and bring down to earth?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: jsbru on January 26, 2017, 10:18:42 AM
I've already said the answer.  I'm sorry it doesn't fit the narrative.  APATHY.   Put simply, a lot of people just can't be bothered.   They'll walk five blocks, and come up with ID of some sort to drink at their local, but they can't be arsed to go three block and come up with an ID to vote.   See Atlanta; do you think those pastors would put that effort in if it wasn't necessary (though there is a bit of political favor that comes of it as well).

It's not just apathy when the line to vote for people who already have ID is 2 hours long.  And that I've witnessed first-hand.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Implode on January 26, 2017, 10:20:20 AM
Yeah, I waited in line for 90+ minutes to vote, and I don't even live in the city. Voting itself took all of 5 minutes. They didn't even ask me for my ID. I don't know why it was taking so long.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on January 26, 2017, 10:23:10 AM
I find it funny that on the main page it shows "Implode" right above "Trump's First 100 Days".  How fitting.  :lol
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: jsbru on January 26, 2017, 11:17:13 AM
Sigh:

https://twitter.com/bobcesca_go/status/824349898417975296?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: jsbru on January 26, 2017, 11:20:13 AM
This presidency so far is like a cross between an Orwell novel and a Naked Gun sequel.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on January 26, 2017, 11:28:26 AM
When your sources are twitter and imgur  ??? (I'm sure there's a meme for that)

This presidency so far is like a cross between an Orwell novel and a Naked Gun sequel.

Well luckily both were good  :lol
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on January 26, 2017, 12:17:36 PM
So who's gonna be Trump's Nordberg?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: jsbru on January 26, 2017, 12:19:25 PM
So who's gonna be Trump's Nordberg?

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if OJ himself was appointed to some post in the administration.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XeRocks81 on January 26, 2017, 12:26:47 PM
So who's gonna be Trump's Nordberg?

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if OJ himself was appointed to some post in the administration.

Secretary of "you're not fooling anybody" hypotheticals.  Like, muslim ban: If I did it   :lol
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 26, 2017, 12:39:58 PM
Evidence of Russian tampering in election given by FBI, CIA, NSA, etc.

Evidence of voter fraud given by no-fucking-body.


Trump announces investigation into voter fraud.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 26, 2017, 12:48:53 PM
Sigh:

https://twitter.com/bobcesca_go/status/824349898417975296?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

This reflects FAR more on the idiot tweeter who can't at all see the difference - and wouldn't have enough characters to explain it even if he did - between a blanket freeze across the board, THEN spot reversals to target pressure points.  Anyone who has EVER managed even a half-assed budget knows this happens in business every single day.

I suppose we're going to call all the corporate managers that "put a freeze on all travel" (targeting primarily inter-office and non-essential travel) and then said "we are going to double down on being present with our customers" (thus requiring travel to be at customer locations).

It's this kind of "analysis" (I say in quotes) that makes me think that Trump might actually be on to something.    This is just snarky, tissue-thin criticism in order to seem like you're paying attention when you're not.   
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 26, 2017, 01:00:33 PM
I've already said the answer.  I'm sorry it doesn't fit the narrative.  APATHY.   Put simply, a lot of people just can't be bothered.   They'll walk five blocks, and come up with ID of some sort to drink at their local, but they can't be arsed to go three block and come up with an ID to vote.   See Atlanta; do you think those pastors would put that effort in if it wasn't necessary (though there is a bit of political favor that comes of it as well).

It's not just apathy when the line to vote for people who already have ID is 2 hours long.  And that I've witnessed first-hand.

I waited about an hour to vote.  So?  It's not as if I'm* any less likely to be shitcanned.  What does a wait have to do with being poor or minority?   Is there a right not to have a line that I missed somewhere?  Because someone ought to tell CT's DMV (it was in the papers).   


* someone who's not considered under the poverty line.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 26, 2017, 01:19:29 PM
He can't have an opinion that differs from yours?

Not when it comes to factual statements, no. Torture simply doesn't doesn't yield reliable information.

That's not a "fact".  That might be a widely held opinion, but it is not an undisputable FACT.  You cannot say that at no time ever in the history of man has torture not at least once yielded "reliable information".    I get it, life isn't like "The Blacklist", but there are too many levels here for you to pontificate that "THIS IS FACT" and deem him wrong.  I just did a quick Google, and after you weed out the "TORTURE DOESN'T WORK", backed up with "proof" of the form of "if we do that, we're no better than them!", which isn't proof but rather a policy argument, the evidence is at best inconclusive.  Is it "efficient"?  No, probably not, since there is no singular way of ascertaining what info is accurate and what is not, but it's not as if this is a settled issue. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XJDenton on January 26, 2017, 01:24:10 PM
If the evidence is inconclusive as to whether the information yielded by torture is accurate, then by definition it has failed to produce reliable intel.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XeRocks81 on January 26, 2017, 01:29:06 PM
He can't have an opinion that differs from yours?

Not when it comes to factual statements, no. Torture simply doesn't doesn't yield reliable information.

That's not a "fact".  That might be a widely held opinion, but it is not an undisputable FACT.  You cannot say that at no time ever in the history of man has torture not at least once yielded "reliable information".    I get it, life isn't like "The Blacklist", but there are too many levels here for you to pontificate that "THIS IS FACT" and deem him wrong.  I just did a quick Google, and after you weed out the "TORTURE DOESN'T WORK", backed up with "proof" of the form of "if we do that, we're no better than them!", which isn't proof but rather a policy argument, the evidence is at best inconclusive.  Is it "efficient"?  No, probably not, since there is no singular way of ascertaining what info is accurate and what is not, but it's not as if this is a settled issue.

It almost seems as if you're getting into "alternative fact" territory there  ;)
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on January 26, 2017, 01:36:26 PM
I fully believe torture works.... on some people.  Just like everything else in this world.  Somethings work for certain people and some don't.  Some people you can convince by sitting down and talking, some people you can convince by standing and yelling at them.  Different strokes for different folks.  My personal belief is that we should be allowed to torture but only in the most extreme cases and in a case where we believe the tortured will actually give up intel (and not as a punishment).  Now maybe that scenario means it will never happen, then so be it, but I don't think we should have a firm policy of no torture.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XJDenton on January 26, 2017, 01:38:46 PM
What other war crimes do you not think we should have a firm policy against?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on January 26, 2017, 01:42:59 PM
I fully believe torture works.... on some people.  Just like everything else in this world.  Somethings work for certain people and some don't.  Some people you can convince by sitting down and talking, some people you can convince by standing and yelling at them.  Different strokes for different folks.  My personal belief is that we should be allowed to torture but only in the most extreme cases and in a case where we believe the tortured will actually give up intel (and not as a punishment).  Now maybe that scenario means it will never happen, then so be it, but I don't think we should have a firm policy of no torture.
And taking a tangential course from XJ, even if it might be effective, which is certainly debatable, you still have to measure the overall cost in appearance and forfeiture of values. There's really no paradigm where it turns out to be a good move, particularly when you announce to the world that we think it's just swell. The ter'ists didn't give a shit anyway, and our allies now find us even more risky.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Adami on January 26, 2017, 01:46:19 PM
I fully believe torture works.... on some people.  Just like everything else in this world.  Somethings work for certain people and some don't.  Some people you can convince by sitting down and talking, some people you can convince by standing and yelling at them.  Different strokes for different folks.  My personal belief is that we should be allowed to torture but only in the most extreme cases and in a case where we believe the tortured will actually give up intel (and not as a punishment).  Now maybe that scenario means it will never happen, then so be it, but I don't think we should have a firm policy of no torture.
And taking a tangential course from XJ, even if it might be effective, which is certainly debatable, you still have to measure the overall cost in appearance and forfeiture of values. There's really no paradigm where it turns out to be a good move, particularly when you announce to the world that we think it's just swell. The ter'ists didn't give a shit anyway, and our allies now find us even more risky.

Trump's message in the interview regarding torture seemed to be "Well...they can do horrible things, but we can't?"
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on January 26, 2017, 01:46:30 PM
What other war crimes do you not think we should have a firm policy against?

I'm only for torture against convicted terrorists, not war criminals.  I didn't mention that. 

I fully believe torture works.... on some people.  Just like everything else in this world.  Somethings work for certain people and some don't.  Some people you can convince by sitting down and talking, some people you can convince by standing and yelling at them.  Different strokes for different folks.  My personal belief is that we should be allowed to torture but only in the most extreme cases and in a case where we believe the tortured will actually give up intel (and not as a punishment).  Now maybe that scenario means it will never happen, then so be it, but I don't think we should have a firm policy of no torture.
And taking a tangential course from XJ, even if it might be effective, which is certainly debatable, you still have to measure the overall cost in appearance and forfeiture of values. There's really no paradigm where it turns out to be a good move, particularly when you announce to the world that we think it's just swell. The ter'ists didn't give a shit anyway, and our allies now find us even more risky.

Maybe so.  I certainly don't think we should be saying proudly that we torture.  Nothing to be proud about that.  However, we do plenty of other terrible things that our allies seem OK with.  If we start seeing our allies back away from us because we torture (and they don't?) then I may change my opinion.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XJDenton on January 26, 2017, 01:48:28 PM
I'm only for torture against convicted terrorists

Which is a war-crime. Hence, what other crimes are you okay with your country committing given the right circumstances?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 26, 2017, 01:50:21 PM
If the evidence is inconclusive as to whether the information yielded by torture is accurate, then by definition it has failed to produce reliable intel.

Huh?  That makes no sense.  No one piece of information is taken in a vacuum.  Almost all intel requires some corroboration.  My point isn't that it's useless, it's that the cost of having SOME information be useless could outweigh the benefit of the good information.  That's an entirely different argument than "TORTURE DOESN'T WORK".   Solar energy works fantastically well to power things, just as good as energy taken from fossil fuels.  But it costs something like 50% as much.  But no one says "solar doesn't work!".
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Adami on January 26, 2017, 01:53:36 PM
If the evidence is inconclusive as to whether the information yielded by torture is accurate, then by definition it has failed to produce reliable intel.

Huh?  That makes no sense.  No one piece of information is taken in a vacuum.  Almost all intel requires some corroboration.  My point isn't that it's useless, it's that the cost of having SOME information be useless could outweigh the benefit of the good information.  That's an entirely different argument than "TORTURE DOESN'T WORK".   Solar energy works fantastically well to power things, just as good as energy taken from fossil fuels.  But it costs something like 50% as much.  But no one says "solar doesn't work!".

But people do say that torture doesn't work enough to justify its use. Generally, people under such duress falsely confess or give bad information just to make the torture end. We don't need more bad information.

Murdering the person's family in front of them would also probably get information on occasion. I'm curious where the line is drawn since I'm assuming most of you would say that murdering the person's family is off limits, no matter what the information is. (Well, except Trump who advocated for murdering their families too).
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on January 26, 2017, 01:54:55 PM
I'm only for torture against convicted terrorists

Which is a war-crime. Hence, what other crimes are you okay with your country committing given the right circumstances?

OK, then that is all of the war crimes I am OK with committing given the circumstance.  I am also OK with breaking the law regarding speeding given the correct circumstances in which one could speed.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XJDenton on January 26, 2017, 02:08:17 PM
But no one says "solar doesn't work!".

I have a new model of solar cell. It may, on ocassion, generate power. More often it will explode and kill the user. You have no idea which until you switch it on.

Does this model of solar cell, in your view, work?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Podaar on January 26, 2017, 02:12:49 PM
Murdering the person's family in front of them would also probably get information on occasion. I'm curious where the line is drawn since I'm assuming most of you would say that murdering the person's family is off limits, no matter what the information is. (Well, except Trump who advocated for murdering their families too).

Don't forget their oil. We mustn't leave the oil behind this time.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on January 26, 2017, 02:13:54 PM
#taketheoil
#maga
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Podaar on January 26, 2017, 02:19:19 PM
Okay, that was pretty snide. I apologize.

Seriously though, I've been wondering about the "to the victor goes the spoils" speech. Frankly I'm concerned that such talk will put our currently deployed warriors in more danger than usual. Is that reactionary? Not likely? Would the Iraq warriors that our folks are assisting recognize it as bluster?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 26, 2017, 02:32:35 PM
I fully believe torture works.... on some people.  Just like everything else in this world.  Somethings work for certain people and some don't.  Some people you can convince by sitting down and talking, some people you can convince by standing and yelling at them.  Different strokes for different folks.  My personal belief is that we should be allowed to torture but only in the most extreme cases and in a case where we believe the tortured will actually give up intel (and not as a punishment).  Now maybe that scenario means it will never happen, then so be it, but I don't think we should have a firm policy of no torture.
And taking a tangential course from XJ, even if it might be effective, which is certainly debatable, you still have to measure the overall cost in appearance and forfeiture of values. There's really no paradigm where it turns out to be a good move, particularly when you announce to the world that we think it's just swell. The ter'ists didn't give a shit anyway, and our allies now find us even more risky.

Perfectly valid, and likely right argument.  NOT the same as "TORTURE DOESN'T WORK". 

Personally?   If I was President?  I'd likely say that "everything is on the table, we're going to do whatever it takes to stop terrorism" then shut the fuck up about it.  Let those for whom it works wonder if they're going to be subject to it, and be done with it.  We would NOT, however, actually use it.  I think we're smarter than that.  We can figure it out other ways. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Dave_Manchester on January 26, 2017, 02:34:12 PM
He can't have an opinion that differs from yours?

Not when it comes to factual statements, no. Torture simply doesn't doesn't yield reliable information.

That's not a "fact".  That might be a widely held opinion, but it is not an undisputable FACT.  You cannot say that at no time ever in the history of man has torture not at least once yielded "reliable information".    I get it, life isn't like "The Blacklist", but there are too many levels here for you to pontificate that "THIS IS FACT" and deem him wrong.  I just did a quick Google, and after you weed out the "TORTURE DOESN'T WORK", backed up with "proof" of the form of "if we do that, we're no better than them!", which isn't proof but rather a policy argument, the evidence is at best inconclusive.  Is it "efficient"?  No, probably not, since there is no singular way of ascertaining what info is accurate and what is not, but it's not as if this is a settled issue.


This for me though is one of those situations where until the evidence is conclusive, we must never do it. For a government to sanction the torture of a person is such an instinctively repulsive notion (again, to me) that I'd want overwhelmingly strong evidence that it helps to extract accurate information from those who intend to harm innocent people before using it. It's not a great analogy but it'll serve - we don't test nuclear weapons on cities to see if they work effectively, we explode them in deserts and oceans. Likewise I'm not a fan of torturing people and then figuring out if it worked or not.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 26, 2017, 02:41:28 PM
But no one says "solar doesn't work!".

I have a new model of solar cell. It may, on ocassion, generate power. More often it will explode and kill the user. You have no idea which until you switch it on.

Does this model of solar cell, in your view, work?

Depends. Likely not, but if we're talking about "does it work" in the sense that "should we continue this line of research?" Hell yeah!.   "Does it work" in the sense that "let's sell it to kids"?   Nuh-uh.   

That's not the best analogy, though, because you can't vet that solar cell after the explosion and undo the effects.

I'm running a prison.  I get three prisoners in there.   I ask all of them "who is number one?".    One says "I am number six!" The other two say "I am not a number, I am a FREE MAN!" and I torture them.   One says "I am number six".  The other says "I am number two".   Before I act on any of that, I have to ground truth it.   I corroborate it.  Clearly, based on my example, torture can produce mixed results (the third guy CAN be number two, but both the first and second can't both be number six).   

Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 26, 2017, 02:42:32 PM
#taketheoil
#maga

What's the point of that?  Are you implying a relationship between the two, or just inciting something?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 26, 2017, 02:45:50 PM
He can't have an opinion that differs from yours?

Not when it comes to factual statements, no. Torture simply doesn't doesn't yield reliable information.

That's not a "fact".  That might be a widely held opinion, but it is not an undisputable FACT.  You cannot say that at no time ever in the history of man has torture not at least once yielded "reliable information".    I get it, life isn't like "The Blacklist", but there are too many levels here for you to pontificate that "THIS IS FACT" and deem him wrong.  I just did a quick Google, and after you weed out the "TORTURE DOESN'T WORK", backed up with "proof" of the form of "if we do that, we're no better than them!", which isn't proof but rather a policy argument, the evidence is at best inconclusive.  Is it "efficient"?  No, probably not, since there is no singular way of ascertaining what info is accurate and what is not, but it's not as if this is a settled issue.


This for me though is one of those situations where until the evidence is conclusive, we must never do it. For a government to sanction the torture of a person is such an instinctively repulsive notion (again, to me) that I'd want overwhelmingly strong evidence that it helps to extract accurate information from those who intend to harm innocent people before using it. It's not a great analogy but it'll serve - we don't test nuclear weapons on cities to see if they work effectively, we explode them in deserts and oceans. Likewise I'm not a fan of torturing people and then figuring out if it worked or not.

I don't have problem with that approach.  That's a policy approach though and not the same thing as "TORTURE DOESN'T WORK". 

We're consistently and repeatedly forgetting that Trump said he thinks/knows it works, BUT he said he would defer to the people in charge of that operation, and those people were unequivocal that it is ILLEGAL and would not be used.

I'm allowed to have an opinion different than the public position.  I can PERSONALLY be pro-life and uphold the pro-choice laws.  I can personally feel that pot should be legal, but enforce the current laws that prohibit it's possession and use.  This isn't a new thing for Trump, and with any other president wouldn't even be NEWS.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on January 26, 2017, 02:58:13 PM
I'm running a prison.  I get three prisoners in there.   I ask all of them "who is number one?".    One says "I am number six!" The other two say "I am not a number, I am a FREE MAN!" and I torture them.   One says "I am number six".  The other says "I am number two".   Before I act on any of that, I have to ground truth it.   I corroborate it.  Clearly, based on my example, torture can produce mixed results (the third guy CAN be number two, but both the first and second can't both be number six).

 :lol  :metal

anyway, I was interested in reading the stock market discussion in the women's thread but that was obviously not an appropriate spot.  This thread may be since this was recent news:  https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2017/jan/25/dow-jones-record-high-20000-donald-trump-policies (https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2017/jan/25/dow-jones-record-high-20000-donald-trump-policies)  I'm no stock market guy so just sharing the news and if you guys want to discuss, I am ears (well eyes).
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on January 26, 2017, 03:14:20 PM
On a side note, while waiting in a dealership I saw a few minutes of Theresa May's populist rhetoric. She says pert near the same things as Grabby, but damn, it was really refreshing to see somebody actually behave like a head of state for a change. I had already forgotten what a real president looks like. I feel bad for the Brits that got stuck with a reactionary PM they didn't want, but at least y'all didn't get President Camacho (who was actually still more presidential than Trump).
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on January 26, 2017, 03:18:55 PM
The bubble self-regulated about 12 times in the decade or so before the crash, all the while consumer confidence was at high levels.   It crashes the 13th time, AFTER consumer confidence began to tail off, before cratering in the early years of Obama's tenure, while he's pushing national healthcare while the economy burns.
I believe you've said in the past that consumer confidence in this case crashed in large part because of the democrat themed policies Obama brought along, as opposed to nice, predictable republican policies. Even when Trump was the biggest wildcard ever conceivable it wasn't enough to blow things up because he's essentially still a free market, capitalist republican. So is it your assertion that the bubble continues floating along for another 8, 16, 24 years had Obama not been elected, only to burst whenever a democrat finally gets in? Frankly, your case for this suggests a pretty gnarly indictment of our economic system and I'd say the problem isn't with with Obama at all, but the system not stable enough to withstand the cyclical nature of our elected government.

I don't know that the bubble just sits there; but the rate of change would have been manageable, and wouldn't have chilled investment in ALL markets, not just the housing one.   It wasn't necessarily "Democrat" policies, versus "free market capitalist republican" policies.  After all, we had Clinton following Bush, and while it wasn't seamless, it was as smooth as can be expected.

What it is specifically is the changing of the underlying assumptions on the investments.   When I buy $50 million in property that is contaminated with 100 parts per million of TCE, I price my acquisition on purchase price, what it costs to address the environmental issue, and what I can get in return after.   If it makes sense to clean to the bare minimum, say 50 ppm, and put a factory there, I do it.  If it makes more sense to clean to higher standards, say 10 ppm, (more expensive) but I get to put more lucrative uses on it (more return) I do it.    We always run the risk of changing standards.  Changing standards ten years from now, after I've cleaned it, and after the sale is done is often grandfathered in.  There's little risk.    But if I have a return based on 24 months, or even 12 months, and I'm costed in to 50 ppm, and all of a sudden tomorrow I have to go to 10 or even 5 ppm FOR THE SAME RETURN, I'm fucked.   If I have a president coming in, with "Change you can believe in" and purposefully and specifically targeting a President who is virtually a pariah to anyone other than a GOP party member, it becomes impossible to do the math.  So the reaction is, DON"T.  Wait until we see what happens.  Of course, when that guy gets in and there is no more certainty as before, you continue to sit on your capital and slowly start to parse it out in ever-increasing bits.   

It was a perfect storm of sorts.   You had the pendulum swinging farther and faster than usual.
This is still an indictment of the system rather than Obama. A system that can't withstand the "turmoil" brought about by a president seeking to institute change (which should be every damn one of them). Yet, he still inherited the crashed economy. Hell, even if he caused the bubble to burst, and I'm not on board with that hypothesis, he still inherited something that occurred before he took any action whatsoever, other than win an election.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XJDenton on January 26, 2017, 03:27:26 PM
On a side note, while waiting in a dealership I saw a few minutes of Theresa May's populist rhetoric. She says pert near the same things as Grabby, but damn, it was really refreshing to see somebody actually behave like a head of state for a change. I had already forgotten what a real president looks like. I feel bad for the Brits that got stuck with a reactionary PM they didn't want, but at least y'all didn't get President Camacho (who was actually still more presidential than Trump).

Stop comparing him to Camacho. He's a Greg Stillson as far as fictional presidents go.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XJDenton on January 26, 2017, 03:29:30 PM
Depends. Likely not, but if we're talking about "does it work" in the sense that "should we continue this line of research?" Hell yeah!.   "Does it work" in the sense that "let's sell it to kids"?   Nuh-uh.

Ah, so exactly how do you plan to improve torture's reliability until its safe to sell to kids?

Quote
I'm running a prison.  I get three prisoners in there.   I ask all of them "who is number one?".    One says "I am number six!" The other two say "I am not a number, I am a FREE MAN!" and I torture them.   One says "I am number six".  The other says "I am number two".   Before I act on any of that, I have to ground truth it. I corroborate it.  Clearly, based on my example, torture can produce mixed results (the third guy CAN be number two, but both the first and second can't both be number six).

Congrats, you now know exactly the same information as when you started.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: jsbru on January 26, 2017, 04:25:58 PM
Quote from: Stadler
There's a reasonable, accepted explanation for what happened that supports my argument (it involves "irrational actors") but we've been asked to stand down.

Free market capitalism is based on the assumption that market participants are rational actors, so I'd be very interested to hear your critique of this.  :D

My note in law school was on irrational market actors.  But it wasn't exactly an endorsement of capitalism, either.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: chknptpie on January 26, 2017, 07:19:51 PM
(https://scontent.fphx1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p480x480/16174561_1671543549523283_2689374021444150470_n.png?oh=d64b619f3be8d777ef01a9eab604edcf&oe=594A0AB4)
This image raised my interest, so I found the actual section in the EO and it states:
(b)  To better inform the public regarding the public safety threats associated with sanctuary jurisdictions, the Secretary shall utilize the Declined Detainer Outcome Report or its equivalent and, on a weekly basis, make public a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor any detainers with respect to such aliens.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/25/presidential-executive-order-enhancing-public-safety-interior-united

I'm curious to know opinions on this particular section of one of Trump's EOs.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: jsbru on January 26, 2017, 07:30:19 PM
I mean, 2 months ago, when I had said Trump ran a campaign that heavily resembled that of history's fascists, there was much uproar and gnashing of teeth.

How many people think that statement was hyperbolic now?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: bosk1 on January 26, 2017, 07:40:25 PM
How many people think that statement was hyperbolic now?
*raises hand*
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: eric42434224 on January 26, 2017, 07:50:36 PM
I think most would still raise their hand, but with less confidence and a little less high with each new day of this presidency.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 27, 2017, 05:39:04 AM
I mean, 2 months ago, when I had said Trump ran a campaign that heavily resembled that of history's fascists, there was much uproar and gnashing of teeth.

How many people think that statement was hyperbolic now?

<Both hands firmly in the air, waving like Stadler just don't care.  Even though he does, very much.>

Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 27, 2017, 05:50:30 AM
The bubble self-regulated about 12 times in the decade or so before the crash, all the while consumer confidence was at high levels.   It crashes the 13th time, AFTER consumer confidence began to tail off, before cratering in the early years of Obama's tenure, while he's pushing national healthcare while the economy burns.
I believe you've said in the past that consumer confidence in this case crashed in large part because of the democrat themed policies Obama brought along, as opposed to nice, predictable republican policies. Even when Trump was the biggest wildcard ever conceivable it wasn't enough to blow things up because he's essentially still a free market, capitalist republican. So is it your assertion that the bubble continues floating along for another 8, 16, 24 years had Obama not been elected, only to burst whenever a democrat finally gets in? Frankly, your case for this suggests a pretty gnarly indictment of our economic system and I'd say the problem isn't with with Obama at all, but the system not stable enough to withstand the cyclical nature of our elected government.

I don't know that the bubble just sits there; but the rate of change would have been manageable, and wouldn't have chilled investment in ALL markets, not just the housing one.   It wasn't necessarily "Democrat" policies, versus "free market capitalist republican" policies.  After all, we had Clinton following Bush, and while it wasn't seamless, it was as smooth as can be expected.

What it is specifically is the changing of the underlying assumptions on the investments.   When I buy $50 million in property that is contaminated with 100 parts per million of TCE, I price my acquisition on purchase price, what it costs to address the environmental issue, and what I can get in return after.   If it makes sense to clean to the bare minimum, say 50 ppm, and put a factory there, I do it.  If it makes more sense to clean to higher standards, say 10 ppm, (more expensive) but I get to put more lucrative uses on it (more return) I do it.    We always run the risk of changing standards.  Changing standards ten years from now, after I've cleaned it, and after the sale is done is often grandfathered in.  There's little risk.    But if I have a return based on 24 months, or even 12 months, and I'm costed in to 50 ppm, and all of a sudden tomorrow I have to go to 10 or even 5 ppm FOR THE SAME RETURN, I'm fucked.   If I have a president coming in, with "Change you can believe in" and purposefully and specifically targeting a President who is virtually a pariah to anyone other than a GOP party member, it becomes impossible to do the math.  So the reaction is, DON"T.  Wait until we see what happens.  Of course, when that guy gets in and there is no more certainty as before, you continue to sit on your capital and slowly start to parse it out in ever-increasing bits.   

It was a perfect storm of sorts.   You had the pendulum swinging farther and faster than usual.
This is still an indictment of the system rather than Obama. A system that can't withstand the "turmoil" brought about by a president seeking to institute change (which should be every damn one of them). Yet, he still inherited the crashed economy. Hell, even if he caused the bubble to burst, and I'm not on board with that hypothesis, he still inherited something that occurred before he took any action whatsoever, other than win an election.

Except for two things, and a) I'll remind that I've been saying this about Obama long before Trump even walked down the golden staircase, and b) I've been fair and made it one of my criticisms of Trump: if you're going to be in that office you have to know how it works, and if you do something (like blather on about "CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN!" without also providing something that can mollify those for whom "change" in that sense is the very last thing you want) you have to accept the consequences.    In my opinion - not an uneducated one, and one borne out by several other actions, some related, some not (like healthcare, his "investments" in renewables, much of the position on climate change) - he proved he DIDN'T know how it worked, and his statements - repeated references, even as late as 2016, that "we inherited the worst economy in history" - show that he either has no clue that he has no clue (I don't believe that; he's a smart man) or wasn't at all interested in accepting the consequences.

It is EXACTLY what people like jsbru (apparently the "joebros" wasn't received as the light hearted "it's not personal" joke it was intended to be, so I'll stop that) are saying about Trump, but are failing to accept is a hallmark of Obama's presidency as well, just in the opposite.  The criticism of Trump is "we don't know WHAT he's going to do", but business at least can assume "it's not going to hurt us", and so the market's flourish (and as a result, we're going to be a philosophical nightmare, but he's going to deliver on jobs, he's going to bolster the economy, and call it a win).   The knock on Obama should be - and will be when the dust settles and his ACTUAL legacy - as opposed to the one he was trying so hard to manufacture in real time - is going to be that "we didn't know WHAT he was going to do", but business at least knew it wasn't at all going to be good for them, and so the market's tanked (and as a result, we had a crash, and a crash that lasted longer than it should have, until it was clear that while Obama wasn't going to HELP it any, he wasn't going to destroy it, so they might as well trickle back into it).  Maybe the last part isn't completely fair, but it makes the point, and is a nice symmetry.   
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 27, 2017, 06:23:39 AM
Depends. Likely not, but if we're talking about "does it work" in the sense that "should we continue this line of research?" Hell yeah!.   "Does it work" in the sense that "let's sell it to kids"?   Nuh-uh.

Ah, so exactly how do you plan to improve torture's reliability until its safe to sell to kids?

Who's trying to "sell it to kids"?  I'm not ADVOCATING torture - personally, I'm against it - I'm just clarifying that the argument put forth is a faulty one.   I've already said that I'm kind of with el Barto here, that even if it is successful - either in whole or in part - it's probably not worth the cost.   No need to "sell" something that shouldn't be used.  But the argument TORTURE DOESN'T WORK" isn't accurate.   

BUT, it's the nature of the agenda to frame the argument in a way that escapes debate, that dodges the heavier moral questions that more often than not trouble these issues, and which more often than not inform the opposing argument far more than the strawman that the "reframing" presents.  You're even doing it to me right now by implying somehow I'm "for" torture, or that I want to "fix" it for "sale to the kids", when I want nothing of the sort.   


Quote
Quote
I'm running a prison.  I get three prisoners in there.   I ask all of them "who is number one?".    One says "I am number six!" The other two say "I am not a number, I am a FREE MAN!" and I torture them.   One says "I am number six".  The other says "I am number two".   Before I act on any of that, I have to ground truth it. I corroborate it.  Clearly, based on my example, torture can produce mixed results (the third guy CAN be number two, but both the first and second can't both be number six).

Congrats, you now know exactly the same information as when you started.

Uh, no.  ??  I understand that the example is a little too facetious to be of any real value, but I got info on all three that I didn't have before (I now know who the second and third people are, and I know that one may be lying).  ??
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 27, 2017, 06:36:05 AM
Quote from: Stadler
There's a reasonable, accepted explanation for what happened that supports my argument (it involves "irrational actors") but we've been asked to stand down.

Free market capitalism is based on the assumption that market participants are rational actors, so I'd be very interested to hear your critique of this.  :D

My note in law school was on irrational market actors.  But it wasn't exactly an endorsement of capitalism, either.

And mine was on chaos theory and the practice of law.   We probably have a lot to talk about outside of politics.

Anyway, ECONOMIC THEORY, not "free market capitalism" is predicated on THE AGGREGATE of behavior being by "rational actors".  It is widely understood that this is a failure of most economic theory, since economic systems tend to operate as most other systems do, with start up conditions that sometimes do not reflect equilibrium conditions.   I understand that it's "pop economics", but if you read the second of Stephen Levine's "Freakonomics" books, there's a whole chapter (the one about the murder that 20 people "watched" then en masse "misreported") on this idea.

Simply put, you cannot look at this process in ever-smaller increments and assume that all conditions hold at all times, and that every individual act is "rational".  The bulk are, and over time the rational actions drive the system, but after weeks (and perhaps months) of conventional wisdom - that Hillary was going to win by 5% +/-, and likely more, as people went into the booth (much like Obama did better against Romney than the late polls suggested, and certainly far better than Romney's flawed data suggested; remember, this is largely what cemented Nate Silver's reputation as a prognosticator) AND Dems were going to regain at least the House, but likely the Senate as well, and several Governor-ships were up for grabs - when the election started to look like it might not play out as planned - not just at the Presidential level, but at local level as well - there was a short period of "what the f*** do I do NOW?", when we were faced with the known, Hillary, but the unknown, in the form of the Senate/House/governors.   So markets reacted to the uncertainty.  Then as more information came in - in the form of those local races falling to the right, and the bigger picture emerging that not only was Trump going to win this, but he was also going to have a friendly Congress, the markets began to calm back down, confidence rose, and the market followed suit. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: chknptpie on January 27, 2017, 06:44:45 AM
I mean, 2 months ago, when I had said Trump ran a campaign that heavily resembled that of history's fascists, there was much uproar and gnashing of teeth.

How many people think that statement was hyperbolic now?
*raises hand*
I think most would still raise their hand, but with less confidence and a little less high with each new day of this presidency.
<Both hands firmly in the air, waving like Stadler just don't care.  Even though he does, very much.>

I understand the image itself is hyperbole, but that doesn't make my question invalid. The policy seems very concerning to me and I'm still wondering how others interpret or feel about it.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Cyclopssss on January 27, 2017, 06:53:25 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4163184/Team-Trump-gaffes-spelling-PM-s-Teresa.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4163184/Team-Trump-gaffes-spelling-PM-s-Teresa.html)

Teresa May - without the 'h' - is in fact a soft porn actress and glamour model who starred in a video for the song Smack My Bitch Up, by dance music band The Prodigy.


Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on January 27, 2017, 07:04:01 AM
I understand the image itself is hyperbole, but that doesn't make my question invalid. The policy seems very concerning to me and I'm still wondering how others interpret or feel about it.

I'll first say I don't like it.  I don't think it's needed and I think it allows people to easily make the correlation you are making. The white house *should be smart enough* (we all know they don't think things over anymore) to not do things that people could turn around and say "Nazis!".  Having said that, there is one big difference.  The illegal immigrants in this case ARE committing crimes.  The jews in Nazi Germany were innocently targeted. 

The one thing I can see getting mixed in with this though is the assumption that "most" or "a lot" of illegal aliens are committing the crimes.  But after reading the executive order, it seems that Trump (for now) is only targeting the criminal aliens.  It's kind of hard to not support this, but we don't need a newsletter:

Quote
Sec. 5.  Enforcement Priorities.  In executing faithfully the immigration laws of the United States, the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) shall prioritize for removal those aliens described by the Congress in sections 212(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(6)(C), 235, and 237(a)(2) and (4) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(6)(C), 1225, and 1227(a)(2) and (4)), as well as removable aliens who:

(a)  Have been convicted of any criminal offense;

(b)  Have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been resolved;

(c)  Have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense;

(d)  Have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or application before a governmental agency;

(e)  Have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits;

(f)  Are subject to a final order of removal, but who have not complied with their legal obligation to depart the United States; or

(g)  In the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: mikeyd23 on January 27, 2017, 07:05:55 AM
I understand the image itself is hyperbole, but that doesn't make my question invalid. The policy seems very concerning to me and I'm still wondering how others interpret or feel about it.

It definitely is hyperbole, that being said, I have mixed feelings on it. I need to read up more on it, but my first thought is that I wish the mayors, governors, etc... of this "sanctuary cities" would just follow the law that is on the books, that they pledged to uphold upon signing up for their gigs.

I live in Pittsburgh, our Mayor just came out a basically said he's one of those guys that will ignore what the Trump Admin. is trying to do here, and Pittsburgh will continue to be "a welcoming place for all" or something along those lines. My understanding of the situation is that, that statement totally misses the mark. I'm all for legal paths to citizenship and welcoming those folks with open arms. What I am not for is not reporting an illegal immigrant up the proper chain when brought in for another reason. That's the core of this, isn't it? Unless I misunderstand, basically, that's what is happening. In my opinion that is wrong. If some guy or women is arrested for a crime, the police determine that person is here illegally, why shouldn't they follow proper procedure and move that up the ladder? Why would they ignore that? Aren't they breaking the very oaths they promised to uphold if they do that? Why would a mayor of a city allow his police force to do that?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 27, 2017, 07:07:13 AM
(https://scontent.fphx1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p480x480/16174561_1671543549523283_2689374021444150470_n.png?oh=d64b619f3be8d777ef01a9eab604edcf&oe=594A0AB4)
This image raised my interest, so I found the actual section in the EO and it states:
(b)  To better inform the public regarding the public safety threats associated with sanctuary jurisdictions, the Secretary shall utilize the Declined Detainer Outcome Report or its equivalent and, on a weekly basis, make public a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor any detainers with respect to such aliens.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/25/presidential-executive-order-enhancing-public-safety-interior-united

I'm curious to know opinions on this particular section of one of Trump's EOs.

Just asking (and not just to Chknptpie, she's just putting it out there):  so the FBI's most wanted list is problematic?  If the information is TRUTHFUL, is it equally problematic?   The problem, as I see it, is not in the information, it's in the "alleged" part.  We now know that most of the "crimes" alleged in Nazi Germany were patently false.  We have plenty of controls on that list to ensure that the REST of the Executive Order - where it is clear that these apply to REMOVABLE aliens - people that have been found to have entered the country illegally - and are
as well as removable aliens who:

(a)  Have been convicted of any criminal offense;
(b)  Have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been resolved;
(c)  Have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense;
(d)  Have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or application before a governmental agency;
(e)  Have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits;
(f)  Are subject to a final order of removal, but who have not complied with their legal obligation to depart the United States; or
(g)  In the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security.

All of those, except for (g), are subject to Due Process, a fundamental aspect of our Constitution, and as for (g), we can and should hold those officers accountable if this becomes a subjective witchhunt.

Is our system so weak that it can't handle this? 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: ? on January 27, 2017, 07:18:20 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4163184/Team-Trump-gaffes-spelling-PM-s-Teresa.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4163184/Team-Trump-gaffes-spelling-PM-s-Teresa.html)

Teresa May - without the 'h' - is in fact a soft porn actress and glamour model who starred in a video for the song Smack My Bitch Up, by dance music band The Prodigy.
Obviously they were just using an alternative name. :P
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 27, 2017, 07:38:54 AM
I understand the image itself is hyperbole, but that doesn't make my question invalid. The policy seems very concerning to me and I'm still wondering how others interpret or feel about it.

I'll first say I don't like it.  I don't think it's needed and I think it allows people to easily make the correlation you are making. The white house *should be smart enough* (we all know they don't think things over anymore) to not do things that people could turn around and say "Nazis!".  Having said that, there is one big difference.  The illegal immigrants in this case ARE committing crimes.  The jews in Nazi Germany were innocently targeted. 

The one thing I can see getting mixed in with this though is the assumption that "most" or "a lot" of illegal aliens are committing the crimes.  But after reading the executive order, it seems that Trump (for now) is only targeting the criminal aliens.  It's kind of hard to not support this, but we don't need a newsletter:

But this discussion is not addressing another key point, and a real fundamental part of understanding the Trump approach:  there is a conscious effort to not spend all this time massaging words to make sure that no one is offended - when the reality is, they are going to be offended no matter what - and start worrying about WHAT is said.   There is nothing egregious or fascist about that statement, but Trump KNOWS there is a small, overreactive aspect of our population that is going to "fascism" in everything he says and or does.   (Trump:  "Hi everybody! I'll take your questions now."  Wonk: "SEE! That's how Hitler began one of his press conferences in '42!")   

Look, target him on the POLICY, that's fair game, but I don't understand this need to parse and frame everything in terms of the Imperial Empire in Star Wars.   It's not accurate, and thankfully, as Trump does more and more things that are EXACTLY what he promised in the election - no more, no less - the credibility of these naysayers is starting to wane.  You can only cry wolf so many times before people just tune out (though, ironically, that is when we're most in danger).
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 27, 2017, 07:40:34 AM
I understand the image itself is hyperbole, but that doesn't make my question invalid. The policy seems very concerning to me and I'm still wondering how others interpret or feel about it.

It definitely is hyperbole, that being said, I have mixed feelings on it. I need to read up more on it, but my first thought is that I wish the mayors, governors, etc... of this "sanctuary cities" would just follow the law that is on the books, that they pledged to uphold upon signing up for their gigs.

I live in Pittsburgh, our Mayor just came out a basically said he's one of those guys that will ignore what the Trump Admin. is trying to do here, and Pittsburgh will continue to be "a welcoming place for all" or something along those lines. My understanding of the situation is that, that statement totally misses the mark. I'm all for legal paths to citizenship and welcoming those folks with open arms. What I am not for is not reporting an illegal immigrant up the proper chain when brought in for another reason. That's the core of this, isn't it? Unless I misunderstand, basically, that's what is happening. In my opinion that is wrong. If some guy or women is arrested for a crime, the police determine that person is here illegally, why shouldn't they follow proper procedure and move that up the ladder? Why would they ignore that? Aren't they breaking the very oaths they promised to uphold if they do that? Why would a mayor of a city allow his police force to do that?

I wonder then, if someone is pulled over for, say, DUI, and has an open warrant for, say, child support or something like that, whether the Mayor is going to turn the other cheek as well.   Good for the goose, right?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on January 27, 2017, 07:46:34 AM
I understand the image itself is hyperbole, but that doesn't make my question invalid. The policy seems very concerning to me and I'm still wondering how others interpret or feel about it.

I'll first say I don't like it.  I don't think it's needed and I think it allows people to easily make the correlation you are making. The white house *should be smart enough* (we all know they don't think things over anymore) to not do things that people could turn around and say "Nazis!".  Having said that, there is one big difference.  The illegal immigrants in this case ARE committing crimes.  The jews in Nazi Germany were innocently targeted. 

The one thing I can see getting mixed in with this though is the assumption that "most" or "a lot" of illegal aliens are committing the crimes.  But after reading the executive order, it seems that Trump (for now) is only targeting the criminal aliens.  It's kind of hard to not support this, but we don't need a newsletter:

But this discussion is not addressing another key point, and a real fundamental part of understanding the Trump approach:  there is a conscious effort to not spend all this time massaging words to make sure that no one is offended - when the reality is, they are going to be offended no matter what - and start worrying about WHAT is said.   There is nothing egregious or fascist about that statement, but Trump KNOWS there is a small, overreactive aspect of our population that is going to "fascism" in everything he says and or does.   (Trump:  "Hi everybody! I'll take your questions now."  Wonk: "SEE! That's how Hitler began one of his press conferences in '42!")   

Look, target him on the POLICY, that's fair game, but I don't understand this need to parse and frame everything in terms of the Imperial Empire in Star Wars.   It's not accurate, and thankfully, as Trump does more and more things that are EXACTLY what he promised in the election - no more, no less - the credibility of these naysayers is starting to wane.  You can only cry wolf so many times before people just tune out (though, ironically, that is when we're most in danger).

I agree but I don't really think the newsletter is necessary to begin with, so if they want to do something like it, I just think they should understand their audience and make a conscious effort to do their best not to offend people.  I totally agree that no matter what Trump does, someone will be offended or twist it to look like something else, but there are ways to minimize that I believe.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: mikeyd23 on January 27, 2017, 07:51:30 AM
I wonder then, if someone is pulled over for, say, DUI, and has an open warrant for, say, child support or something like that, whether the Mayor is going to turn the other cheek as well.   Good for the goose, right?

Unless I'm missing something, that's pretty much what some areas of our country are doing in terms of enforcing immigration laws right now. So I guess I have no issue with the Trump Admin. basically telling these guys and gals to enforce the law on the books, I'm all for that. If publishing that stuff publicly will get that done, I guess that's okay in my book too, I just wish none of this would need addressed. If these mayors and governors are unhappy with the laws the way they currently are, go about addressing that the proper way - not by simply not following the laws.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on January 27, 2017, 08:20:07 AM
If Grabby published a weekly newsletter of crimes committed by black folk would we say "yeah, there's no problem there?" How about homosexuals? The object of the exercise is not to help law enforcement, but to paint a particular group of people in a bad light.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on January 27, 2017, 08:22:37 AM
I understand the image itself is hyperbole, but that doesn't make my question invalid. The policy seems very concerning to me and I'm still wondering how others interpret or feel about it.

It definitely is hyperbole, that being said, I have mixed feelings on it. I need to read up more on it, but my first thought is that I wish the mayors, governors, etc... of this "sanctuary cities" would just follow the law that is on the books, that they pledged to uphold upon signing up for their gigs.

I live in Pittsburgh, our Mayor just came out a basically said he's one of those guys that will ignore what the Trump Admin. is trying to do here, and Pittsburgh will continue to be "a welcoming place for all" or something along those lines. My understanding of the situation is that, that statement totally misses the mark. I'm all for legal paths to citizenship and welcoming those folks with open arms. What I am not for is not reporting an illegal immigrant up the proper chain when brought in for another reason. That's the core of this, isn't it? Unless I misunderstand, basically, that's what is happening. In my opinion that is wrong. If some guy or women is arrested for a crime, the police determine that person is here illegally, why shouldn't they follow proper procedure and move that up the ladder? Why would they ignore that? Aren't they breaking the very oaths they promised to uphold if they do that? Why would a mayor of a city allow his police force to do that?

I wonder then, if someone is pulled over for, say, DUI, and has an open warrant for, say, child support or something like that, whether the Mayor is going to turn the other cheek as well.   Good for the goose, right?
Yup. Happens all the time. There's no value in sticking somebody in jail because they owe money. Counterproductive, in fact. Even more so if the person isn't even wanted in your jurisdiction. It used to be that people with outstanding warrants were always arrested. I had a friend hooked up because he had an unpaid ticket for fishing without a license (spent 4 days in jail before he even saw a judge). Now they cut you loose rather than spend the time, effort and money for something that doesn't even affect them.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on January 27, 2017, 08:26:27 AM
The bubble self-regulated about 12 times in the decade or so before the crash, all the while consumer confidence was at high levels.   It crashes the 13th time, AFTER consumer confidence began to tail off, before cratering in the early years of Obama's tenure, while he's pushing national healthcare while the economy burns.
I believe you've said in the past that consumer confidence in this case crashed in large part because of the democrat themed policies Obama brought along, as opposed to nice, predictable republican policies. Even when Trump was the biggest wildcard ever conceivable it wasn't enough to blow things up because he's essentially still a free market, capitalist republican. So is it your assertion that the bubble continues floating along for another 8, 16, 24 years had Obama not been elected, only to burst whenever a democrat finally gets in? Frankly, your case for this suggests a pretty gnarly indictment of our economic system and I'd say the problem isn't with with Obama at all, but the system not stable enough to withstand the cyclical nature of our elected government.

I don't know that the bubble just sits there; but the rate of change would have been manageable, and wouldn't have chilled investment in ALL markets, not just the housing one.   It wasn't necessarily "Democrat" policies, versus "free market capitalist republican" policies.  After all, we had Clinton following Bush, and while it wasn't seamless, it was as smooth as can be expected.

What it is specifically is the changing of the underlying assumptions on the investments.   When I buy $50 million in property that is contaminated with 100 parts per million of TCE, I price my acquisition on purchase price, what it costs to address the environmental issue, and what I can get in return after.   If it makes sense to clean to the bare minimum, say 50 ppm, and put a factory there, I do it.  If it makes more sense to clean to higher standards, say 10 ppm, (more expensive) but I get to put more lucrative uses on it (more return) I do it.    We always run the risk of changing standards.  Changing standards ten years from now, after I've cleaned it, and after the sale is done is often grandfathered in.  There's little risk.    But if I have a return based on 24 months, or even 12 months, and I'm costed in to 50 ppm, and all of a sudden tomorrow I have to go to 10 or even 5 ppm FOR THE SAME RETURN, I'm fucked.   If I have a president coming in, with "Change you can believe in" and purposefully and specifically targeting a President who is virtually a pariah to anyone other than a GOP party member, it becomes impossible to do the math.  So the reaction is, DON"T.  Wait until we see what happens.  Of course, when that guy gets in and there is no more certainty as before, you continue to sit on your capital and slowly start to parse it out in ever-increasing bits.   

It was a perfect storm of sorts.   You had the pendulum swinging farther and faster than usual.
This is still an indictment of the system rather than Obama. A system that can't withstand the "turmoil" brought about by a president seeking to institute change (which should be every damn one of them). Yet, he still inherited the crashed economy. Hell, even if he caused the bubble to burst, and I'm not on board with that hypothesis, he still inherited something that occurred before he took any action whatsoever, other than win an election.

Except for two things, and a) I'll remind that I've been saying this about Obama long before Trump even walked down the golden staircase, and b) I've been fair and made it one of my criticisms of Trump: if you're going to be in that office you have to know how it works, and if you do something (like blather on about "CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN!" without also providing something that can mollify those for whom "change" in that sense is the very last thing you want) you have to accept the consequences.    In my opinion - not an uneducated one, and one borne out by several other actions, some related, some not (like healthcare, his "investments" in renewables, much of the position on climate change) - he proved he DIDN'T know how it worked, and his statements - repeated references, even as late as 2016, that "we inherited the worst economy in history" - show that he either has no clue that he has no clue (I don't believe that; he's a smart man) or wasn't at all interested in accepting the consequences.

It is EXACTLY what people like jsbru (apparently the "joebros" wasn't received as the light hearted "it's not personal" joke it was intended to be, so I'll stop that) are saying about Trump, but are failing to accept is a hallmark of Obama's presidency as well, just in the opposite.  The criticism of Trump is "we don't know WHAT he's going to do", but business at least can assume "it's not going to hurt us", and so the market's flourish (and as a result, we're going to be a philosophical nightmare, but he's going to deliver on jobs, he's going to bolster the economy, and call it a win).   The knock on Obama should be - and will be when the dust settles and his ACTUAL legacy - as opposed to the one he was trying so hard to manufacture in real time - is going to be that "we didn't know WHAT he was going to do", but business at least knew it wasn't at all going to be good for them, and so the market's tanked (and as a result, we had a crash, and a crash that lasted longer than it should have, until it was clear that while Obama wasn't going to HELP it any, he wasn't going to destroy it, so they might as well trickle back into it).  Maybe the last part isn't completely fair, but it makes the point, and is a nice symmetry.
Yesterday at ~1400 we're going to institute a 20% border tax because fuck Mexico. Around 1800 "nah, that was really just an idea." So how does this show that Trump knows WTF he's doing, or that he's going to do things safe for investment? Looking forward at the hodgepodge of ideas and plans he has, some that are bullshit and some that actually contradict, how does anybody know the economy will be better off in 10 years?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on January 27, 2017, 08:43:48 AM
If Grabby published a weekly newsletter of crimes committed by black folk would we say "yeah, there's no problem there?" How about homosexuals? The object of the exercise is not to help law enforcement, but to paint a particular group of people in a bad light.

This.  The FBI Most Wanted list comparison isn't the same.  Their top ten most wanted doesn't discriminate based on whether or not they're immigrants.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 27, 2017, 09:01:27 AM
If Grabby published a weekly newsletter of crimes committed by black folk would we say "yeah, there's no problem there?" How about homosexuals? The object of the exercise is not to help law enforcement, but to paint a particular group of people in a bad light.

I'm sorry; is "illegal alien" a race?  I missed that.  El Barto, you're usually pretty reasonable and fair when it comes to race-baiting and fear-mongering (I'm not saying YOU'RE race-baiting and fear-mongering.  I'm saying that some of the people - not here, but generally - that are attributing to Trump racial motives that are nowhere to be found in that EO are perhaps race-baiting and fear-mongering).  You KNOW the difference here.   

The only real analogue is if there was a list of "crimes committed by those with outstanding warrants" or something like that.  They're not "illegal aliens" because of some accident of birth, but rather because they took affirmative action (no pun intended) to be here without following protocol.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: mikeyd23 on January 27, 2017, 09:01:55 AM
Wait, I'm confused, I thought the criteria to be on "the list" was being an illegal immigrate who committed a crime? How in any way is that comparable to a list of people of a certain race.

Seems like apples and oranges to me.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 27, 2017, 09:02:35 AM
If Grabby published a weekly newsletter of crimes committed by black folk would we say "yeah, there's no problem there?" How about homosexuals? The object of the exercise is not to help law enforcement, but to paint a particular group of people in a bad light.

This.  The FBI Most Wanted list comparison isn't the same.  Their top ten most wanted doesn't discriminate based on whether or not they're immigrants.

ILLEGAL immigrants. ILLEGAL.   It's not discrimination at all, and even if it is, it is discrimination on their ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES.  The FBI Most Wanted absolutely, by definition does that. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on January 27, 2017, 09:03:59 AM
If Grabby published a weekly newsletter of crimes committed by black folk would we say "yeah, there's no problem there?" How about homosexuals? The object of the exercise is not to help law enforcement, but to paint a particular group of people in a bad light.

This.  The FBI Most Wanted list comparison isn't the same.  Their top ten most wanted doesn't discriminate based on whether or not they're immigrants.

ILLEGAL immigrants. ILLEGAL.   It's not discrimination at all, and even if it is, it is discrimination on their ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES.  The FBI Most Wanted absolutely, by definition does that.

But it's not even just ILLEGAL immigrants, it's ILLEGAL immigrants doing more ILLEGAL acts. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: mikeyd23 on January 27, 2017, 09:05:56 AM
If Grabby published a weekly newsletter of crimes committed by black folk would we say "yeah, there's no problem there?" How about homosexuals? The object of the exercise is not to help law enforcement, but to paint a particular group of people in a bad light.

This.  The FBI Most Wanted list comparison isn't the same.  Their top ten most wanted doesn't discriminate based on whether or not they're immigrants.

ILLEGAL immigrants. ILLEGAL.   It's not discrimination at all, and even if it is, it is discrimination on their ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES.  The FBI Most Wanted absolutely, by definition does that.

But it's not even just ILLEGAL immigrants, it's ILLEGAL immigrants doing more ILLEGAL acts.

Yup, agreed.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 27, 2017, 09:07:21 AM
The bubble self-regulated about 12 times in the decade or so before the crash, all the while consumer confidence was at high levels.   It crashes the 13th time, AFTER consumer confidence began to tail off, before cratering in the early years of Obama's tenure, while he's pushing national healthcare while the economy burns.
I believe you've said in the past that consumer confidence in this case crashed in large part because of the democrat themed policies Obama brought along, as opposed to nice, predictable republican policies. Even when Trump was the biggest wildcard ever conceivable it wasn't enough to blow things up because he's essentially still a free market, capitalist republican. So is it your assertion that the bubble continues floating along for another 8, 16, 24 years had Obama not been elected, only to burst whenever a democrat finally gets in? Frankly, your case for this suggests a pretty gnarly indictment of our economic system and I'd say the problem isn't with with Obama at all, but the system not stable enough to withstand the cyclical nature of our elected government.

I don't know that the bubble just sits there; but the rate of change would have been manageable, and wouldn't have chilled investment in ALL markets, not just the housing one.   It wasn't necessarily "Democrat" policies, versus "free market capitalist republican" policies.  After all, we had Clinton following Bush, and while it wasn't seamless, it was as smooth as can be expected.

What it is specifically is the changing of the underlying assumptions on the investments.   When I buy $50 million in property that is contaminated with 100 parts per million of TCE, I price my acquisition on purchase price, what it costs to address the environmental issue, and what I can get in return after.   If it makes sense to clean to the bare minimum, say 50 ppm, and put a factory there, I do it.  If it makes more sense to clean to higher standards, say 10 ppm, (more expensive) but I get to put more lucrative uses on it (more return) I do it.    We always run the risk of changing standards.  Changing standards ten years from now, after I've cleaned it, and after the sale is done is often grandfathered in.  There's little risk.    But if I have a return based on 24 months, or even 12 months, and I'm costed in to 50 ppm, and all of a sudden tomorrow I have to go to 10 or even 5 ppm FOR THE SAME RETURN, I'm fucked.   If I have a president coming in, with "Change you can believe in" and purposefully and specifically targeting a President who is virtually a pariah to anyone other than a GOP party member, it becomes impossible to do the math.  So the reaction is, DON"T.  Wait until we see what happens.  Of course, when that guy gets in and there is no more certainty as before, you continue to sit on your capital and slowly start to parse it out in ever-increasing bits.   

It was a perfect storm of sorts.   You had the pendulum swinging farther and faster than usual.
This is still an indictment of the system rather than Obama. A system that can't withstand the "turmoil" brought about by a president seeking to institute change (which should be every damn one of them). Yet, he still inherited the crashed economy. Hell, even if he caused the bubble to burst, and I'm not on board with that hypothesis, he still inherited something that occurred before he took any action whatsoever, other than win an election.

Except for two things, and a) I'll remind that I've been saying this about Obama long before Trump even walked down the golden staircase, and b) I've been fair and made it one of my criticisms of Trump: if you're going to be in that office you have to know how it works, and if you do something (like blather on about "CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVE IN!" without also providing something that can mollify those for whom "change" in that sense is the very last thing you want) you have to accept the consequences.    In my opinion - not an uneducated one, and one borne out by several other actions, some related, some not (like healthcare, his "investments" in renewables, much of the position on climate change) - he proved he DIDN'T know how it worked, and his statements - repeated references, even as late as 2016, that "we inherited the worst economy in history" - show that he either has no clue that he has no clue (I don't believe that; he's a smart man) or wasn't at all interested in accepting the consequences.

It is EXACTLY what people like jsbru (apparently the "joebros" wasn't received as the light hearted "it's not personal" joke it was intended to be, so I'll stop that) are saying about Trump, but are failing to accept is a hallmark of Obama's presidency as well, just in the opposite.  The criticism of Trump is "we don't know WHAT he's going to do", but business at least can assume "it's not going to hurt us", and so the market's flourish (and as a result, we're going to be a philosophical nightmare, but he's going to deliver on jobs, he's going to bolster the economy, and call it a win).   The knock on Obama should be - and will be when the dust settles and his ACTUAL legacy - as opposed to the one he was trying so hard to manufacture in real time - is going to be that "we didn't know WHAT he was going to do", but business at least knew it wasn't at all going to be good for them, and so the market's tanked (and as a result, we had a crash, and a crash that lasted longer than it should have, until it was clear that while Obama wasn't going to HELP it any, he wasn't going to destroy it, so they might as well trickle back into it).  Maybe the last part isn't completely fair, but it makes the point, and is a nice symmetry.
Yesterday at ~1400 we're going to institute a 20% border tax because fuck Mexico. Around 1800 "nah, that was really just an idea." So how does this show that Trump knows WTF he's doing, or that he's going to do things safe for investment? Looking forward at the hodgepodge of ideas and plans he has, some that are bullshit and some that actually contradict, how does anybody know the economy will be better off in 10 years?

Good point, and for the record, I'm not for ANY tariffs.  They are perhaps good for business this quarter or this year, but not in ten years.   That's not going to move the markets, though, because it IS good for business this quarter or this year, and while "future profits" does include ten years, the list of things that could go asses up between now and then is so great, a "20% tax on Mexico" is not something that can't be overcome.

I think he knows better (with the tariffs) and is weighing political expedience now versus perfect economics ten years from now.  "Tariffs" are a populist platform - even Hillary and Bernie called for them (and they were wrong too) - and he's got to ride that for the time being.   It is after all an effective negotiation tool.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on January 27, 2017, 09:15:30 AM
I think he knows better (with the tariffs) and is weighing political expedience now versus perfect economics ten years from now.  "Tariffs" are a populist platform - even Hillary and Bernie called for them (and they were wrong too) - and he's got to ride that for the time being.   It is after all an effective negotiation tool.

To me, that is exactly what I saw the 20% threat as.  The US accounts for 80% of Mexico's exports and a 20% tax would crush Mexico (and of course hurt the US as well, but not as much).  I think that may bring Mexico back to the negotiating table.  It's a tactic.  We will see if it works or backfires.  I still wish we'd invest the money in something other than the wall, but it seems a lot of the country voted for this.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Chino on January 27, 2017, 09:21:50 AM
I think he knows better (with the tariffs) and is weighing political expedience now versus perfect economics ten years from now.  "Tariffs" are a populist platform - even Hillary and Bernie called for them (and they were wrong too) - and he's got to ride that for the time being.   It is after all an effective negotiation tool.

To me, that is exactly what I saw the 20% threat as.  The US accounts for 80% of Mexico's imports and a 20% tax would crush Mexico (and of course hurt the US as well, but not as much).  I think that may bring Mexico back to the negotiating table.  It's a tactic.  We will see if it works or backfires.  I still wish we'd invest the money in something other than the wall, but it seems a lot of the country voted for this.

Maybe build a wall with a wind farm built along the top of it. Slice people in half as they try to climb over while generating clean electricity. Make both sides happy.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on January 27, 2017, 09:42:17 AM
If Grabby published a weekly newsletter of crimes committed by black folk would we say "yeah, there's no problem there?" How about homosexuals? The object of the exercise is not to help law enforcement, but to paint a particular group of people in a bad light.

This.  The FBI Most Wanted list comparison isn't the same.  Their top ten most wanted doesn't discriminate based on whether or not they're immigrants.

ILLEGAL immigrants. ILLEGAL.   It's not discrimination at all, and even if it is, it is discrimination on their ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES.  The FBI Most Wanted absolutely, by definition does that. 

I was going by the graphic above, which only said immigrants.  It didn't say illegal immigrants.  Maybe I shouldn't have gone by that.  My bad, I suppose?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on January 27, 2017, 09:53:25 AM
If Grabby published a weekly newsletter of crimes committed by black folk would we say "yeah, there's no problem there?" How about homosexuals? The object of the exercise is not to help law enforcement, but to paint a particular group of people in a bad light.

This.  The FBI Most Wanted list comparison isn't the same.  Their top ten most wanted doesn't discriminate based on whether or not they're immigrants.

ILLEGAL immigrants. ILLEGAL.   It's not discrimination at all, and even if it is, it is discrimination on their ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES.  The FBI Most Wanted absolutely, by definition does that. 

I was going by the graphic above, which only said immigrants.  It didn't say illegal immigrants.  Maybe I shouldn't have gone by that.  My bad, I suppose?

And that's why I personally don't like memes in a serious discussion, even if the meme is meant to be serious and not funny. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: chknptpie on January 27, 2017, 09:54:38 AM
I guess my concern is who is writing the report and what kind of details are verified before publishing. If the current administration doesn't even want certain agencies to communicate with the people - why this specific item? The ease of use for propaganda is high.

The meme was to just identify what spawned my initial digging into the EO - it wasn't meant to really be the source of the topic.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on January 27, 2017, 09:57:44 AM
And that's why I personally don't like memes in a serious discussion, even if the meme is meant to be serious and not funny.

(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/43/43051169c7a7b8517db99fba709b618506ced2b1fdca827c2ef3b49916592071.jpg)
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Adami on January 27, 2017, 09:57:58 AM
I'd also be interested to see how evenly they cover the illegal immigrants.

Will they talk about all the crimes committed by Canadians with lapsed visas? Will they talk about the Asian's with lapsed visas? Or will they mostly focus on Hispanic illegals, since that's the group already being violently attacked as is?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on January 27, 2017, 10:05:01 AM
And that's why I personally don't like memes in a serious discussion, even if the meme is meant to be serious and not funny.

(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/43/43051169c7a7b8517db99fba709b618506ced2b1fdca827c2ef3b49916592071.jpg)

 :lol oh man this has been playing on HBO lately and I love it

I'd also be interested to see how evenly they cover the illegal immigrants.

Will they talk about all the crimes committed by Canadians with lapsed visas? Will they talk about the Asian's with lapsed visas? Or will they mostly focus on Hispanic illegals, since that's the group already being violently attacked as is?

I'm curious as well.  I would hope it includes all, but we all know Trump openly talks only about Mexicans, but they aren't the only illegals here doing illegal things.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: bosk1 on January 27, 2017, 10:05:14 AM
I guess my concern is who is writing the report and what kind of details are verified before publishing. If the current administration doesn't even want certain agencies to communicate with the people - why this specific item? The ease of use for propaganda is high.

The meme was to just identify what spawned my initial digging into the EO - it wasn't meant to really be the source of the topic.
I think it's a really interesting issue, and you really hit on the crux of the problem.  The ease of use for propaganda is high.  That, and the fact that it in some ways seems to resemble certain propaganda that you highlighted by posting that meme should cause an immediate reaction.  As a society, such things should raise red flags and make us say, "whoa, wait a minute.  Let's take a closer look here." 

But once we do take a closer look, I come down where Stadler does on the issue.  Because there is a potential for abuse doesn't mean that this is wrong--it just means we take a close look and be careful with it.  As long as there is no actual abuse, this could actually be a positive in terms of educating the population as to why more strictly enforcing the existing immigration laws is something that might be good for the country.  And that being the case, I cannot really have much problem with this, at least on concept.  That said, there may very well be problems in execution and/or how it is used.  But we'll have to wait and see.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 27, 2017, 10:08:09 AM
I think he knows better (with the tariffs) and is weighing political expedience now versus perfect economics ten years from now.  "Tariffs" are a populist platform - even Hillary and Bernie called for them (and they were wrong too) - and he's got to ride that for the time being.   It is after all an effective negotiation tool.

To me, that is exactly what I saw the 20% threat as.  The US accounts for 80% of Mexico's imports and a 20% tax would crush Mexico (and of course hurt the US as well, but not as much).  I think that may bring Mexico back to the negotiating table.  It's a tactic.  We will see if it works or backfires.  I still wish we'd invest the money in something other than the wall, but it seems a lot of the country voted for this.

Maybe build a wall with a wind farm built along the top of it. Slice people in half as they try to climb over while generating clean electricity. Make both sides happy.

Ever see the skit on SNL, about a year ago or so (it was actually a film), that was a take off on Dead Poet's Society?  Where the teacher is leaving, he's been fired, he's got his box of stuff in his hand, and one of the students stands on his chair and recites a line from I guess it was a Whitman poem, one of the poems they read in class.  Then another one does.  Then a third one does. And a fourth.  Then Pete Davidson stands up on his chair to recite the line... and gets his head chopped off by the ceiling fan. Sounds morbid but it was HILARIOUS. 

A quick google of the actor and "ceiling fan" and you should find it.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: mikeyd23 on January 27, 2017, 10:11:14 AM
But once we do take a closer look, I come down where Stadler does on the issue.  Because there is a potential for abuse doesn't mean that this is wrong--it just means we take a close look and be careful with it.  As long as there is no actual abuse, this could actually be a positive in terms of educating the population as to why more strictly enforcing the existing immigration laws is something that might be good for the country.  And that being the case, I cannot really have much problem with this, at least on concept.  That said, there may very well be problems in execution and/or how it is used.  But we'll have to wait and see.

Very well said Bosk.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Chino on January 27, 2017, 10:11:14 AM
I think he knows better (with the tariffs) and is weighing political expedience now versus perfect economics ten years from now.  "Tariffs" are a populist platform - even Hillary and Bernie called for them (and they were wrong too) - and he's got to ride that for the time being.   It is after all an effective negotiation tool.

To me, that is exactly what I saw the 20% threat as.  The US accounts for 80% of Mexico's imports and a 20% tax would crush Mexico (and of course hurt the US as well, but not as much).  I think that may bring Mexico back to the negotiating table.  It's a tactic.  We will see if it works or backfires.  I still wish we'd invest the money in something other than the wall, but it seems a lot of the country voted for this.

Maybe build a wall with a wind farm built along the top of it. Slice people in half as they try to climb over while generating clean electricity. Make both sides happy.

Ever see the skit on SNL, about a year ago or so (it was actually a film), that was a take off on Dead Poet's Society?  Where the teacher is leaving, he's been fired, he's got his box of stuff in his hand, and one of the students stands on his chair and recites a line from I guess it was a Whitman poem, one of the poems they read in class.  Then another one does.  Then a third one does. And a fourth.  Then Pete Davidson stands up on his chair to recite the line... and gets his head chopped off by the ceiling fan. Sounds morbid but it was HILARIOUS. 

A quick google of the actor and "ceiling fan" and you should find it.

 :lol Haven't seen that one. Though, your description got me laughing in my cube anyway.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 27, 2017, 10:12:17 AM
I guess my concern is who is writing the report and what kind of details are verified before publishing. If the current administration doesn't even want certain agencies to communicate with the people - why this specific item? The ease of use for propaganda is high.

The meme was to just identify what spawned my initial digging into the EO - it wasn't meant to really be the source of the topic.

And serious kudos to you for digging in.  It seems like today, most people wouldn't bother, but they wouldn't hesitate to toss their opinions in there as if they matter, even if they were based on faulty information (and no, I'm not at all singling out Coz; my fandom of Coz is well-documented, and he's shown himself to be aware of what's going on in the world; we're all allowed a mistake or two now and again).

And you're right; we still have to be diligent on how the process is followed. Good post.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on January 27, 2017, 10:52:29 AM
I guess my concern is who is writing the report and what kind of details are verified before publishing. If the current administration doesn't even want certain agencies to communicate with the people - why this specific item? The ease of use for propaganda is high.

The meme was to just identify what spawned my initial digging into the EO - it wasn't meant to really be the source of the topic.
I think it's a really interesting issue, and you really hit on the crux of the problem.  The ease of use for propaganda is high.  That, and the fact that it in some ways seems to resemble certain propaganda that you highlighted by posting that meme should cause an immediate reaction.  As a society, such things should raise red flags and make us say, "whoa, wait a minute.  Let's take a closer look here." 

But once we do take a closer look, I come down where Stadler does on the issue.  Because there is a potential for abuse doesn't mean that this is wrong--it just means we take a close look and be careful with it.  As long as there is no actual abuse, this could actually be a positive in terms of educating the population as to why more strictly enforcing the existing immigration laws is something that might be good for the country.  And that being the case, I cannot really have much problem with this, at least on concept.  That said, there may very well be problems in execution and/or how it is used.  But we'll have to wait and see.
I think the problem is that it really serves no purpose other than to incite indignation in one group against another group. I'm on board with your second point, but my point about blacks or homosexuals is still valid, for the reason that the results would be exactly the same. It would suggest that all black people are thugs and homosexuals are degenerates. This would simply portray illegals as child molesters and drunken murderers.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on January 27, 2017, 10:54:58 AM
I think he knows better (with the tariffs) and is weighing political expedience now versus perfect economics ten years from now.  "Tariffs" are a populist platform - even Hillary and Bernie called for them (and they were wrong too) - and he's got to ride that for the time being.   It is after all an effective negotiation tool.

To me, that is exactly what I saw the 20% threat as.  The US accounts for 80% of Mexico's exports and a 20% tax would crush Mexico (and of course hurt the US as well, but not as much).  I think that may bring Mexico back to the negotiating table.  It's a tactic.  We will see if it works or backfires.  I still wish we'd invest the money in something other than the wall, but it seems a lot of the country voted for this.
I don't think it would hurt Mexico all that much, but it'd piss me off to pay $5/lb for asparagus. The problem is that Mexicans tend to be prideful. Nieto had approval ratings that would make W laugh at him before yesterday. Now people are rallying around him for telling Grabby to fuck off, and rightly so. We'd be doing the same thing.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 27, 2017, 11:17:56 AM
Yeah, the 20% tariff wouldn't hurt Mexico, because they would just pass on the costs to us. 

So, instead of building the wall and making Mexico pay for it (his campaign promise), Trump will now build the wall with U.S. money (Ryan and McConnell have already voiced consent) and "pay for it" with a 20% tariff on Mexico, for which the costs will be passed to consumers. 

Meaning, instead of Mexico paying for a wall, we the U.S. citizens will pay for the fucking wall twice.

Not to mention that 30-40% of illegal immigrants don't even come in over the land border - they fly into the country, and just stay here once their visas expire.  The wall that we pay for TWICE won't do a thing to stop that traffic.

So remind me again how this will be beneficial or makes any sense?  Tell me how the party of small government and fiscal responsibility can possibly endorse this?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: jsbru on January 27, 2017, 12:06:58 PM
And mine was on chaos theory and the practice of law.   We probably have a lot to talk about outside of politics.

Anyway, ECONOMIC THEORY, not "free market capitalism" is predicated on THE AGGREGATE of behavior being by "rational actors".  It is widely understood that this is a failure of most economic theory, since economic systems tend to operate as most other systems do, with start up conditions that sometimes do not reflect equilibrium conditions.   I understand that it's "pop economics", but if you read the second of Stephen Levine's "Freakonomics" books, there's a whole chapter (the one about the murder that 20 people "watched" then en masse "misreported") on this idea.

Simply put, you cannot look at this process in ever-smaller increments and assume that all conditions hold at all times, and that every individual act is "rational".  The bulk are, and over time the rational actions drive the system, but after weeks (and perhaps months) of conventional wisdom - that Hillary was going to win by 5% +/-, and likely more, as people went into the booth (much like Obama did better against Romney than the late polls suggested, and certainly far better than Romney's flawed data suggested; remember, this is largely what cemented Nate Silver's reputation as a prognosticator) AND Dems were going to regain at least the House, but likely the Senate as well, and several Governor-ships were up for grabs - when the election started to look like it might not play out as planned - not just at the Presidential level, but at local level as well - there was a short period of "what the f*** do I do NOW?", when we were faced with the known, Hillary, but the unknown, in the form of the Senate/House/governors.   So markets reacted to the uncertainty.  Then as more information came in - in the form of those local races falling to the right, and the bigger picture emerging that not only was Trump going to win this, but he was also going to have a friendly Congress, the markets began to calm back down, confidence rose, and the market followed suit.

I don't disagree with any of this in theory.  I just disagree with your timeline of events, which I think can be pretty objectively proven.  I think it was very clear that Trump was going to be the surprise winner before the futures market tanked that night.

Now, it corrected itself by the next day, but the market's first reaction to Trump winning was not exactly "yay, no more regulations!"  It was more like "Oh fuck, America is coming apart at the seams!"  I think by the next morning, people probably pretty much figured out that this is still a constitutional democracy, and Congress will still be able to stop Trump from doing anything that blows up the free market.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: jsbru on January 27, 2017, 12:12:44 PM
If Grabby published a weekly newsletter of crimes committed by black folk would we say "yeah, there's no problem there?" How about homosexuals? The object of the exercise is not to help law enforcement, but to paint a particular group of people in a bad light.

Exactly.

Why not publish a list of crimes committed by white people only?

The fact that he's limiting this list solely to a marginalized group of people he likes to use as a punching bag is very facist-ey.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 27, 2017, 01:51:50 PM
I guess my concern is who is writing the report and what kind of details are verified before publishing. If the current administration doesn't even want certain agencies to communicate with the people - why this specific item? The ease of use for propaganda is high.

The meme was to just identify what spawned my initial digging into the EO - it wasn't meant to really be the source of the topic.
I think it's a really interesting issue, and you really hit on the crux of the problem.  The ease of use for propaganda is high.  That, and the fact that it in some ways seems to resemble certain propaganda that you highlighted by posting that meme should cause an immediate reaction.  As a society, such things should raise red flags and make us say, "whoa, wait a minute.  Let's take a closer look here." 

But once we do take a closer look, I come down where Stadler does on the issue.  Because there is a potential for abuse doesn't mean that this is wrong--it just means we take a close look and be careful with it.  As long as there is no actual abuse, this could actually be a positive in terms of educating the population as to why more strictly enforcing the existing immigration laws is something that might be good for the country.  And that being the case, I cannot really have much problem with this, at least on concept.  That said, there may very well be problems in execution and/or how it is used.  But we'll have to wait and see.
I think the problem is that it really serves no purpose other than to incite indignation in one group against another group. I'm on board with your second point, but my point about blacks or homosexuals is still valid, for the reason that the results would be exactly the same. It would suggest that all black people are thugs and homosexuals are degenerates. This would simply portray illegals as child molesters and drunken murderers.

But I think you're still missing the fundamental point:  being black or homosexual isn't "illegal" in and of itself.  Being "illegal" - i.e. an illegal alien - IS.  By definition.  So whereas you are taking an otherwise upstanding person and publicizing their mistakes, here, you're taking someone who is technically a "criminal" and highlighting their criminal behavior.   
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XJDenton on January 27, 2017, 01:57:43 PM
Would you be in favour (or at least not care about) releasing the personal details of all known file sharers then?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: TAC on January 27, 2017, 03:24:48 PM
  This would simply portray illegals as child molesters and drunken murderers.

Well, it would portray criminal illegals as such.



Because there is a potential for abuse doesn't mean that this is wrong--it just means we take a close look and be careful with it.  As long as there is no actual abuse, this could actually be a positive in terms of educating the population as to why......... is something that might be good for the country.  And that being the case, I cannot really have much problem with this, at least on concept.  That said, there may very well be problems in execution and/or how it is used.  But we'll have to wait and see.
I feel like this is Trump across the board.
For the most part, I understand the Red Flags that seem to be going up hourly, but I guess I am in "wait and see" mode on most of it.


Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: pogoowner on January 27, 2017, 03:34:21 PM
  This would simply portray illegals as child molesters and drunken murderers.

Well, it would portray criminal illegals as such.
But what is the upside? What is the goal, if not to just rile people up unnecessarily and build/reinforce negative stereotypes?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on January 27, 2017, 03:37:06 PM
But I think you're still missing the fundamental point:  being black or homosexual isn't "illegal" in and of itself.  Being "illegal" - i.e. an illegal alien - IS.  By definition.  So whereas you are taking an otherwise upstanding person and publicizing their mistakes, here, you're taking someone who is technically a "criminal" and highlighting their criminal behavior.

Since you're publicizing their crimes, it's safe to say that they're all criminals. Fine, upstanding citizens who make mistake don't wind up on wanted posters in the post office. "Here's a list of crimes committed by criminals. And here's a list of crimes committed by, well, people who commit crimes." And again, the intent is the same. The FBI issues wanted posters to help solve crimes. Grabby is just trying to anger people at a subset of the population.

  This would simply portray illegals as child molesters and drunken murderers.

Well, it would portray criminal illegals as such.
Nah, you know better than that. If you saw a daily stream of examples of black people who committed crimes could you eventually start to think "Christ, they're all criminals!"? The average American?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: TAC on January 27, 2017, 03:40:38 PM
But what is the upside? What is the goal, if not to just rile people up unnecessarily and build/reinforce negative stereotypes?

Not saying I personally agree with it, but if I had to say...

it would be to try and scare people on the fence onto Trumps side, or, maybe it may act as a deterrent.


Nah, you know better than that. If you saw a daily stream of examples of black people who committed crimes could you eventually start to think "Christ, they're all criminals!"? The average American?
My comment was more tongue in cheek. I actually forgot to put one of these.. ;D...at the end.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: pogoowner on January 27, 2017, 08:09:16 PM
So Trump said today that he would give Christians priority when trying to enter the United States? That is... problematic to say the least.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Cool Chris on January 27, 2017, 09:14:01 PM
I am all for this temporary ban on refugees. Vetting aside, we cannot continue to take in so many thousands and thousands of people and expect our society to continue to strive toward prosperity. Our schools are underfunded, our healthcare is in mediocre/bad/terrible (depending on whom you ask) shape, people are without jobs. As good as it may feel to bring in refugees, they are only going to stretch our resources further, for a segment of the population who is only going to require a disproportionate amount of services and never really assimilate to our culture. I am generalizing, I know there are plenty of success stories of current refugees. But these other countries, not just Sandland, need to get their shit together. It shouldn't be up to the US to take all those trying to escape those shitholes. I don't want the US to get involved with that either, but of course, that is a topic for another thread.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: jsbru on January 27, 2017, 10:00:21 PM
I am all for this temporary ban on refugees. Vetting aside, we cannot continue to take in so many thousands and thousands of people and expect our society to continue to strive toward prosperity. Our schools are underfunded, our healthcare is in mediocre/bad/terrible (depending on whom you ask) shape, people are without jobs. As good as it may feel to bring in refugees, they are only going to stretch our resources further, for a segment of the population who is only going to require a disproportionate amount of services and never really assimilate to our culture. I am generalizing, I know there are plenty of success stories of current refugees. But these other countries, not just Sandland, need to get their shit together. It shouldn't be up to the US to take all those trying to escape those shitholes. I don't want the US to get involved with that either, but of course, that is a topic for another thread.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2016/sep/28/tom-delay/tom-delay-says-most-illegal-immigrants-draw-welfar/

A long article on correcting various false claims about illegal immigrants.

A lot of them actually pay taxes into programs they're not eligible for, so they are a net gain for legal Americans regarding Social Security, Medicare, etc.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigrants-and-taxes/499604/

I'm guessing that the net effect of all this is that they're a net gain for US Taxpayers, and instead of straining the system, they're actually helping to prop it up so that actual US Citizens can retire in security.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: TL on January 27, 2017, 11:35:00 PM
Regarding Trump's "Immigrant Crime" list that he's going to be publishing; I can think of another example of a government doing that sort of thing;
https://www.indy100.com/article/trump-weekly-list-immigrants-crimes-hitler-comparisons-7547211

Seriously. This isn't a thing civilized society does. Publicly publishing a weekly list of crimes committed by "outsiders" is a fucked up thing to do. No one should be defending this bullshit. This isn't just "political differences" at this point. This is a preemptive excuse to treat immigrants inhumanely. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: TL on January 27, 2017, 11:45:36 PM
I am all for this temporary ban on refugees. Vetting aside, we cannot continue to take in so many thousands and thousands of people and expect our society to continue to strive toward prosperity. Our schools are underfunded, our healthcare is in mediocre/bad/terrible (depending on whom you ask) shape, people are without jobs. As good as it may feel to bring in refugees, they are only going to stretch our resources further, for a segment of the population who is only going to require a disproportionate amount of services and never really assimilate to our culture. I am generalizing, I know there are plenty of success stories of current refugees. But these other countries, not just Sandland, need to get their shit together. It shouldn't be up to the US to take all those trying to escape those shitholes. I don't want the US to get involved with that either, but of course, that is a topic for another thread.
Canada has brought in over 50,000 Syrian refugees so far, and we're planning on bringing in more. The US has taken in about 14,000 Syrian refugees. The US has a population about 10 times the size of Canada's.
I can assure you, Canada isn't exactly busting at the seams from this.
In fact, the refugees we've brought in have been fitting in pretty well.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/syrian-refugees-in-edmonton-step-up-to-help-fort-mcmurray-fire-evacuees-1.3581122
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/lethbridge-syrian-refugees-1.3954156
http://globalnews.ca/news/2928562/syrian-refugee-families-embrace-life-in-halifax/
http://www.metronews.ca/news/halifax/2016/07/03/syrian-refugees-near-halifax-eager-for-jobs-in-new-country.html
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/sharing-happiness-refugee-family-looks-to-expand-chocolate-business-in-canada-1.3186594
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/small-business/startups/newly-settled-syrian-refugees-turn-to-entrepreneurship/article30677240/

We've been welcoming in refugees from the Syrian conflict in big numbers since 2015, and so far, there hasn't been a single security problem.

You're right. It isn't up to the US to take in Syrian refugees, because the US has barely taken any, while many countries around the world have stepped up.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Adami on January 27, 2017, 11:59:10 PM
While I agree with all your points, I just want to point out a quick correction that the US has taken a bit under 14,000 refugees.

This doesn't change your point in the slightest, just wanted to correct the number.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: TL on January 28, 2017, 12:11:53 AM
While I agree with all your points, I just want to point out a quick correction that the US has taken a bit under 14,000 refugees.

This doesn't change your point in the slightest, just wanted to correct the number.
Noted and corrected.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on January 28, 2017, 10:37:38 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3RLNGSUcAId6da.jpg:large)

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/green-card-holders-included-trump-152535025.html

Look I think the EO on the whole is awful but what the hell is the point of preventing green card holders from re-entering the US?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XeRocks81 on January 28, 2017, 10:41:47 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3RLNGSUcAId6da.jpg:large)

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/green-card-holders-included-trump-152535025.html

Look I think the EO on the whole is awful but what the hell is the point of preventing green card holders from re-entering the US?

this is the kind of shit people were "TERRIFIED!"  about after the election but were told it was the wrong choice of word because it supposedly denoted some sort of left wing media conspiracy.   :yeahright
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on January 28, 2017, 10:46:22 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/refugees-detained-at-us-airports-prompting-legal-challenges-to-trumps-immigration-order.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

The anecdotes in here make me sick.



Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on January 28, 2017, 10:46:52 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3RLNGSUcAId6da.jpg:large)

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/green-card-holders-included-trump-152535025.html

Look I think the EO on the whole is awful but what the hell is the point of preventing green card holders from re-entering the US?

this is the kind of shit people were "TERRIFIED!"  about after the election but were told it was the wrong choice of word because it supposedly denoted some sort of left wing media conspiracy.   :yeahright
(https://cdn.meme.am/cache/images/folder722/300x/11590722.jpg)
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: chknptpie on January 28, 2017, 02:11:48 PM
I get the "wait and see" attitude... but my socially-liberal-spidey-sense is tingling with all these puzzle pieces...
Refusing to denounce the KKK
Says judge is biased because he has Mexican heritage
Retweets Breitbart
Stop and Frisk
Steve Bannon nomination
Building a wall
Illegal immigrant news distribution
Immigrant and refugee ban from countries he doesn't have businesses in

I know these pieces may belong to different puzzles... but it makes a sort of picture in my head
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: portnoy311 on January 28, 2017, 05:51:01 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3RLNGSUcAId6da.jpg:large)

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/green-card-holders-included-trump-152535025.html

Look I think the EO on the whole is awful but what the hell is the point of preventing green card holders from re-entering the US?

this is the kind of shit people were "TERRIFIED!"  about after the election but were told it was the wrong choice of word because it supposedly denoted some sort of left wing media conspiracy.   :yeahright


Exactly. Everything I was terrified of is happening. I was very warranted in that feeling, and nothing that has happened since has allayed that feeling.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: TAC on January 28, 2017, 06:05:47 PM
Steve Bannon nomination

That guy gives me the creeps.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: pogoowner on January 28, 2017, 06:09:56 PM
Lots of horror stories coming out of airports today. And the DHS said they weren't consulted at all prior to the executive order being signed. Their people had no direction on how to interpret or enforce it.

The JFK protest looks huge from the pictures/videos I've seen, and they have volunteer lawyers huddling on the airport floor drafting paperwork to try to help detainees. Sounds like the same is going on all over the country.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: jammindude on January 28, 2017, 07:15:14 PM
Now I guess a stay has been issued by a judge....wow, this is just a mess.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Lucien on January 28, 2017, 07:23:18 PM
This is indefensible.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: axeman90210 on January 28, 2017, 07:47:57 PM
I'm choosing to take encouragement in the action of the lawyers working pro bono and the citizens protesting at JFK and other airports around the country rather than disheartened by the sorry actions of our commander in chief.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: RuRoRul on January 28, 2017, 08:26:35 PM
Also going on:

Trump Gives Stephen Bannon Access to the National Security Council (https://www.theatlantic.com/liveblogs/2017/01/todays-news-jan-28-2017/514826/14243/)

Quote
The order also said the Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff would no longer be automatic principals on the committee.

So when it comes to National Security, it's Stephen Bannon in, and potentially even intelligence and military leaders out.

It's all good though. I'm sure people will be along soon to assure everyone that Bannon is a good egg.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: axeman90210 on January 28, 2017, 08:31:53 PM
I'm uncomfortable with Bannon being allowed on a tour of the White House, let alone him having the position that he does.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XeRocks81 on January 28, 2017, 09:08:21 PM
Yeah I'd almost forgotten about ol'  "BANNON!"  How swell
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: pogoowner on January 28, 2017, 09:13:16 PM
Some good info here. This whole thing smells like Bannon.

Quote
Friday night, DHS arrived at the legal interpretation that the executive order restrictions applying to seven countries -- Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen -- did not apply to people who with lawful permanent residence, generally referred to as green card holders.
The White House overruled that guidance overnight, according to officials familiar with the rollout. That order came from the President's inner circle, led by Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon. Their decision held that, on a case by case basis, DHS could allow green card holders to enter the US.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban/index.html

Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Cool Chris on January 28, 2017, 09:45:03 PM
Christians persecuted all over the world: Liberals yawn.

A dozen Muslims held up at the airport: Liberals lose their minds.

He said, to stir up the pot  :)
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: chknptpie on January 28, 2017, 09:49:47 PM
Christians persecuted all over the world: Liberals yawn.

A dozen Muslims held up at the airport: Liberals lose their minds.

He said, to stir up the pot  :)
Can you give me some information on Christians being persecuted?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Adami on January 28, 2017, 10:03:27 PM
Christians persecuted all over the world: Liberals yawn.

A dozen Muslims held up at the airport: Liberals lose their minds.

He said, to stir up the pot  :)
Can you give me some information on Christians being persecuted?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alon-benmeir/the-persecution-of-christ_b_13652002.html

It's not all over the world, it's specifically in parts of the Middle East, Africa and Southern Asia.

It's happening and it's truly disgusting.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on January 28, 2017, 10:05:41 PM
The incompetence of these people is really staggering
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban/index.html
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: jsbru on January 28, 2017, 10:18:25 PM
Fascism yet?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/28/lobbying-ban-trump-executive-order-isis-strategy?CMP=share_btn_fb

Quote
President Donald Trump granted controversial adviser Steve Bannon a regular seat at meetings of the National Security Council on Saturday, in a presidential memorandum that brought the former Breitbart publisher into some of the most sensitive meetings at the highest levels of government.

The president named Bannon to the council in a reorganization of the NSC. He also said his chief-of-staff Reince Priebus would have a seat in the meetings.

Trump also said the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the director of national intelligence, two of the most senior defense chiefs, will attend meetings only when discussions are related to their “responsibilities and expertise”. Barack Obama and George W Bush both gave the men in those roles regular seats on the council.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is THE highest ranking armed forces officer in our country.  He and the Director of National Intelligence are being replaced by Steve Bannon, whose expertise is in alt-right propaganda.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on January 28, 2017, 10:25:39 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/c4jt321.png)
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Adami on January 28, 2017, 10:27:40 PM
Fascism yet?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/28/lobbying-ban-trump-executive-order-isis-strategy?CMP=share_btn_fb

Quote
President Donald Trump granted controversial adviser Steve Bannon a regular seat at meetings of the National Security Council on Saturday, in a presidential memorandum that brought the former Breitbart publisher into some of the most sensitive meetings at the highest levels of government.

The president named Bannon to the council in a reorganization of the NSC. He also said his chief-of-staff Reince Priebus would have a seat in the meetings.

Trump also said the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the director of national intelligence, two of the most senior defense chiefs, will attend meetings only when discussions are related to their “responsibilities and expertise”. Barack Obama and George W Bush both gave the men in those roles regular seats on the council.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is THE highest ranking armed forces officer in our country.  He and the Director of National Intelligence are being replaced by Steve Bannon, whose expertise is in alt-right propaganda.

You might want to read the thread a bit before posting. I think this is the 2nd time you've posted something shortly after someone else already did.

And calling it fascism (as of yet) doesn't help productive convo.

/modmode.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: portnoy311 on January 28, 2017, 10:59:05 PM
Atheists the least trusted demographic in America : Christians rejoice. Anyone can make up fake headlines (although by some metrics what I said is true). The unconstitutionality of banning legal immigration is the issue. This is hardly a few Muslims being delayed at the airport.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: chknptpie on January 28, 2017, 11:37:32 PM
Christians persecuted all over the world: Liberals yawn.

A dozen Muslims held up at the airport: Liberals lose their minds.

He said, to stir up the pot  :)
Can you give me some information on Christians being persecuted?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alon-benmeir/the-persecution-of-christ_b_13652002.html

It's not all over the world, it's specifically in parts of the Middle East, Africa and Southern Asia.

It's happening and it's truly disgusting.
Okay, so please correct me if I'm way off base here... but it sounds like christians are persecuted where they are the minority and where religious freedom is not necessarily a given right? This is different from the issues in America, where religious minorities are persecuted (not christians?) but religious freedom is a given right?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: SwedishGoose on January 28, 2017, 11:40:47 PM
Was under the weather yesterday and woke up today to a facebook status update from a woman living in the United States of America since 7 years who was forced to leave a plane going from Dubai to her home....

A woman who has a job, an appartment and a dog in USA that she was not allowed to return to after a visit to her previous hometown of Teheran.

Totally appaled at Donald Trumps actions..... glad that there are leaders in the world who have other thoughts around these issues. I am espescially thinking of Justin Trudeau whos reaction to this is to welcome the refugees to Canada.

Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: jsbru on January 28, 2017, 11:47:51 PM
Christians being persecuted around the world is definitely a problem.  My own ancestors moved to this very country because they were the wrong type of Christians, and they were being tortured and killed where they lived.

However, the current outrage is about people being persecuted here, so people care more about what our own country is responsible for.  Not necessarily being tortured, burned at the stake, etc.  But being treated as less than human compared to other people of similar immigration status.  If Christians were being persecuted here, the outrage would likely be louder.

The last time our Federal government engaged in such an overt act of discrimination might have been the Japanese internment camps.  The last time a significant number of state governments did so was Jim Crow.

Today's immigrants aren't being subject to conditions that are as bad, but the discriminatory motive is just as clear.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XJDenton on January 29, 2017, 12:09:38 AM
He said, to stir up the pot  :)

How about you don't do that?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Chino on January 29, 2017, 12:33:25 AM
This man is a clown. Fucking disgrace. Land of the free and home of the brave? Bullshit. I'm disgusted.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: SwedishGoose on January 29, 2017, 12:44:25 AM
The director of the Swedish film "A man called Ove", Asghar Farhadi, might win an Oscar but he wont be allowed to go and recieve it himself. Nice work mr President...
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: jsbru on January 29, 2017, 01:05:46 AM
Just goes to show you what an international embarrassment this all is.  There is historical precedent of a collapse of a powerful empire.  Rome got so powerful and its actual citizens got so spoiled that its culture internally crumbled and eventually led to chaos.

But there wasn't social media around to watch it all happen real time.  Nor was there historical precedent at that time for their citizens to have learned from.

There's a lot of complaints these days about how spoiled "liberal millennials" are.  But how spoiled do you have to be to be descended from immigrants (which nearly all of us are), and yet take a position supporting Trump's presidency?  National security is a poor excuse, because most (if not all) the 9/11 attackers were from or based out of countries not on this list.  How spoiled do you have to be to cast aspersions at illegal immigrants that do work that you're actually too lazy to do at the pay that is actually offered, who often pay into Social Security and Medicare via payroll taxes and yet aren't even eligible for those programs themselves?  They're funding YOUR retirement.

Contrary to popular belief, red states are generally larger consumers of federal government welfare than blue states.  California is a net producer of government income.  So is Illinois.  Texas is a net consumer.  If Atlas actually shrugged in this country, it would be the conservative areas that felt the blow.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/

The self-righteousness among some people in this country that fuels this vision that only they are the hard workers, and everyone else is a lazy interloper, is hard to ignore, especially how this narrative fits in to the immigration story.

But in reality, they have the narrative backwards.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: ? on January 29, 2017, 06:37:59 AM
So first Trump blames Obama and Clinton for creating ISIS and then - as a yuuuge sign of responsibility - blocks (among others) those fleeing from ISIS from entering the US...
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XJDenton on January 29, 2017, 06:41:38 AM
Quote from: https://www.theatlantic.com/liveblogs/2017/01/todays-news-jan-28-2017/514826/14243/
President Trump signed a memorandum late Saturday afternoon that reorganizes the National Security Council (NSC), including Steve Bannon, the former chair of Breitbart Media and his chief strategist and senior counselor, as well as Reince Priebus, his chief of staff, on its principals committee. The decision is unusual because such positions are not normally given to political operatives. Bannon has been among the most controversial of Trump’s advisors, because of his association with the racist and anti-Semitic “Alt-Right.”

The order also said the Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff would no longer be automatic principals on the committee. Trump said the reorganization is meant to streamline the NSC. He said it would bring “a lot of efficiency and, I think, a lot of additional safety,” The Washington Post reported.

“People have talked about doing this for a long time. Like, many years.” The memorandum read that "security threats facing the United States in the 21st century transcend international boundaries. Accordingly, the United States Government's decision-making structures and processes to address these challenges must remain equally adaptive and transformative."

...dafuq.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Elite on January 29, 2017, 06:41:58 AM
This man is a clown. Fucking disgrace. Land of the free and home of the brave? Bullshit. I'm disgusted.

The USA is becoming the laughing stock of the world, if they weren't already after the inauguration. This complete inbecile is bypassing democracy with his ridiculous 'executive orders' and I can't imagine that this will go on forever. How about something new? Remove him asap.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: TAC on January 29, 2017, 07:04:51 AM
Even The Lovely Mrs. TAC, who is a staunch Republican, thought this was nuts.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: axeman90210 on January 29, 2017, 07:12:03 AM
Quote from: https://www.theatlantic.com/liveblogs/2017/01/todays-news-jan-28-2017/514826/14243/
President Trump signed a memorandum late Saturday afternoon that reorganizes the National Security Council (NSC), including Steve Bannon, the former chair of Breitbart Media and his chief strategist and senior counselor, as well as Reince Priebus, his chief of staff, on its principals committee. The decision is unusual because such positions are not normally given to political operatives. Bannon has been among the most controversial of Trump’s advisors, because of his association with the racist and anti-Semitic “Alt-Right.”

The order also said the Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff would no longer be automatic principals on the committee. Trump said the reorganization is meant to streamline the NSC. He said it would bring “a lot of efficiency and, I think, a lot of additional safety,” The Washington Post reported.

“People have talked about doing this for a long time. Like, many years.” The memorandum read that "security threats facing the United States in the 21st century transcend international boundaries. Accordingly, the United States Government's decision-making structures and processes to address these challenges must remain equally adaptive and transformative."

...dafuq.

Was just coming in here to mention this. Disturbing to see Bannon gaining even more power/influence.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XJDenton on January 29, 2017, 07:24:32 AM
While disturbing, I'm more worried by the fact that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Director of National Intelligence are no longer permanent members.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: KevShmev on January 29, 2017, 07:59:14 AM
I'm in favor of making it less easy for non-citizens to get into this country, but this is not the way to do it.  No bueno.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Elite on January 29, 2017, 08:08:31 AM
You do know that the USA has a ridiculously strict immigration policy as it stand already, though? Entering your country is by no means easy, moving to the USA is even way more difficult.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: KevShmev on January 29, 2017, 08:10:48 AM
You do know that the USA has a ridiculously strict immigration policy as it stand already, though? Entering your country is by no means easy, moving to the USA is even way more difficult.

I am aware, yes.  Maybe I should have said "more difficult" rather than "less easy."  Because I think it should be even more difficult, but, again, not this way.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: eric42434224 on January 29, 2017, 08:13:48 AM
But WHY more difficult?  The numbers and facts clearly show the existing immigration policy and procedures work.  It takes 12-18 months of extreme vetting to get in, and those immigrants are NOT the ones committing terrorist acts.  The overwhelming majority of terror in US since 9-11 is home-grown.  Also, why not a ban from the countries where the 9-11 terrorists came from? 

This is simply playing on FEAR.  Irrational fear.


EDIT: This kind of stuff will make our country LESS safe.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Scorpion on January 29, 2017, 08:23:01 AM
You do know that the USA has a ridiculously strict immigration policy as it stand already, though? Entering your country is by no means easy, moving to the USA is even way more difficult.

I am aware, yes.  Maybe I should have said "more difficult" rather than "less easy."  Because I think it should be even more difficult, but, again, not this way.

What changes to immigration policy would you like to see implemented?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on January 29, 2017, 09:18:19 AM
from a real clear politics/cnn reporter

(https://puu.sh/tFu4H/1264d97148.png)
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Implode on January 29, 2017, 10:37:19 AM
This is all disgusting.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Chino on January 29, 2017, 11:28:31 AM
Bannon on the national security council. Are you kidding me?  We've replaced the highest ranking military official with Steve fucking Bannon.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: RuRoRul on January 29, 2017, 11:41:52 AM
“The media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while. I want you to quote me on this. The media here is the opposition party."
- Steve Bannon, 2017 as White House Chief Strategist.

“We’re the platform for the alt-right."
- Steve Bannon on Breitbart, July 2016, shortly before leaving Breitbart to head Trump's campaign in August.

“Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal, too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.”
- Steve Bannon, 2013.

But there's no reason at all to be concernd about the future of the integrity of institutions, equal rights, or freedom of the press.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: orcus116 on January 29, 2017, 11:49:21 AM
Is there a point where one of the other branches steps in via checks and balances?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: jsbru on January 29, 2017, 12:21:40 PM
I'm in favor of making it less easy for non-citizens to get into this country, but this is not the way to do it.  No bueno.

But why?

Immigrants in general are good for our economy.  A lot of people look at it as if there's a finite number of jobs, and immigrants take some of those.  But that's not the case.  Population growth also means more demand, more customers.  In general, this helps a domestic economy grow.

It's also shown that immigrants are entrepreneurs at a higher rate than American-born citizens, so not only are they creating more demand domestically, they're potentially creating more exports for the US economy.

Study: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups (http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2016/03/17/study-immigrants-founded-51-of-u-s-billion-dollar-startups/)

40 Percent of Fortune 500 Companies Founded by Immigrants or Their Children (http://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2011/06/19/40-percent-of-fortune-500-companies-founded-by-immigrants-or-their-children/#125889e87a22)

The Most Entrepreneurial Group in America Wasn't Born in America (http://www.inc.com/magazine/201502/adam-bluestein/the-most-entrepreneurial-group-in-america-wasnt-born-in-america.html)

Turning people away at the border is like waiving away economic growth.  I don't understand how that policy helps us.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: jsbru on January 29, 2017, 12:36:51 PM
And also, specific to St. Louis:

This city let in tens of thousands of mostly Muslim refugees. Here’s what happened. (http://fusion.net/story/238682/the-miracle-of-little-bosnia/)

More, please.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: TAC on January 29, 2017, 12:43:55 PM
jsbru, that is very interesting.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Cool Chris on January 29, 2017, 03:22:19 PM
He said, to stir up the pot  :)

How about you don't do that?

XJ, I didn't post that intending it to be flame bait. Many people feel this way, and I wanted to post an alternative viewpoint.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Adami on January 29, 2017, 03:25:30 PM
He said, to stir up the pot  :)

How about you don't do that?

XJ, I didn't post that intending it to be flame bait. Many people feel this way, and I wanted to post an alternative viewpoint.

Sure, but how about we say it a little differently.

Christians (and dozens of other smaller religious groups) persecuted all over the world: Liberals feel powerless because there's literally nothing to be done most of the time.

America rejects long standing principles and screws over thousands of people for no real value at all: Human beings lose their minds.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XJDenton on January 29, 2017, 03:30:40 PM
He said, to stir up the pot  :)

How about you don't do that?

XJ, I didn't post that intending it to be flame bait. Many people feel this way, and I wanted to post an alternative viewpoint.

Debate is fine, stirring the pot means to deliberately sow dissent and unrest for its own sake. That is not needed here.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: TAC on January 29, 2017, 03:34:07 PM
Yeah, there's plenty of that on its own!
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: TAC on January 29, 2017, 03:46:57 PM
I'm not saying people are overreacting, but for discussion's sake, this is really targeted at just 7 countries with poor governmental controls. Isn't this order rally just to prevent people from "piling in" before a new and likely more stringent immigration policy is enacted.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Adami on January 29, 2017, 03:50:00 PM
I'm not saying people are overreacting, but for discussion's sake, this is really targeted at just 7 countries with poor governmental controls. Isn't this order rally just to prevent people from "piling in" before a new and likely more stringent immigration policy is enacted.

Not really. People aren't piling in. Most of what this did was take people from those countries who have already followed legal means of coming to America and leave them stranded or in limbo.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: TAC on January 29, 2017, 03:52:42 PM
Well, I understand that and I think that is unfortunate but I just feel like he's preventing people from flooding (a bit strong but I don't know what else to use) in before the door closes, so to speak.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Adami on January 29, 2017, 03:54:52 PM
Well, I understand that and I think that is unfortunate but I just feel like he's preventing people from flooding (a bit strong but I don't know what else to use) in before the door closes, so to speak.

Oh I get that, but like I said, people aren't flooding in. As people have pointed out, it's already really difficult to come here. He didn't make it harder, he made it impossible, and then screwed over people who already followed the rules. This didn't accomplish anything along the lines of stopping illegals from flooding in or stopping a huge influx of people.

Plus he included Iran for no real reason, but people from Egypt and Saudi Arabia are perfectly cool. There's just not much logic to it.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Elite on January 29, 2017, 04:14:02 PM
It's immoral, ridiculous and just completely wrong. What the hell was he thinking? This whole thing was 't even thought out properly. What the hell did DJT think would happen? That there would be no repercussions from sensible people at all? Of course not. This is without a doubt a fascist measure that serve no purpose other than to be anti-democratic and nationalistic with an autoritarian flair. It's frankly the most disgusting thing I've seen happen in a Western world 'democracy'.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on January 29, 2017, 04:15:35 PM
People don't just flood in to an American airport. Contrary to Grabby's rhetoric we tend to vet people pretty well. Part of the reason for the ACUL's legal action is because plenty of the people they're sending away have already been as well vetted as you get. Perhaps a person here with experience in this particular matter will chime in on the subject.

And I'm sure I'll be saying this four times a week for however long Manboy is in office, but the big part of the problem is that he just didn't think about how to do it. Even if it was the right idea, and it wasn't, it was handled with the tact of a meth-addled gorilla. This is what you get when you elect a simpleton to get things done.

And something that occurs to me is that I think Grabby sees himself in the hero role. He's going to do the unpopular things that need to be done because nobody else can or will. I actually find that an admirable trait. That's exactly the sort of person we need as a president. The downside is, of course, paragraph two. He's an impulsive manchild who won't act with even a modicum of forethought.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Dave_Manchester on January 29, 2017, 04:16:18 PM
I'm not saying people are overreacting, but for discussion's sake, this is really targeted at just 7 countries with poor governmental controls. Isn't this order rally just to prevent people from "piling in" before a new and likely more stringent immigration policy is enacted.

Possibly so, but my question to Trump here (and it's rhetorical, I know why) is why has he included 7 countries whose citizens have killed precisely nobody on American soil in the last 40 years (for 'terrorist' reasons I mean), whereas citizens of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, Pakistan and United Arab Emirates (whose citizens have killed Americans on American soil, if these things matter, which incidentally they don't, but Trump seems to think they do) are not included in his blanket ban? How (again this is rhetorical), if this is about 'nations which sponsor and foster terrorism', did Somalia and Sudan make the list whereas Saudi Arabia and Pakistan didn't?

What this is (in my opinion of course) is a very ill-advised gesture. Ill-advised because it's revealed things about his foreign policy going forward which he ought to have kept to himself for at least some time longer. This will backfire on him, it's an error in judgement.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Cool Chris on January 29, 2017, 04:20:05 PM
My apologies for the nature of my post. I realize now it was too snarky. This is the most civil place I know to discuss politics. Maybe I need to get out more.

I agree this was poorly thought out and implemented, but I do not feel this is the end of the civilized world. *hyperbole, I know. But I do think we need to make a point of saying that the US cannot save the world. We need to be accepting and welcoming, while still appreciating that we can't become one giant refugee camp. I stress 'refugee' as being different from 'immigrant.' I know that issue is getting muddled here.

jsbru, I don't usually agree with your thoughts and assertions, but I do appreciate your posts, especially when backed up by facts and links. Your posts are usually more insightful than much of what I see the talking heads say on TV.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: TAC on January 29, 2017, 04:21:46 PM
People don't just flood in to an American airport. 

OK. I guess I mean gain entry before there is an official new policy. For discussions sake. I think what happened yesterday is pretty fried.

And I'm sure I'll be saying this four times a week for however long Manboy is in office, but the big part of the problem is that he just didn't think about how to do it. Even if it was the right idea, and it wasn't, it was handled with the tact of a meth-addled gorilla. This is what you get when you elect a simpleton to get things done.

And something that occurs to me is that I think Grabby sees himself in the hero role. He's going to do the unpopular things that need to be done because nobody else can or will. I actually find that an admirable trait. That's exactly the sort of person we need as a president. The downside is, of course, paragraph two. He's an impulsive manchild who won't act with even a modicum of forethought.

Agreed!

Manboy  :lol
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: pogoowner on January 29, 2017, 06:20:11 PM
What I don't think most people realize (not here, but the general population) is that it takes most of these people 18-24 months of extreme scrutiny to even have a shot at getting into the U.S. as it is. Vetting is not the problem, no matter how many times politicians bring it up. Hell, it's pain in the ass to become a resident here if you're from the U.K.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: chknptpie on January 29, 2017, 07:56:56 PM
My husband and I were chatting this morning about possible sports impacts this might have
http://deadspin.com/michael-bradley-gregg-popovich-others-speak-out-on-tr-1791756273

Sports figures opinions aside from that link - there are are a lot of impacts that we still haven't even seen I'm sure.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XeRocks81 on January 29, 2017, 08:41:42 PM
Meanwhile in Quebec there was an attack on a Mosque tonight, several people are dead.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-city-mosque-gun-shots-1.3957686   Shit is just so depressing right now. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: jsbru on January 29, 2017, 08:42:42 PM
I do think the political discussion on here is pretty high quality.  I've been discussing on another sports-related board as well for about the last 12 years or so, and that's very good as well.  The mods are really hands-off there, but the posters are pretty good, so it sort of polices itself.  If you post a personal attack, most people either just ignore you or make fun of you until you leave.

To me, it's a duty of being a citizen in a democracy.  The only way this country can continue to exist as a democracy is if people figure out how to have these discussions in a civilized fashion.  I haven't decided yet if this latest Presidency is going to divide people more, or perhaps make people so sick of divisive nonsense that they do try to find common ground.

I'm sorry if the term "fascist" incites people, but turning immigrants into political pinatas is a political demagogue's tool that's as old as the hills.  A hundred years ago, Irish immigrants were bashed for being unwashed, uneducated, drunken brutes that were here to take our jobs.  Jews were unwanted in this country at one point, too.  Now it's Mexicans.  It's almost invariably a stepping stone towards an authoritarian-right leader's ascent to power.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: chknptpie on January 29, 2017, 09:00:22 PM
https://trofire.com/2017/01/29/donald-trump-filed-re-election-5-hours-sworn-office/
Ive never visited or heard of this site before - but if true, it raises more questions.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Adami on January 29, 2017, 09:08:32 PM
Eh, I have no issue with this. We know who he is, this shouldn't be a shock and frankly, there's nothing wrong with it over showing his skewed priorities.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: chknptpie on January 29, 2017, 09:13:25 PM
Eh, I have no issue with this. We know who he is, this shouldn't be a shock and frankly, there's nothing wrong with it over showing his skewed priorities.
It's the fact that it changes how opposing sides have to change strategy to deal with a candidate verses dealing with the president. That's interesting and not something I knew about. It seems very lawyer-ish thought process I guess?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Adami on January 29, 2017, 09:18:07 PM
Eh, I have no issue with this. We know who he is, this shouldn't be a shock and frankly, there's nothing wrong with it over showing his skewed priorities.
It's the fact that it changes how opposing sides have to change strategy to deal with a candidate verses dealing with the president. That's interesting and not something I knew about. It seems very lawyer-ish thought process I guess?

In the end, the dude is a businessman. Part of being in business is beating the other guy to the punch. He's following the same strategy he always has, the strategy that...well...resulted in him being a billionaire and president of the USA.

Honestly, the dude is doing so many horrible things, that finding more is just unnecessary. It's like discovering that Bin Ladin also neglected his children or something. Not that I'm comparing them as people.

Also, I'm surprised Stadler isn't here to tell us why everything is actually on the up and up. Hope you're okay buddy!
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: pogoowner on January 29, 2017, 11:05:11 PM
Also, I'm surprised Stadler isn't here to tell us why everything is actually on the up and up. Hope you're okay buddy!
The impression I've gotten is that he generally posts from work. So he should be back tomorrow :lol
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Implode on January 29, 2017, 11:26:17 PM
This is actually the most unified I've seen this board in a single topic since the election. Maybe ever.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: pogoowner on January 30, 2017, 12:34:19 AM
https://trofire.com/2017/01/29/donald-trump-filed-re-election-5-hours-sworn-office/
Ive never visited or heard of this site before - but if true, it raises more questions.
From what I'm reading, this article doesn't get it quite right. As long as the organizations criticize his policies rather than just stating whether or not to vote for him, they should be fine, I think.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: jsbru on January 30, 2017, 12:46:40 AM
This is actually the most unified I've seen this board in a single topic since the election. Maybe ever.

It's the most unified I've seen my other board, too.  Also, I don't know a single Republican, conservative, or libertarian from my law school class of 300 or so that actually voted for him (or at least admits to).  Most of them didn't vote for Hillary, but none voted for Trump.

Even many of the few people defending him on here didn't vote for him.  Which really makes me wonder, where his voters actually did come from.

I really don't understand where all his voters came from.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: jsbru on January 30, 2017, 12:48:59 AM
Even my die-hard Catholic pro-life formerly Limbaugh/Hannity fan friends either voted for Hillary or Johnson.  First time either have voted not Republican in their lives.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: BlobVanDam on January 30, 2017, 01:30:44 AM
I really don't understand where all his voters came from.

Edgar Neubauer. Find him and you'll find your answer.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Elite on January 30, 2017, 03:03:02 AM
I really don't understand where all his voters came from.

Edgar Neubauer. Find him and you'll find your answer.

You reckon there's actually voter fraud? I'm not buying that at all.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Scorpion on January 30, 2017, 04:09:00 AM
Trump and his team aren't stupid, so I reckon the whole point is to distract people from his restructuring of the NSC - which almost all "traditional" Republicans are bound to find extremely problematic in the least. Due to the ban, it's gotten a lot less coverage than it probably would have otherwise, and while Trump isn't exactly known for his subtlety, I wouldn't be surprised with this being a scheme of Bannon's.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: BlobVanDam on January 30, 2017, 04:27:55 AM
I really don't understand where all his voters came from.

Edgar Neubauer. Find him and you'll find your answer.

You reckon there's actually voter fraud? I'm not buying that at all.

I was only making the reference for a joke. Don't mistake it for a legitimate comment. :lol
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Chino on January 30, 2017, 05:44:58 AM
I really don't understand where all his voters came from.

Edgar Neubauer. Find him and you'll find your answer.

You reckon there's actually voter fraud? I'm not buying that at all.

There most certainly was voter fraud, even if it was in small capacity.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/01/27/a-trump-supporter-was-charged-with-voting-twice-her-lawyer-says-she-shouldnt-stand-trial-2/?utm_term=.7472c7b2c9a8


A woman who was arrested after voting twice for Donald Trump — and in the process became a flash point in the voter fraud debate — is incompetent to stand trial, her attorney said in a motion filed in Iowa court.
Terri Lynn Rote, 56, was accused in late October of casting two ballots in the general election: an early-voting ballot at the Polk County Election Office and another at a county satellite voting location, according to police records. Rote, a registered Republican, remains charged with first-degree election misconduct, and her felony case has been winding through Iowa courts.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Elite on January 30, 2017, 06:54:23 AM
Trump and his team aren't stupid, so I reckon the whole point is to distract people from his restructuring of the NSC - which almost all "traditional" Republicans are bound to find extremely problematic in the least. Due to the ban, it's gotten a lot less coverage than it probably would have otherwise, and while Trump isn't exactly known for his subtlety, I wouldn't be surprised with this being a scheme of Bannon's.

If 'the media' is so out to get something on Trump, why don't they see through this and report the NSC changes then? There's no reason not to give it coverage. Then again, covering up a scandal with a scandal doesn't really speak a lot for his 'subtlety' indeed.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: TheOutlawXanadu on January 30, 2017, 06:58:53 AM
My apologies if this has already been shared, but for those interested, here's a summary of the existing process for refugees trying to enter the States:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/29/us/refugee-vetting-process.html

Seems thorough enough to me.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on January 30, 2017, 07:15:27 AM
For a group that likes to call others sensitive snowflakes, they sure do like policies that are rooted in irrational fear and emotion! Sad!
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: kaos2900 on January 30, 2017, 07:32:22 AM
My apologies if this has already been shared, but for those interested, here's a summary of the existing process for refugees trying to enter the States:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/29/us/refugee-vetting-process.html

Seems thorough enough to me.

It pained me but I voted for Trump and at this point I'm glad I did. I have absolutely no problem with this temporary 90 day ban and I also have no problem with the vetting process. We can't let people in willy nilly anymore. Is it driven by fear? Sure, but how many innocent people have to die before people change rules? I'm not anti-immigration, I'm anti illegal immigration. If people want to come here I'd welcome them with open arms as long as they follow the rules. What's the harm in going through that vetting process if you have nothing to hide and truly want a better life for you and your family. Same goes for the whole Mexico Wall issue. I have no problem with protecting our boarders.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: TheOutlawXanadu on January 30, 2017, 07:36:49 AM
My apologies if this has already been shared, but for those interested, here's a summary of the existing process for refugees trying to enter the States:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/29/us/refugee-vetting-process.html

Seems thorough enough to me.

It pained me but I voted for Trump and at this point I'm glad I did. I have absolutely no problem with this temporary 90 day ban and I also have no problem with the vetting process. We can't let people in willy nilly anymore. Is it driven by fear? Sure, but how many innocent people have to die before people change rules? I'm not anti-immigration, I'm anti illegal immigration. If people want to come here I'd welcome them with open arms as long as they follow the rules. What's the harm in going through that vetting process if you have nothing to hide and truly want a better life for you and your family. Same goes for the whole Mexico Wall issue. I have no problem with protecting our boarders.

It seems to me like there was already an in-depth vetting process in place, so why the need for a temporary ban at all?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on January 30, 2017, 07:36:58 AM
So when I was for a temp ban on muslims from terrorist countries, this certainly was not what I was shooting for.  I dont understand the ban on people with green cards or visas, who by having those, would have already been vetted and gone through the process (and are clearly not refugees).  I also don't like how this was implemented, seems like it was shoot first and ask questions later, which makes no sense as I don't feel like this was something of extreme urgency that needed to just stop everyone.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Chino on January 30, 2017, 07:37:38 AM
My apologies if this has already been shared, but for those interested, here's a summary of the existing process for refugees trying to enter the States:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/29/us/refugee-vetting-process.html

Seems thorough enough to me.

It pained me but I voted for Trump and at this point I'm glad I did. I have absolutely no problem with this temporary 90 day ban and I also have no problem with the vetting process. We can't let people in willy nilly anymore. Is it driven by fear? Sure, but how many innocent people have to die before people change rules? I'm not anti-immigration, I'm anti illegal immigration. If people want to come here I'd welcome them with open arms as long as they follow the rules. What's the harm in going through that vetting process if you have nothing to hide and truly want a better life for you and your family. Same goes for the whole Mexico Wall issue. I have no problem with protecting our boarders.

Please go find how many people in the United States have been killed by someone in an act of terror, whether they were here legally or not, from any of the banned countries. I'll wait.

Our process is not "willy nilly". Since 9/11, we've let in 745,000 refugees who were vetted out the ass. Two, TWO, have been charged with terrorism related crimes, and those crimes involved sending money to known terrorists outside of the United States and had nothing to do with any harm being done to our citizens. More people died from toddlers getting their hands on pistols last year than have died at the hands of refugees over the last 15.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: kaos2900 on January 30, 2017, 08:02:19 AM
That comment was not directed solely at the US but at Europe as well. The multitude of attacks in Europe have been mainly avoided in the US thanks to the Atlantic Ocean but it doesn't mean that they won't happen. If these measures make it harder for them to happen then so be it.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Chino on January 30, 2017, 08:09:10 AM
That comment was not directed solely at the US but at Europe as well. The multitude of attacks in Europe have been mainly avoided in the US thanks to the Atlantic Ocean but it doesn't mean that they won't happen. If these measures make it harder for them to happen then so be it.

You can't say that comment and have it encompass the US as well as European countries. The multitude of attacks in Europe have been mainly avoided here because of our vetting process. Why don't we go all in an ban travel to this country from everywhere? We don't know if someone on an overstayed visa from China will stab kids on a playground, or if some rowdy young adult from Italy will rape and murder some girl while he's here. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't. If not allowing anyone from any country makes it harder for anyone to do anything, then so be it.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 08:13:54 AM
I am all for this temporary ban on refugees. Vetting aside, we cannot continue to take in so many thousands and thousands of people and expect our society to continue to strive toward prosperity. Our schools are underfunded, our healthcare is in mediocre/bad/terrible (depending on whom you ask) shape, people are without jobs. As good as it may feel to bring in refugees, they are only going to stretch our resources further, for a segment of the population who is only going to require a disproportionate amount of services and never really assimilate to our culture. I am generalizing, I know there are plenty of success stories of current refugees. But these other countries, not just Sandland, need to get their shit together. It shouldn't be up to the US to take all those trying to escape those shitholes. I don't want the US to get involved with that either, but of course, that is a topic for another thread.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2016/sep/28/tom-delay/tom-delay-says-most-illegal-immigrants-draw-welfar/

A long article on correcting various false claims about illegal immigrants.

A lot of them actually pay taxes into programs they're not eligible for, so they are a net gain for legal Americans regarding Social Security, Medicare, etc.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigrants-and-taxes/499604/

I'm guessing that the net effect of all this is that they're a net gain for US Taxpayers, and instead of straining the system, they're actually helping to prop it up so that actual US Citizens can retire in security.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.  Some of us read these links. It wasn't an article JUST "correcting false claims", though it did that.  It rated DeLay's comments "Half True".  And I rate your math "Pants on Fire".   If you read the article, the estimate on taxes paid in Texas - DeLay's state - are between $1.5 and $1.58 Billion.   But the services rendered are about $58 million (public services), $1.3 billion (healthcare services) plus another $717 million in healthcare services, which totals, and I used a calculator here!, over $2 billion.  So if they COST $2B, and are paying in $1.58 Billion (giving you the high number), how is a shortfall of $500 million a "wash"? 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on January 30, 2017, 08:24:14 AM
That comment was not directed solely at the US but at Europe as well. The multitude of attacks in Europe have been mainly avoided in the US thanks to the Atlantic Ocean but it doesn't mean that they won't happen. If these measures make it harder for them to happen then so be it.

You can't say that comment and have it encompass the US as well as European countries. The multitude of attacks in Europe have been mainly avoided here because of our vetting process. Why don't we go all in an ban travel to this country from everywhere? We don't know if someone on an overstayed visa from China will stab kids on a playground, or if some rowdy young adult from Italy will rape and murder some girl while he's here. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't. If not allowing anyone from any country makes it harder for anyone to do anything, then so be it.

The San Bernardino shooters had gotten past US immigrations and the tough vetting

http://abcnews.go.com/US/inside-immigration-file-san-bernardino-shooter-tashfeen-malik/story?id=35912170 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/inside-immigration-file-san-bernardino-shooter-tashfeen-malik/story?id=35912170)

Quote
The file release comes as the House Judiciary Committee investigates whether Malik’s visa was issued improperly. Chairman Bob Goodlatte says immigration officials did not do enough to screen Malik’s application and alleges that the passport stamps on Malik's Saudi visa don’t prove she and Farook were in Saudi Arabia at the same time.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2017/01/27/wife-of-alleged-san-bernardino-shooting-conspirator-pleads-guilty-to-immigration-fraud/ (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2017/01/27/wife-of-alleged-san-bernardino-shooting-conspirator-pleads-guilty-to-immigration-fraud/)

Quote
Chernykh is the second person to plead guilty in what prosecutors say was an immigration fraud scheme uncovered shortly after the San Bernardino attack, which left 14 dead and several others seriously wounded.
Quote
“Today’s guilty plea and the broader circumstances of this case are a powerful reminder about the serious consequences that can result when people lie or use false information to obtain an immigration benefit,” said Joseph Macias, special agent in charge for HSI Los Angeles. “Not only do such actions corrupt the integrity of our nation’s legal immigration system, but they can directly or indirectly put the safety of the American people at risk.”

It's very possible to slip through our immigrations as tough as they might be.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 08:27:56 AM
Regarding Trump's "Immigrant Crime" list that he's going to be publishing; I can think of another example of a government doing that sort of thing;
https://www.indy100.com/article/trump-weekly-list-immigrants-crimes-hitler-comparisons-7547211

Seriously. This isn't a thing civilized society does. Publicly publishing a weekly list of crimes committed by "outsiders" is a fucked up thing to do. No one should be defending this bullshit. This isn't just "political differences" at this point. This is a preemptive excuse to treat immigrants inhumanely.

Can you stop with this? It's offensive.  Seriously.  I'm offended.  I lost family in the camps in Poland, and the analogy is not the same.   You say "it's not just 'political differences'", but posting that is the definition of partisan, which is exactly "political differences".    We've already covered this six ways to Sunday:   Hitler posted lists of JEWS who committed crimes, targeting JEWS, for no reason than their religion (which we can argue is or is not a choice).   This is a list of CRIMINALS who committed other crimes.  We do this already, and a lot of this is publicly available information.  There is no "targeting" of a protected group here.   

This is fearmongering.  You can't claim "TERRIFIED!" when you yourself are creating the "terror".   

Plus, and I haven't read the three pages below yet, so I'm sure it's there - we have the protections of our system in place.  The courts are already ruling on this and to my knowledge have granted a stay to evaluate the efficacy of this plan (that includes the ban as well).   THIS IS HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO WORK.   This doesn't happen in a fascist regime.  Trump's not doing ANYTHING unilaterally, or that can't be later reviewed and/or overturned by either Congress or the Courts (or both). 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on January 30, 2017, 08:37:15 AM
I am all for this temporary ban on refugees. Vetting aside, we cannot continue to take in so many thousands and thousands of people and expect our society to continue to strive toward prosperity. Our schools are underfunded, our healthcare is in mediocre/bad/terrible (depending on whom you ask) shape, people are without jobs. As good as it may feel to bring in refugees, they are only going to stretch our resources further, for a segment of the population who is only going to require a disproportionate amount of services and never really assimilate to our culture. I am generalizing, I know there are plenty of success stories of current refugees. But these other countries, not just Sandland, need to get their shit together. It shouldn't be up to the US to take all those trying to escape those shitholes. I don't want the US to get involved with that either, but of course, that is a topic for another thread.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2016/sep/28/tom-delay/tom-delay-says-most-illegal-immigrants-draw-welfar/

A long article on correcting various false claims about illegal immigrants.

A lot of them actually pay taxes into programs they're not eligible for, so they are a net gain for legal Americans regarding Social Security, Medicare, etc.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigrants-and-taxes/499604/

I'm guessing that the net effect of all this is that they're a net gain for US Taxpayers, and instead of straining the system, they're actually helping to prop it up so that actual US Citizens can retire in security.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.  Some of us read these links. It wasn't an article JUST "correcting false claims", though it did that.  It rated DeLay's comments "Half True".  And I rate your math "Pants on Fire".   If you read the article, the estimate on taxes paid in Texas - DeLay's state - are between $1.5 and $1.58 Billion.   But the services rendered are about $58 million (public services), $1.3 billion (healthcare services) plus another $717 million in healthcare services, which totals, and I used a calculator here!, over $2 billion.  So if they COST $2B, and are paying in $1.58 Billion (giving you the high number), how is a shortfall of $500 million a "wash"?
Depends on which numbers you're using and how old they are. The Texas comptroller released a study a few years back suggesting they actually subsidize our local healthcare. In any event, the most recent study pretty much does call them a wash. They do cost more to treat and educate than they contribute through taxes, though not by a huge amount, but also contribute massively to the gross state product. Every time a large business comes here because of a good supply of cheap labor, that's a win.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwjmt736lerRAhUUz2MKHXqiBCgQFggiMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.texaspolicy.com%2Flibrary%2Fdoclib%2FImmigration-s-Impact-on-the-Texas-Economy.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHg9pOIS8GHzodTDRILFGw_xI-K9Q&sig2=7L9R1Wz66t4o2iMEve0Grw&cad=rja
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 08:42:31 AM
I am all for this temporary ban on refugees. Vetting aside, we cannot continue to take in so many thousands and thousands of people and expect our society to continue to strive toward prosperity. Our schools are underfunded, our healthcare is in mediocre/bad/terrible (depending on whom you ask) shape, people are without jobs. As good as it may feel to bring in refugees, they are only going to stretch our resources further, for a segment of the population who is only going to require a disproportionate amount of services and never really assimilate to our culture. I am generalizing, I know there are plenty of success stories of current refugees. But these other countries, not just Sandland, need to get their shit together. It shouldn't be up to the US to take all those trying to escape those shitholes. I don't want the US to get involved with that either, but of course, that is a topic for another thread.
Canada has brought in over 50,000 Syrian refugees so far, and we're planning on bringing in more. The US has taken in about 14,000 Syrian refugees. The US has a population about 10 times the size of Canada's.
I can assure you, Canada isn't exactly busting at the seams from this.
In fact, the refugees we've brought in have been fitting in pretty well.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/syrian-refugees-in-edmonton-step-up-to-help-fort-mcmurray-fire-evacuees-1.3581122
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/lethbridge-syrian-refugees-1.3954156
http://globalnews.ca/news/2928562/syrian-refugee-families-embrace-life-in-halifax/
http://www.metronews.ca/news/halifax/2016/07/03/syrian-refugees-near-halifax-eager-for-jobs-in-new-country.html
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/sharing-happiness-refugee-family-looks-to-expand-chocolate-business-in-canada-1.3186594
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/small-business/startups/newly-settled-syrian-refugees-turn-to-entrepreneurship/article30677240/

We've been welcoming in refugees from the Syrian conflict in big numbers since 2015, and so far, there hasn't been a single security problem.

You're right. It isn't up to the US to take in Syrian refugees, because the US has barely taken any, while many countries around the world have stepped up.

Why are you limiting it to "Syria"?   We - the United States - are "the world’s top resettlement country for refugees."  Our total number per year is closer to 100,000.   In 2014 it was 70,000 (http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/refugees-and-asylees-united-states/).   The Canadian number was a fraction of that, about 13,500  (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/canada.asp).   In 2015, Canada took in less than 1,000 refugees from Syria. 

Yeah, we're not exactly laying out the red carpet, but we're not the only one, and it isn't as if our borders are closed across the board.   Whether there has been a problem or not is not the issue, and is not indicative of whether we should take more. (That's like saying "well, I had a little unprotected sex with illegal prostitutes, and I didn't get gonorrhea; I should be having way more unprotected sex with illegal prostitutes!")
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XJDenton on January 30, 2017, 08:47:55 AM
This is a list of CRIMINALS who committed other crimes.

Criminals who all just happen to be migrants just as a large campaign is being started against migrants both legally and in propaganda.

Quote
We do this already,

That has no bearing on whether it is just.

Quote
There is no "targeting" of a protected group here.

Jew's weren't a protected group in 1930s Germany either.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on January 30, 2017, 08:54:09 AM
This is a list of CRIMINALS who committed other crimes.

Criminals who all just happen to be migrants just as a large campaign is being started against migrants both legally and in propaganda.

You are missing the most important aspect of this all, ILLEGAL migrants.  They aren't citizens of the US and on top of that, committed crimes.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XJDenton on January 30, 2017, 08:57:30 AM
And?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: jsbru on January 30, 2017, 09:10:18 AM
It pained me but I voted for Trump and at this point I'm glad I did. I have absolutely no problem with this temporary 90 day ban and I also have no problem with the vetting process. We can't let people in willy nilly anymore. Is it driven by fear? Sure, but how many innocent people have to die before people change rules? I'm not anti-immigration, I'm anti illegal immigration. If people want to come here I'd welcome them with open arms as long as they follow the rules. What's the harm in going through that vetting process if you have nothing to hide and truly want a better life for you and your family. Same goes for the whole Mexico Wall issue. I have no problem with protecting our boarders.

A lot of people affected by this ban are legal green card holders that have jobs here that simply can't return.  Surgeons, professors, engineers, etc.  They've all been fully vetted already.

This isn't about safety.  This is just about Trump being cruel simply because he can.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on January 30, 2017, 09:14:04 AM
And?

And there goes your argument.  :biggrin: I don't like it personally since it's pretty pointless besides making people want to compare it to hitler, but you can't say completely wrong things and then expect others to buy it as a productive argument.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: bosk1 on January 30, 2017, 09:15:00 AM
He said, to stir up the pot  :)

How about you don't do that?

XJ, I didn't post that intending it to be flame bait. Many people feel this way, and I wanted to post an alternative viewpoint.

Debate is fine, stirring the pot means to deliberately sow dissent and unrest for its own sake. That is not needed here.

And that isn't what Chris's post was doing.  Nothing wrong with what he posted.  Carry on.

I'm not saying people are overreacting, but for discussion's sake, this is really targeted at just 7 countries with poor governmental controls. Isn't this order rally just to prevent people from "piling in" before a new and likely more stringent immigration policy is enacted.

Possibly so, but my question to Trump here (and it's rhetorical, I know why) is why has he included 7 countries whose citizens have killed precisely nobody on American soil in the last 40 years (for 'terrorist' reasons I mean)...

The answer is simply this:  That list of 7 countries was actually the list created by the Obama administration of countries that are known to harbor ISIS sympathizers.  Repeat:  this was based on the Obama administration's list.

It pained me but I voted for Trump and at this point I'm glad I did. I have absolutely no problem with this temporary 90 day ban and I also have no problem with the vetting process. We can't let people in willy nilly anymore. Is it driven by fear? Sure, but how many innocent people have to die before people change rules? I'm not anti-immigration, I'm anti illegal immigration. If people want to come here I'd welcome them with open arms as long as they follow the rules. What's the harm in going through that vetting process if you have nothing to hide and truly want a better life for you and your family. Same goes for the whole Mexico Wall issue. I have no problem with protecting our boarders.

A lot of people affected by this ban are legal green card holders that have jobs here that simply can't return.  Surgeons, professors, engineers, etc.  They've all been fully vetted already.

This isn't about safety.  This is just about Trump being cruel simply because he can.

Um, no.  The temporary ban does not apply to green card holders.  So problem #1 with your post is inaccuracy.  (which could be forgiven before the weekend, since it was at that point in time not clear; but since the administration has since clarified over the weekend that the orders do NOT apply to green card holders, you need to fact check before you post)  Problem #2 is your last sentence.  Stick to facts and arguments, not hysterical statements about people's motives, which you cannot possibly know.  You have been told in the past not to do similar things, and you will not be allowed to continue your posting privileges on this subforum if you continue that. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on January 30, 2017, 09:15:56 AM
My apologies if this has already been shared, but for those interested, here's a summary of the existing process for refugees trying to enter the States:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/29/us/refugee-vetting-process.html

Seems thorough enough to me.

It pained me but I voted for Trump and at this point I'm glad I did. I have absolutely no problem with this temporary 90 day ban and I also have no problem with the vetting process. We can't let people in willy nilly anymore. Is it driven by fear? Sure, but how many innocent people have to die before people change rules? I'm not anti-immigration, I'm anti illegal immigration. If people want to come here I'd welcome them with open arms as long as they follow the rules. What's the harm in going through that vetting process if you have nothing to hide and truly want a better life for you and your family. Same goes for the whole Mexico Wall issue. I have no problem with protecting our boarders.

Do you at least have a problem with the disastrous and incompetent rollout of this policy?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XeRocks81 on January 30, 2017, 09:20:37 AM

Um, no.  The temporary ban does not apply to green card holders.  So problem #1 with your post is inaccuracy.  (which could be forgiven before the weekend, since it was at that point in time not clear; but since the administration has since clarified over the weekend that the orders do NOT apply to green card holders, you need to fact check before you post) 

When did they clarify that? I thought it was confirmed that green card holders had been denied entry.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 09:22:20 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3RLNGSUcAId6da.jpg:large)

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/green-card-holders-included-trump-152535025.html

Look I think the EO on the whole is awful but what the hell is the point of preventing green card holders from re-entering the US?

this is the kind of shit people were "TERRIFIED!"  about after the election but were told it was the wrong choice of word because it supposedly denoted some sort of left wing media conspiracy.   :yeahright

At least get the argument right before you apply sarcasm to it.   Were there things of concern, would there be things of concern regardless of who was elected?  Of course.   But I stand by my criticism:  EVERY item of concern, whether major or minor, whether effecting a citizen directly, or not was uniformly and categorically addressed with "TERROR!"  My point was never that there weren't issues of concern, but rather the way the issues were reduced to a buzzword so completely.

The green card thing makes no sense, and as we'll see later in this thread, I'm sure, the courts will take care of it and address.  AS IS THEIR JOB.    If you're "TERRIFIED" of the U.S. system of due process seeing itself played out, well, perhaps there are other issues here, but it certainly isn't "TRUMP". 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 30, 2017, 09:23:32 AM
Reince Pribus claimed that it wouldn't affect green card holders "going forward," so take that for what it's worth.

But yes, it did.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: jsbru on January 30, 2017, 09:24:02 AM
Whoa, whoa, whoa.  Some of us read these links. It wasn't an article JUST "correcting false claims", though it did that.  It rated DeLay's comments "Half True".  And I rate your math "Pants on Fire".   If you read the article, the estimate on taxes paid in Texas - DeLay's state - are between $1.5 and $1.58 Billion.   But the services rendered are about $58 million (public services), $1.3 billion (healthcare services) plus another $717 million in healthcare services, which totals, and I used a calculator here!, over $2 billion.  So if they COST $2B, and are paying in $1.58 Billion (giving you the high number), how is a shortfall of $500 million a "wash"?

Stadler, come on.

The estimates of $1.58 billion in taxes paid clearly says it's for state and local taxes only.  This of course leaves out the Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and federal income tax they pay.  These payroll deductions are often many times higher than your state income tax deductions.

The thing is, they are not eligible for any of these programs, so they never get their money back.

I made that very clear in my post that them paying into SS/Medicare is basically just free money for the rest of us.  THEY are supporting US, not the other way around.  Your "math" ignores all of the federal taxes they pay, but I can assure you if merely the state portion is $1.58 billion, their federal share is likely an additional $1.58 billion, if not more.  In any case, it's almost surely going to be over $500 million.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on January 30, 2017, 09:27:55 AM
Reince Pribus claimed that it wouldn't affect green card holders "going forward," so take that for what it's worth.

But yes, it did.

This is what I didn't like about this weekend's move.  It was done poorly.  It's a huge change to start cracking down and to just throw it out there is not the best way to go about things.  They should of had all this working the way they wanted to when it went into effect. We already know Trump will face backlash for everything he does, so he should be crossing his t's and dotting his.... lower case j's.  While Trump himself is obviously a very spur of the moment person, his staff should be on top of this kind of stuff.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: bosk1 on January 30, 2017, 09:28:20 AM

Um, no.  The temporary ban does not apply to green card holders.  So problem #1 with your post is inaccuracy.  (which could be forgiven before the weekend, since it was at that point in time not clear; but since the administration has since clarified over the weekend that the orders do NOT apply to green card holders, you need to fact check before you post) 

When did they clarify that? I thought it was confirmed that green card holders had been denied entry.

To be more accurate, unless I am mistaken, green card holders had been held up and then permitted entry once vetted (that is my understanding, but I have not dug into that issue very deeply, so please correct me if I am mistaken).  So, yes and no.  But as to it being since clarified:

Reince Pribus claimed that it wouldn't affect green card holders "going forward"
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on January 30, 2017, 09:30:25 AM
What makes no sense is that the fact that they are green card holders means they were already vetted. Just needless antagonism toward people on the last step toward full citizenship.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XJDenton on January 30, 2017, 09:31:02 AM
According to DHS they originally didn't include Green card holders under the additional vetting procedures but that was overuled by the white house.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban/
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on January 30, 2017, 09:31:44 AM
I'm not saying people are overreacting, but for discussion's sake, this is really targeted at just 7 countries with poor governmental controls. Isn't this order rally just to prevent people from "piling in" before a new and likely more stringent immigration policy is enacted.

Possibly so, but my question to Trump here (and it's rhetorical, I know why) is why has he included 7 countries whose citizens have killed precisely nobody on American soil in the last 40 years (for 'terrorist' reasons I mean)...

The answer is simply this:   That list of 7 countries was actually the list created by the Obama administration of countries that are known to harbor ISIS sympathizers.  Repeat:  this was based on the Obama administration's list.

But Obama was incompetent. We know this because Grabby has been yelling it for the last two years. Why should his policy reflect positively on Trump's? The fact is that he's selling this as a defense against terrorism but it still remains a simple act of normal, American political bullshit. Dave's point is a sound one.

And it doesn't apply to green card holders now, even though they told the people managing it that it did. As I've said, even though I disagree with the policy, the real shame is that it was handled with such amazing incompetency. If people want to defend the policy, or in Stadler's case decry the criticisms, that's fine. But the defenses should at least come with the recognition that the policies were instituted by an incompetent putz who has no business making these sorts of decisions in a sane world. Honestly, would taking 4 days two craft a comprehensive, legal and functional policy really have hurt his cause, as opposed to acting with the deliberation of a drunken frat-boy placing a 2am pizza order?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: bosk1 on January 30, 2017, 09:36:40 AM
Reince Pribus claimed that it wouldn't affect green card holders "going forward," so take that for what it's worth.

But yes, it did.

This is what I didn't like about this weekend's move.  It was done poorly.  It's a huge change to start cracking down and to just throw it out there is not the best way to go about things.  They should of had all this working the way they wanted to when it went into effect. We already know Trump will face backlash for everything he does, so he should be crossing his t's and dotting his.... lower case j's.  While Trump himself is obviously a very spur of the moment person, his staff should be on top of this kind of stuff.

Your (and Barto's) point about the way it has been implemented is completely valid.  I agree that "to just throw it out there is not the best way to go about things."  But as far as it being completely buttoned up before implementing, let me just throw this out there:  What we know when we stand back and actually look at what was implemented vs. what was originally very inaccurately reported is that all this is is a temporary hold based on the Obama administration's list of countries that is meant as only a temporary freeze while the administration evaluates the current programs and is able to put together a permanent plan.  So, by design, what was rolled out is something that is expected to be only a temporary stopgap while they actually do that i-dotting and t-crossing that you reference. 

So, yeah, maybe it was a mess in terms of how it was done.  But under the circumstances, I'm not sure that even that is the problem it is being made out to be.  Maybe it is and maybe it isn't.  But there's so much hysteria and misinformation surrounding it that it is hard to make any sort of real assessment.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XJDenton on January 30, 2017, 09:36:54 AM
New topic:

Quote from: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/30/trump-set-to-sign-executive-order-aiming-to-slash-regulations.html
resident Donald Trump signed an executive order Monday aiming to kickstart campaign pledges to slash regulations.

The measure will expand regulatory review with the goal of revoking two regulations for every new one put forward, according to a senior administration official. Under the order, federal agencies will propose rules they want to drop and the White House will review them.

With the order, Trump followed through on repeated campaign promises to cut rules that he said hold back the economy. In meetings with business leaders since his election, Trump has touted his efforts to reduce regulations and cut corporate taxes.

While signing the order surrounded by small business owners, Trump called it "the largest ever cut by far in terms of regulation." It sets a budget each year for what new regulations would cost the economy, companies and employers.

For fiscal 2017, it gives a budget of $0 for new regulations.

Critics of Trump's economic and regulatory agenda have raised concerns that his administration will reduce protections for consumers and the environment in an effort to help businesses. Many of the specific regulations Trump has criticized relate to environmental protection.

"There will be regulation, there will be control, but it will be a normalized control," Trump told reporters at the White House.

The White House has already put a temporary regulatory freeze in place, but the order establishes the process for when the freeze ends, according to the official.

The Office of Management and Budget, which Trump has tapped budget hawk Mick Mulvaney to lead, will have discretion to give the agencies guidance.

This seems well thought out and not at all arbitrary.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on January 30, 2017, 09:37:43 AM
Also, there are plenty of reports that CBP in various airports have been ignoring the Federal court orders so I'm not really sure everything is working as intended.

Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on January 30, 2017, 09:39:16 AM
Honestly, would taking 4 days two craft a comprehensive, legal and functional policy really have hurt his cause, as opposed to acting with the deliberation of a drunken frat-boy placing a 2am pizza order?

Pretty much this.  I don't understand.  It seemed like he was going for some sort of record for how much "change" he can make in one week.  This stuff is not of the utmost importance that it needs to be in effect now and we can fix it later.  Take the time and do it right the first time. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XJDenton on January 30, 2017, 09:45:21 AM
I don't understand.

It's pretty easy, his critical thinking ability is the reciprocal of his ego.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 09:45:25 AM
Fascism yet?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/28/lobbying-ban-trump-executive-order-isis-strategy?CMP=share_btn_fb

Quote
President Donald Trump granted controversial adviser Steve Bannon a regular seat at meetings of the National Security Council on Saturday, in a presidential memorandum that brought the former Breitbart publisher into some of the most sensitive meetings at the highest levels of government.

The president named Bannon to the council in a reorganization of the NSC. He also said his chief-of-staff Reince Priebus would have a seat in the meetings.

Trump also said the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the director of national intelligence, two of the most senior defense chiefs, will attend meetings only when discussions are related to their “responsibilities and expertise”. Barack Obama and George W Bush both gave the men in those roles regular seats on the council.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is THE highest ranking armed forces officer in our country.  He and the Director of National Intelligence are being replaced by Steve Bannon, whose expertise is in alt-right propaganda.

You might want to read the thread a bit before posting. I think this is the 2nd time you've posted something shortly after someone else already did.

And calling it fascism (as of yet) doesn't help productive convo.

/modmode.

This is also to Portnoy311's post right below it.

This isn't "fascism".  This is the process.   An executive order is subject to the same checks and balances that anything else in government is (generally).   It is subject to Court review, or override by an act of Congress.   "FASCISM" would be if the order was implemented and that was that.   We've already had court intervention - as is SUPPOSED to happen.  All this screaming of "TERROR!" and "FACISM!" is just fear-mongering.  Is everything coming out of the White House going to be perfect?  Not if the preceding 44 occupants are a yard stick. 

I'm not saying I SUPPORT the measure - I do not, not even a little bit - but just because I don't agree with it doesn't mean that I'm allowed to use any hyperbole I damn well please to make the arguments.    While I understand that this is not pleasant for those people, this is no different than a hundred other instances of an over-reaching EO subsequently put into the process that was laid down 240 some-odd years ago.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 09:50:08 AM
The director of the Swedish film "A man called Ove", Asghar Farhadi, might win an Oscar but he wont be allowed to go and recieve it himself. Nice work mr President...

Because that's the most important thing; f the system, f the rules, just make sure he can get his Oscar! 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XJDenton on January 30, 2017, 09:52:47 AM
The number of checks and balances in place that are able to temper the white house administration's more authoritarian attempts at power have no bearing on whether the administration itself is fascist or not. Hitler was a fascist even when he was just making loud speeches in the Munich beer halls without a lick of real power. And the current administration, if not overtly fascist, have multiple hallmarks of a fascist, autocratic administration.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on January 30, 2017, 09:56:10 AM
US Diplomats Consider Filing Dissent over Immigration Ban

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/exclusive-us-diplomats-filing-dissent-immigration-ban/story?id=45135038

Quote
Dozens of foreign service officers and other career diplomats stationed around the world are so concerned about President Donald Trump's new executive order restricting Syrian refugees and other immigrants from entering the United States that they are contemplating taking the rare step of sending a formal objection to senior State Department officials in Washington.

In recent days, drafts of a dissent memo have been circulating among diplomats and associates abroad expressing concern that the new restrictions — which Trump said would help "keep America safe" — are un-American and will actually paralyze efforts to stop terrorist attacks inside the U.S. homeland.

"This ban ... will not achieve its stated aim to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States," warned one early draft reviewed by ABC News.

Instead, the executive order will expand anti-American sentiment and "immediately sour relations" with key allies in the fight against terrorism, particularly many of the countries whose citizens are now blocked from traveling to the United States, according to the early draft.

Here's a copy of the draft memo: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3438487/Dissent-Memo.pdf
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 09:59:19 AM
This man is a clown. Fucking disgrace. Land of the free and home of the brave? Bullshit. I'm disgusted.

The USA is becoming the laughing stock of the world, if they weren't already after the inauguration. This complete inbecile is bypassing democracy with his ridiculous 'executive orders' and I can't imagine that this will go on forever. How about something new? Remove him asap.

Okay, opinion noted; now the time for FACTS:

FDR (D):   3,522 Executive Orders (by far the most of any President)
Woodrow Wilson (D):  1,803
Calvin Coolidge (R):  1,203
Theodore Roosevelt (R): 1,081

Bill Clinton (D): 308
G.W. Bush (R): 291
Barack Obama (D): 276

Donald Trump (R):  5

The EO is has been recognized by EVERY preceding President as being Constitutional.   The Emancipation Proclamation was an Exective Order.   What were you saying about "democracy"?   
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 10:02:06 AM
“The media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while. I want you to quote me on this. The media here is the opposition party."
- Steve Bannon, 2017 as White House Chief Strategist.

“We’re the platform for the alt-right."
- Steve Bannon on Breitbart, July 2016, shortly before leaving Breitbart to head Trump's campaign in August.

“Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal, too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.”
- Steve Bannon, 2013.

But there's no reason at all to be concernd about the future of the integrity of institutions, equal rights, or freedom of the press.

But Democratic Socialism is fine, the REVOLUTION, is to be APPLAUDED.   Please.   
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: pogoowner on January 30, 2017, 10:04:12 AM
Also, there are plenty of reports that CBP in various airports have been ignoring the Federal court orders so I'm not really sure everything is working as intended.
Yeah, this was a major problem, especially at Dulles. They weren't allowing detainees to speak with counsel even with multiple members of Congress presenting them the court order in person. I haven't see any follow-up yet today, but as of last night, it was definitely not resolved.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XeRocks81 on January 30, 2017, 10:06:01 AM
“The media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while. I want you to quote me on this. The media here is the opposition party."
- Steve Bannon, 2017 as White House Chief Strategist.

“We’re the platform for the alt-right."
- Steve Bannon on Breitbart, July 2016, shortly before leaving Breitbart to head Trump's campaign in August.

“Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal, too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.”
- Steve Bannon, 2013.

But there's no reason at all to be concernd about the future of the integrity of institutions, equal rights, or freedom of the press.

But Democratic Socialism is fine, the REVOLUTION, is to be APPLAUDED.   Please.

Democratic Socialism IS fine(Not perfect, just fine),   plenty of countries have one form or another of it. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XJDenton on January 30, 2017, 10:07:51 AM
Hej från Sverige!
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 30, 2017, 10:11:38 AM
“The media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while. I want you to quote me on this. The media here is the opposition party."
- Steve Bannon, 2017 as White House Chief Strategist.

“We’re the platform for the alt-right."
- Steve Bannon on Breitbart, July 2016, shortly before leaving Breitbart to head Trump's campaign in August.

“Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal, too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.”
- Steve Bannon, 2013.

But there's no reason at all to be concernd about the future of the integrity of institutions, equal rights, or freedom of the press.

But Democratic Socialism is fine, the REVOLUTION, is to be APPLAUDED.   Please.
False equivalence?  Apples and oranges? 

Democratic Socialism doesn't quash the media, destroy the state, or trample on individual rights. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 10:13:34 AM
I'm in favor of making it less easy for non-citizens to get into this country, but this is not the way to do it.  No bueno.

But why?

Immigrants in general are good for our economy.  A lot of people look at it as if there's a finite number of jobs, and immigrants take some of those.  But that's not the case.  Population growth also means more demand, more customers.  In general, this helps a domestic economy grow.

It's also shown that immigrants are entrepreneurs at a higher rate than American-born citizens, so not only are they creating more demand domestically, they're potentially creating more exports for the US economy.

Study: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups (http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2016/03/17/study-immigrants-founded-51-of-u-s-billion-dollar-startups/)

40 Percent of Fortune 500 Companies Founded by Immigrants or Their Children (http://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2011/06/19/40-percent-of-fortune-500-companies-founded-by-immigrants-or-their-children/#125889e87a22)

The Most Entrepreneurial Group in America Wasn't Born in America (http://www.inc.com/magazine/201502/adam-bluestein/the-most-entrepreneurial-group-in-america-wasnt-born-in-america.html)

Turning people away at the border is like waiving away economic growth.  I don't understand how that policy helps us.

You're FAR too smart to be making this mistake, so it has to be purposeful, and if so, it's misleading and undermines your argument.   "Immigrants" aren't bad.  ILLEGAL immigrants, potentially, are.   Not all, mind you, but much of the discussion on this board (and elsewhere) muddles the difference between "immigrants" - like my grandparents' generation, that came over - legally - on a boat, and went through the process in Ellis Island to become legit citizens of this country (my grandfather has a plaque in Ellis Island, as do tens if not hundreds of thousands of others).   

Blanket statements - especially misleading ones - are as dangerous and problematic as blanket Executive Orders.  Worse, actually, since at least with EO's there are the constitutional protections of "Checks and Balances", proven over time to be a brilliant and effective means to preserve our brand of representative democracy. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 30, 2017, 10:15:35 AM
Trump's directives aren't against illegal immigrants.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on January 30, 2017, 10:16:29 AM
Here's the Washington Post's fact-checker on Trump's claim that the EO is similar to an Obama admin. policy from 2011

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/29/trumps-facile-claim-that-his-refugee-policy-is-similar-to-obama-in-2011/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_fc-refugee-policy-625pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.4805d2dd02fd

Here's the final summary:
Quote
So what’s the difference with Trump’s action?

First, Obama responded to an actual threat — the discovery that two Iraqi refugees had been implicated in bombmaking in Iraq that had targeted U.S. troops. (Iraq, after all, was a war zone.) Under congressional pressure, officials decided to reexamine all previous refugees and impose new screening procedures, which led to a slowdown in processing new applications. Trump, by contrast, issued his executive order without any known triggering threat. (His staff has pointed to attacks unrelated to the countries named in his order.)

Second, Obama did not announce a ban on visa applications. In fact, as seen in Napolitano’s answer to Collins, administration officials danced around that question. There was certainly a lot of news reporting that visa applications had slowed to a trickle. But the Obama administration never said it had a policy to halt all applications. Indeed, it is now clear that no ban was put in place. Even so, the delays did not go unnoticed, so there was a lot of critical news reporting at the time about the angst of Iraqis waiting for approval.

Third, Obama’s policy did not prevent all citizens of that country, including green-card holders, from traveling to the United States. Trump’s policy is much more sweeping, though officials have appeared to pull back from barring permanent U.S. residents.

We have sought comment from the White House and from Obama administration officials and so may update this if more information becomes available. But so far this is worthy of at least Two Pinocchios.

Update: In light of the response from Obama administration officials that there never was a point when Iraqi resettlement was stopped or banned, we are updating this ruling to Three Pinocchios. Iraqi refugee processing was slowed, in response to a specific threat, but it was not halted. The Trump White House, meanwhile, has failed to provide any evidence for its statement.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 10:16:54 AM
It's immoral, ridiculous and just completely wrong. What the hell was he thinking? This whole thing was 't even thought out properly. What the hell did DJT think would happen? That there would be no repercussions from sensible people at all? Of course not. This is without a doubt a fascist measure that serve no purpose other than to be anti-democratic and nationalistic with an autoritarian flair. It's frankly the most disgusting thing I've seen happen in a Western world 'democracy'.

Really?   Worse than "black" and "white" toilets?   Worse than all Japanese put in internment camps?   Worse than the euthanasia experiments of the '20's?   Do I even need to mention the experiments on soldiers and prisoners regarding LSD and other psychotropic drugs?  How about the grand-daddy of all, slavery?   

You're REALLY pushing the hyperbole here.   REALLY pushing it. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 30, 2017, 10:18:55 AM
Also, if the purpose of the directive was ostensibly to prevent terrorists coming into the country, why did it include those particular 7 nations only, and NOT countries from where terrorists have ACTUALLY come into our country (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc)?

Oh yeah, Trump has business holdings there.  They can't be that bad.

Sad!
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: jsbru on January 30, 2017, 10:19:09 AM
I'm in favor of making it less easy for non-citizens to get into this country, but this is not the way to do it.  No bueno.

But why?

Immigrants in general are good for our economy.  A lot of people look at it as if there's a finite number of jobs, and immigrants take some of those.  But that's not the case.  Population growth also means more demand, more customers.  In general, this helps a domestic economy grow.

It's also shown that immigrants are entrepreneurs at a higher rate than American-born citizens, so not only are they creating more demand domestically, they're potentially creating more exports for the US economy.

Study: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups (http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2016/03/17/study-immigrants-founded-51-of-u-s-billion-dollar-startups/)

40 Percent of Fortune 500 Companies Founded by Immigrants or Their Children (http://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2011/06/19/40-percent-of-fortune-500-companies-founded-by-immigrants-or-their-children/#125889e87a22)

The Most Entrepreneurial Group in America Wasn't Born in America (http://www.inc.com/magazine/201502/adam-bluestein/the-most-entrepreneurial-group-in-america-wasnt-born-in-america.html)

Turning people away at the border is like waiving away economic growth.  I don't understand how that policy helps us.

You're FAR too smart to be making this mistake, so it has to be purposeful, and if so, it's misleading and undermines your argument.   "Immigrants" aren't bad.  ILLEGAL immigrants, potentially, are.   Not all, mind you, but much of the discussion on this board (and elsewhere) muddles the difference between "immigrants" - like my grandparents' generation, that came over - legally - on a boat, and went through the process in Ellis Island to become legit citizens of this country (my grandfather has a plaque in Ellis Island, as do tens if not hundreds of thousands of others).

I usually delete chains of quotes in my posts because I have semi-OCD and I don't like the clutter.  But I'll leave them in here, so you can spot your non-sequitur.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: bosk1 on January 30, 2017, 10:24:14 AM
Also, if the purpose of the directive was ostensibly to prevent terrorists coming into the country, why did it include those particular 7 nations only, and NOT countries from where terrorists have ACTUALLY come into our country (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc)?

Oh yeah, Trump has business holdings there.  They can't be that bad.

Sad!

The answer is simply this:  That list of 7 countries was actually the list created by the Obama administration of countries that are known to harbor ISIS sympathizers.  Repeat:  this was based on the Obama administration's list.

Can we stick to posting facts and making cogent arguments rather than repeating Face book memes?  We are again crossing over into what got this place closed.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: bosk1 on January 30, 2017, 10:25:28 AM
I usually delete chains of quotes in my posts because I have semi-OCD and I don't like the clutter.  But I'll leave them in here, so you can spot your non-sequitur.

And you have just lost your P/R posting privileges for a week.  Next time will be permanent.  If you can't attack what you believe to be the flaws in an argument without resorting to just being snarky, don't bother.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 10:27:41 AM
I'm in favor of making it less easy for non-citizens to get into this country, but this is not the way to do it.  No bueno.

But why?

Immigrants in general are good for our economy.  A lot of people look at it as if there's a finite number of jobs, and immigrants take some of those.  But that's not the case.  Population growth also means more demand, more customers.  In general, this helps a domestic economy grow.

It's also shown that immigrants are entrepreneurs at a higher rate than American-born citizens, so not only are they creating more demand domestically, they're potentially creating more exports for the US economy.

Study: Immigrants Founded 51% of U.S. Billion-Dollar Startups (http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2016/03/17/study-immigrants-founded-51-of-u-s-billion-dollar-startups/)

40 Percent of Fortune 500 Companies Founded by Immigrants or Their Children (http://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2011/06/19/40-percent-of-fortune-500-companies-founded-by-immigrants-or-their-children/#125889e87a22)

The Most Entrepreneurial Group in America Wasn't Born in America (http://www.inc.com/magazine/201502/adam-bluestein/the-most-entrepreneurial-group-in-america-wasnt-born-in-america.html)

Turning people away at the border is like waiving away economic growth.  I don't understand how that policy helps us.

You're FAR too smart to be making this mistake, so it has to be purposeful, and if so, it's misleading and undermines your argument.   "Immigrants" aren't bad.  ILLEGAL immigrants, potentially, are.   Not all, mind you, but much of the discussion on this board (and elsewhere) muddles the difference between "immigrants" - like my grandparents' generation, that came over - legally - on a boat, and went through the process in Ellis Island to become legit citizens of this country (my grandfather has a plaque in Ellis Island, as do tens if not hundreds of thousands of others).

I usually delete chains of quotes in my posts because I have semi-OCD and I don't like the clutter.  But I'll leave them in here, so you can spot your non-sequitur.

I'll give you that I was sloppy in my citing, but I'm going to stand by at least the intent of my comments.    The stats about immigrants forming companies doesn't segregate by country.   There's no discussion whatsoever of stopping immigration from the EU, from Canada, from Japan, from Africa (though god forbid that was to happen; the left would bust a spleen screaming racism at that).  There's no talk of stopping immigration from those areas that have historically lead to the positive impacts to our society.   We DO gloss over the difference between "immigrants" and "illegal immigrants" and between those immigrants that are here, like, presumably, our collective forefathers, to make a better life (and who followed the protocols to get here) and those that harbor us ill will.   

I have no disagreement that this is poorly done; but some of the attributions are simply beyond the measure of any reasonable response. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 30, 2017, 10:29:53 AM
Also, if the purpose of the directive was ostensibly to prevent terrorists coming into the country, why did it include those particular 7 nations only, and NOT countries from where terrorists have ACTUALLY come into our country (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc)?

Oh yeah, Trump has business holdings there.  They can't be that bad.

Sad!

The answer is simply this:  That list of 7 countries was actually the list created by the Obama administration of countries that are known to harbor ISIS sympathizers.  Repeat:  this was based on the Obama administration's list.

Can we stick to posting facts and making cogent arguments rather than repeating Face book memes?  We are again crossing over into what got this place closed.
I didn't ask why it included those 7 countries.  I asked why it EXCLUDED other countries from which terrorists have actually entered the US.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 10:33:43 AM
And I'm sure I'll be saying this four times a week for however long Manboy is in office, but the big part of the problem is that he just didn't think about how to do it. Even if it was the right idea, and it wasn't, it was handled with the tact of a meth-addled gorilla. This is what you get when you elect a simpleton to get things done.

And something that occurs to me is that I think Grabby sees himself in the hero role. He's going to do the unpopular things that need to be done because nobody else can or will. I actually find that an admirable trait. That's exactly the sort of person we need as a president. The downside is, of course, paragraph two. He's an impulsive manchild who won't act with even a modicum of forethought.

This is what you get when you elect a NON-POLITICIAN.   Even I said that I disagreed with Trump as President because your first elected office shouldn't be the most powerful position on the planet.   But that's what this is; political inexperience.  Not all the ulterior "alt-right/capitalist/racist" motivations being attributed to him.  I'm in the uncomfortable (but intellectually stimulating) position of essentially taking on a forum in quasi-support of a guy I didn't vote for, couldn't vote for, and wouldn't vote for.   But at least criticize him for the right reasons, and save the snarky ad-hominem attacks and blanket recriminations of "all Republicans" as if they were all clones.  The implication in a lot of the posts here is one of moral superiority, particularly by the more left-leaning posters, and it's not at all warranted.   

But this is what eight years (really, more like 25 years) of "politics as usual" have gotten us.  WE ASKED FOR THIS, if not in our votes, then in our attitudes.   
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: bosk1 on January 30, 2017, 10:39:11 AM
Also, if the purpose of the directive was ostensibly to prevent terrorists coming into the country, why did it include those particular 7 nations only, and NOT countries from where terrorists have ACTUALLY come into our country (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc)?

Oh yeah, Trump has business holdings there.  They can't be that bad.

Sad!

The answer is simply this:  That list of 7 countries was actually the list created by the Obama administration of countries that are known to harbor ISIS sympathizers.  Repeat:  this was based on the Obama administration's list.

Can we stick to posting facts and making cogent arguments rather than repeating Face book memes?  We are again crossing over into what got this place closed.
I didn't ask why it included those 7 countries.  I asked why it EXCLUDED other countries from which terrorists have actually entered the US.
That question was indirectly answered.  Likely for the same reason it excluded any other country that the Obama administration's list excluded: because it took the list of 7 countries the Obama administration created and used it verbatim?  Beyond that, I couldn't tell you.  You'd probably have to ask someone in the Obama administration.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 10:50:11 AM
I'm sorry if the term "fascist" incites people, but turning immigrants into political pinatas is a political demagogue's tool that's as old as the hills.  A hundred years ago, Irish immigrants were bashed for being unwashed, uneducated, drunken brutes that were here to take our jobs.  Jews were unwanted in this country at one point, too.  Now it's Mexicans.  It's almost invariably a stepping stone towards an authoritarian-right leader's ascent to power.

And yet... over that 100 years (it's actually more than that) it never ACTUALLY happened.  That's not to say we let down our guard, but it is to say that screaming "FACISM!" every time there's a politician that is even slightly to the right of where you(the general screamer) stand (and for you personally, that's most of them, it seems) isn't the way to stay diligent.  This government is stronger than any one person.   Even any one team of people.   

I, too, value a good strong dialogue with respect to world politics, but in my opinion, in that "good strong dialogue" is little place for hyperbole, snark, and ad hominem attacks (of the type "all Republicans don't care if people die" or "all Liberals just want to tax us into political submission"). 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: bosk1 on January 30, 2017, 10:56:04 AM
I, too, value a good strong dialogue with respect to world politics, but in my opinion, in that "good strong dialogue" is little place for hyperbole, snark, and ad hominem attacks (of the type "all Republicans don't care if people die" or "all Liberals just want to tax us into political submission"). 

Exactly.  There's plenty of good discussion to be had on the subject if people can dial back those discussion-killers.  There is far too much of that going on right now, and that is a surefire way to put me squarely back in the thought process of "since people cannot have reasoned discussion of religion or politics on a consistent basis, there is no place for it on this site."
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 10:57:41 AM
Eh, I have no issue with this. We know who he is, this shouldn't be a shock and frankly, there's nothing wrong with it over showing his skewed priorities.
It's the fact that it changes how opposing sides have to change strategy to deal with a candidate verses dealing with the president. That's interesting and not something I knew about. It seems very lawyer-ish thought process I guess?

I don't know if it is "lawyerish", but I agree it does potentially change how the "sides" strategize.  But that is the normal course of political business.   Obama's "ground game" changed how Republicans strategized, and in some part was the impetus for some of the logjamming we saw.   Not all, but some. 

I think more problematic is that not three paragraphs in, the supporting evidence was someone's tweet.  Out of respect I read the rest of the article, but frankly, that ended any credible dialogue that article might have engendered. 

For me, I don't understand this anathema to "breaking precedent".   We "break precedent" all the time.  I know when I was at GE, if you told any of the senior leadership "but that's how we always have done it", you were done.   You might as well start collecting out of your 401(k) because you punched your ticket.   No one who really succeeded has done it "the way we've always done it".   


I get that change can be hard for some, but "change" is not "bad", per se.  It just is. 

"Always hopeful, yet discontent.  He knows change is not permanent, but change is."
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 11:00:05 AM
Also, I'm surprised Stadler isn't here to tell us why everything is actually on the up and up. Hope you're okay buddy!
The impression I've gotten is that he generally posts from work. So he should be back tomorrow :lol

I rarely get in front of a computer during the weekend, and as it was my son's ninth birthday, even less so this weekend.   I must, say, though, when I come back on Monday, it's usually a page or so for an ACTIVE topic, a couple posts for the less active.  This one was THREE PAGES.    THREE!

But since I'm here, I won't say "up and up", but certainly there is a SHIT TON of hyperbole in this thread. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on January 30, 2017, 11:03:47 AM
And I'm sure I'll be saying this four times a week for however long Manboy is in office, but the big part of the problem is that he just didn't think about how to do it. Even if it was the right idea, and it wasn't, it was handled with the tact of a meth-addled gorilla. This is what you get when you elect a simpleton to get things done.

And something that occurs to me is that I think Grabby sees himself in the hero role. He's going to do the unpopular things that need to be done because nobody else can or will. I actually find that an admirable trait. That's exactly the sort of person we need as a president. The downside is, of course, paragraph two. He's an impulsive manchild who won't act with even a modicum of forethought.

This is what you get when you elect a NON-POLITICIAN.   Even I said that I disagreed with Trump as President because your first elected office shouldn't be the most powerful position on the planet.   But that's what this is; political inexperience.  Not all the ulterior "alt-right/capitalist/racist" motivations being attributed to him.  I'm in the uncomfortable (but intellectually stimulating) position of essentially taking on a forum in quasi-support of a guy I didn't vote for, couldn't vote for, and wouldn't vote for.   But at least criticize him for the right reasons, and save the snarky ad-hominem attacks and blanket recriminations of "all Republicans" as if they were all clones.  The implication in a lot of the posts here is one of moral superiority, particularly by the more left-leaning posters, and it's not at all warranted.   

But this is what eight years (really, more like 25 years) of "politics as usual" have gotten us.  WE ASKED FOR THIS, if not in our votes, then in our attitudes.
Nah, there have been non-politician presidents that didn't run afoul of reason. I think you probably agree that this isn't a lack of political experience in as much as it's a lack of reasoned thought from a person who considers it pointless.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: ? on January 30, 2017, 11:13:42 AM
It's immoral, ridiculous and just completely wrong. What the hell was he thinking? This whole thing was 't even thought out properly. What the hell did DJT think would happen? That there would be no repercussions from sensible people at all? Of course not. This is without a doubt a fascist measure that serve no purpose other than to be anti-democratic and nationalistic with an autoritarian flair. It's frankly the most disgusting thing I've seen happen in a Western world 'democracy'.

Really?   Worse than "black" and "white" toilets?   Worse than all Japanese put in internment camps?   Worse than the euthanasia experiments of the '20's?   Do I even need to mention the experiments on soldiers and prisoners regarding LSD and other psychotropic drugs?  How about the grand-daddy of all, slavery?   

You're REALLY pushing the hyperbole here.   REALLY pushing it.
I may be wrong, but I took "I've seen" as things he'd seen happen during his lifetime.
“The media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while. I want you to quote me on this. The media here is the opposition party."
- Steve Bannon, 2017 as White House Chief Strategist.

“We’re the platform for the alt-right."
- Steve Bannon on Breitbart, July 2016, shortly before leaving Breitbart to head Trump's campaign in August.

“Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal, too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.”
- Steve Bannon, 2013.

But there's no reason at all to be concernd about the future of the integrity of institutions, equal rights, or freedom of the press.

But Democratic Socialism is fine, the REVOLUTION, is to be APPLAUDED.   Please.
False equivalence?  Apples and oranges? 

Democratic Socialism doesn't quash the media, destroy the state, or trample on individual rights. 
This.

In Nordic countries we call it "social democracy" - dunno if that connotation is any less negative to Americans' ears, but it's far from a Soviet dystopia.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Adami on January 30, 2017, 11:18:47 AM
Also, I'm surprised Stadler isn't here to tell us why everything is actually on the up and up. Hope you're okay buddy!
The impression I've gotten is that he generally posts from work. So he should be back tomorrow :lol

I rarely get in front of a computer during the weekend, and as it was my son's ninth birthday, even less so this weekend.   I must, say, though, when I come back on Monday, it's usually a page or so for an ACTIVE topic, a couple posts for the less active.  This one was THREE PAGES.    THREE!

But since I'm here, I won't say "up and up", but certainly there is a SHIT TON of hyperbole in this thread.

Yea, I've always had a problem with the hyperbole, because then the discussion becomes about that and not the actual topic.

Hyperbole is basically the worst thing that humanity has ever done.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XJDenton on January 30, 2017, 11:21:23 AM
I see what you did there.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 11:25:00 AM
This is actually the most unified I've seen this board in a single topic since the election. Maybe ever.

It's the most unified I've seen my other board, too.  Also, I don't know a single Republican, conservative, or libertarian from my law school class of 300 or so that actually voted for him (or at least admits to).  Most of them didn't vote for Hillary, but none voted for Trump.

Even many of the few people defending him on here didn't vote for him.  Which really makes me wonder, where his voters actually did come from.

I really don't understand where all his voters came from.

There are people here that voted for him.  "Boards" are not really a good judge of demographics.  I was a pariah to most on the Genesis board I used to post at, and I'm not that far right at all.   I'm easily the farthest right person on the other board I post (politically) on, and again, if a "pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-equal rights for women, anti-death penalty free-market capitalist" is as far right as you go, it's not really a good spread.   I think with a lot of the fear-mongering and hyperbole, we've chilled speech a little in that regard; I don't know that if I did vote for Trump I would say it here (I'm well on record that I didn't, from day 0, so that's not a cryptic hint or anything). 

I didn't vote for him for one simple reason:  I didn't think then and don't think now that your first elected office should be as President of the United States of America.  (There were other things: I hate the tweeting, I think his tariff and trade ideas are ludicrous from an economic standpoint, and I think the wall is a poor euphemism that went too far.)   

I do, though, understand the mentality of voting for him.  I know that much of my commentary here is not at all about Trump, per se.  I have little interest in sticking up for him personally.   I do, though have a really strong streak about standing up to sanctimony, and haughty, presumed "moral superiority", and most of the opposition to Trump simply REEKS of that.  I think Hillary's "deplorables" comment was very indicative of the separation in this country, and I think time will show it to be her most egregious (of several) error during the campaign.  That GALVANIZED people to a degree that I think she - or at least some of her followers; she's pretty smart - are still failing to see.    There are a TON of people that just don't want to be told what to think anymore, and they're willing to put up with this to get it.   I can't say I entirely disagree.   We are allowed to have dissenting opinions without being called "deplorable", or without enduring the much-vaunted "consequences", which really aren't "consequences" but rather are "punishments", without due process, without any safeguard or "check and balance". 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 11:31:00 AM
Trump and his team aren't stupid, so I reckon the whole point is to distract people from his restructuring of the NSC - which almost all "traditional" Republicans are bound to find extremely problematic in the least. Due to the ban, it's gotten a lot less coverage than it probably would have otherwise, and while Trump isn't exactly known for his subtlety, I wouldn't be surprised with this being a scheme of Bannon's.

If 'the media' is so out to get something on Trump, why don't they see through this and report the NSC changes then? There's no reason not to give it coverage. Then again, covering up a scandal with a scandal doesn't really speak a lot for his 'subtlety' indeed.

1. Because it's not the "massive" issue it's being made out to be
2. Because even if it was, it's an argument of opinion, and political viewpoint, and that doesn't grab eyeballs.
3. Because it's not about "news" it's about "entertainment"
4. "Grab me some p****" grabs headlines.

It's far more lucrative for them to keep publicizing the Madonna's, the Ashley Judd's of the world have to say than some esoteric discussion on the workings of the National Security Counsel, which isn't wrong per se, just not in keeping with history.  I don't know that I am a "traditional" Republican, but while I'm not a fan of Bannon - and reject him on qualification grounds, not political outlook grounds - I don't see problem with the issue itself. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 11:33:26 AM
For a group that likes to call others sensitive snowflakes, they sure do like policies that are rooted in irrational fear and emotion! Sad!

Not entirely sure what you're getting at, but since I've been saying for three pages now that the left are fear-mongering on an unprecedented level, and thus rooting their dissent in irrational fear and emotion, dare I say we finally agree on something? 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: chknptpie on January 30, 2017, 11:45:46 AM
Can anyone educate me on any positives behind Steve Bannon? I'm still searching here...
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XeRocks81 on January 30, 2017, 11:50:37 AM
This is actually the most unified I've seen this board in a single topic since the election. Maybe ever.

It's the most unified I've seen my other board, too.  Also, I don't know a single Republican, conservative, or libertarian from my law school class of 300 or so that actually voted for him (or at least admits to).  Most of them didn't vote for Hillary, but none voted for Trump.

Even many of the few people defending him on here didn't vote for him.  Which really makes me wonder, where his voters actually did come from.

I really don't understand where all his voters came from.

There are people here that voted for him.  "Boards" are not really a good judge of demographics.  I was a pariah to most on the Genesis board I used to post at, and I'm not that far right at all.   I'm easily the farthest right person on the other board I post (politically) on, and again, if a "pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-equal rights for women, anti-death penalty free-market capitalist" is as far right as you go, it's not really a good spread.   I think with a lot of the fear-mongering and hyperbole, we've chilled speech a little in that regard; I don't know that if I did vote for Trump I would say it here (I'm well on record that I didn't, from day 0, so that's not a cryptic hint or anything). 

I didn't vote for him for one simple reason:  I didn't think then and don't think now that your first elected office should be as President of the United States of America.  (There were other things: I hate the tweeting, I think his tariff and trade ideas are ludicrous from an economic standpoint, and I think the wall is a poor euphemism that went too far.)   

I do, though, understand the mentality of voting for him.  I know that much of my commentary here is not at all about Trump, per se.  I have little interest in sticking up for him personally.   I do, though have a really strong streak about standing up to sanctimony, and haughty, presumed "moral superiority", and most of the opposition to Trump simply REEKS of that.  I think Hillary's "deplorables" comment was very indicative of the separation in this country, and I think time will show it to be her most egregious (of several) error during the campaign.  That GALVANIZED people to a degree that I think she - or at least some of her followers; she's pretty smart - are still failing to see.    There are a TON of people that just don't want to be told what to think anymore, and they're willing to put up with this to get it.   I can't say I entirely disagree.   We are allowed to have dissenting opinions without being called "deplorable", or without enduring the much-vaunted "consequences", which really aren't "consequences" but rather are "punishments", without due process, without any safeguard or "check and balance".

You make it sound like any opposition to trump other than yours is irrational, emotional hogwash.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 11:52:43 AM
I am all for this temporary ban on refugees. Vetting aside, we cannot continue to take in so many thousands and thousands of people and expect our society to continue to strive toward prosperity. Our schools are underfunded, our healthcare is in mediocre/bad/terrible (depending on whom you ask) shape, people are without jobs. As good as it may feel to bring in refugees, they are only going to stretch our resources further, for a segment of the population who is only going to require a disproportionate amount of services and never really assimilate to our culture. I am generalizing, I know there are plenty of success stories of current refugees. But these other countries, not just Sandland, need to get their shit together. It shouldn't be up to the US to take all those trying to escape those shitholes. I don't want the US to get involved with that either, but of course, that is a topic for another thread.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2016/sep/28/tom-delay/tom-delay-says-most-illegal-immigrants-draw-welfar/

A long article on correcting various false claims about illegal immigrants.

A lot of them actually pay taxes into programs they're not eligible for, so they are a net gain for legal Americans regarding Social Security, Medicare, etc.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigrants-and-taxes/499604/

I'm guessing that the net effect of all this is that they're a net gain for US Taxpayers, and instead of straining the system, they're actually helping to prop it up so that actual US Citizens can retire in security.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.  Some of us read these links. It wasn't an article JUST "correcting false claims", though it did that.  It rated DeLay's comments "Half True".  And I rate your math "Pants on Fire".   If you read the article, the estimate on taxes paid in Texas - DeLay's state - are between $1.5 and $1.58 Billion.   But the services rendered are about $58 million (public services), $1.3 billion (healthcare services) plus another $717 million in healthcare services, which totals, and I used a calculator here!, over $2 billion.  So if they COST $2B, and are paying in $1.58 Billion (giving you the high number), how is a shortfall of $500 million a "wash"?
Depends on which numbers you're using and how old they are. The Texas comptroller released a study a few years back suggesting they actually subsidize our local healthcare. In any event, the most recent study pretty much does call them a wash. They do cost more to treat and educate than they contribute through taxes, though not by a huge amount, but also contribute massively to the gross state product. Every time a large business comes here because of a good supply of cheap labor, that's a win.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwjmt736lerRAhUUz2MKHXqiBCgQFggiMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.texaspolicy.com%2Flibrary%2Fdoclib%2FImmigration-s-Impact-on-the-Texas-Economy.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHg9pOIS8GHzodTDRILFGw_xI-K9Q&sig2=7L9R1Wz66t4o2iMEve0Grw&cad=rja

jsbru read the article and "guessed".  I did the math in the article to show his "guess" was wrong.  I'm not at all against immigrants, I don't necessarily agree with all the policies being put forth now, and (as my dad did construction in Florida, a heavily immigrant state) I understand the benefits that immigrants bring.  I don't want to stop that, or even curtail it.  But if we have 10 MILLION illegals here, I don't understand why they can't do the same things as every body else and get "legal".  And "guessing" isn't the right argument.   We can't be formulating policy on "guessing". 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: chknptpie on January 30, 2017, 11:55:27 AM
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong - but aren't the vast majority of our illegal immigrants people who just overstayed their visas? It's not like these people are just breaking through customs in airports or swimming across rivers...
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 11:56:00 AM
This is a list of CRIMINALS who committed other crimes.

Criminals who all just happen to be migrants just as a large campaign is being started against migrants both legally and in propaganda.

Since when does "criminals" get an asterisk?  Since when is "migrants" an exception to being a criminal?  Do you think that guy - the singer for Lamb of God, I think it was - got to claim "MIGRANT!" when he was held without trial in that prison because someone died at his show?

Quote
Quote
There is no "targeting" of a protected group here.

Jew's weren't a protected group in 1930s Germany either.

We're not 1930's Germany.   Presumably we're an enlightened democracy that has had half a century to vet who should be a protected group or not.    If we put "criminals" in that, what's the point of even HAVING criminals?     I suppose you're against the Sexual Offenders registry list then?  Because that's all this is, essentially. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on January 30, 2017, 11:59:55 AM
This is a list of CRIMINALS who committed other crimes.

Criminals who all just happen to be migrants just as a large campaign is being started against migrants both legally and in propaganda.

Since when does "criminals" get an asterisk?  Since when is "migrants" an exception to being a criminal?  Do you think that guy - the singer for Lamb of God, I think it was - got to claim "MIGRANT!" when he was held without trial in that prison because someone died at his show?

Quote
Quote
There is no "targeting" of a protected group here.

Jew's weren't a protected group in 1930s Germany either.

We're not 1930's Germany.   Presumably we're an enlightened democracy that has had half a century to vet who should be a protected group or not.    If we put "criminals" in that, what's the point of even HAVING criminals?     I suppose you're against the Sexual Offenders registry list then?  Because that's all this is, essentially.
Counter-productive feel good legislation that began only as a pet cause for people who rely on electioneering for their livelihood. A bunch of bullshit, frankly.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 12:02:00 PM
Whoa, whoa, whoa.  Some of us read these links. It wasn't an article JUST "correcting false claims", though it did that.  It rated DeLay's comments "Half True".  And I rate your math "Pants on Fire".   If you read the article, the estimate on taxes paid in Texas - DeLay's state - are between $1.5 and $1.58 Billion.   But the services rendered are about $58 million (public services), $1.3 billion (healthcare services) plus another $717 million in healthcare services, which totals, and I used a calculator here!, over $2 billion.  So if they COST $2B, and are paying in $1.58 Billion (giving you the high number), how is a shortfall of $500 million a "wash"?

Stadler, come on.

The estimates of $1.58 billion in taxes paid clearly says it's for state and local taxes only.  This of course leaves out the Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and federal income tax they pay.  These payroll deductions are often many times higher than your state income tax deductions.

The thing is, they are not eligible for any of these programs, so they never get their money back.

I made that very clear in my post that them paying into SS/Medicare is basically just free money for the rest of us.  THEY are supporting US, not the other way around.  Your "math" ignores all of the federal taxes they pay, but I can assure you if merely the state portion is $1.58 billion, their federal share is likely an additional $1.58 billion, if not more.  In any case, it's almost surely going to be over $500 million.

I have maxed out contributions to Social Security every year for at least the past decade, and never once ever paid more in to SS than I have to the general fund vis-à-vis income taxes.   As your article also says (reinforcing one of DeLay's claims, I might add) some of that is actually paid by the EMPLOYERS.  So while yea, the math doesn't include that, it's not flipping the math, especially since for every SS tax adder, there is likely another debit on the other side that "public services" and "healthcare" doesn't capture adequately. 

And the debits were by STATE as well, so if you add in the Federal taxes, you have to start adding in all the Federal expenses too.   I'm apples to apples, and I'm okay with my math. You "guessed" that it was a net positive for the illegals, but the numbers in YOUR article for the state in question do not support your claim. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on January 30, 2017, 12:03:29 PM
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong - but aren't the vast majority of our illegal immigrants people who just overstayed their visas? It's not like these people are just breaking through customs in airports or swimming across rivers...

From my understanding, I think you are correct.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 30, 2017, 12:07:00 PM
Also, if the purpose of the directive was ostensibly to prevent terrorists coming into the country, why did it include those particular 7 nations only, and NOT countries from where terrorists have ACTUALLY come into our country (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc)?

Oh yeah, Trump has business holdings there.  They can't be that bad.

Sad!

The answer is simply this:  That list of 7 countries was actually the list created by the Obama administration of countries that are known to harbor ISIS sympathizers.  Repeat:  this was based on the Obama administration's list.

Can we stick to posting facts and making cogent arguments rather than repeating Face book memes?  We are again crossing over into what got this place closed.
I didn't ask why it included those 7 countries.  I asked why it EXCLUDED other countries from which terrorists have actually entered the US.
That question was indirectly answered.  Likely for the same reason it excluded any other country that the Obama administration's list excluded: because it took the list of 7 countries the Obama administration created and used it verbatim?  Beyond that, I couldn't tell you.  You'd probably have to ask someone in the Obama administration.
The Obama administration is no longer in power, and Obama didn't sign that executive order.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XJDenton on January 30, 2017, 12:09:36 PM
Since when does "criminals" get an asterisk?

Around the time the government decided to single out a certain group of them in order to advertise their criminal activity

Quote
We're not 1930's Germany.

Yet. And I, for one, would like to keep it that way.

Quote
If we put "criminals" in that, what's the point of even HAVING criminals?

If this was a generic criminal list I would be less inclined to complain, but Trump, for example, is not advocating lists of white/blue collar criminals even though they do far more damage. This is deliberately targeted at a sub-section of criminals in order to tar a demographic, one he has consistently demonised in speech and proposed policy, with the same brush. I for one hold the controversial view that people shouldn't be punished for crimes they did not commit.

Quote
I suppose you're against the Sexual Offenders registry list then?

Yes.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 12:09:53 PM
What makes no sense is that the fact that they are green card holders means they were already vetted. Just needless antagonism toward people on the last step toward full citizenship.

But "needless antagonism" toward the "deplorables" is ok.  "Needless antagonism" for the "beeyonaires" (God I miss Bernie) is ok.   "Needless antagonism" toward "all Republicans" because they "want to see people die in order to stick it to Obama" is ok.   Please.  John Lennon waited something like four years to be granted his green card.   I think a weekend's worth of misunderstanding is a minor thing in the grand scheme of things, especially when we're talking about countries that BOTH PARTIES are in agreement that these countries are countries of concern (It was Obama's administration, and if I'm not mistaken John Kerry as Secretary of State that last reviewed this list). 

How about the inconvenience for all those people that lost their doctor under Obamacare?  Or were denied coverages because the Administration "rushed out" the website without making sure it worked?    I suppose that was all ok, because why?  It wasn't Trump?   

I get it; it was poorly done.  No argument.  But all this speculation into motives and all the resulting judgment is a little much.


Also: "why Iran"?  Well, it should be noted, they just shot the bird and thumbed their noses at the UN by testing a ballistic missile.   Frankly, I think THIS is "TERRIFYING".  Where's the outrage there? 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 12:12:57 PM
I'm not saying people are overreacting, but for discussion's sake, this is really targeted at just 7 countries with poor governmental controls. Isn't this order rally just to prevent people from "piling in" before a new and likely more stringent immigration policy is enacted.

Possibly so, but my question to Trump here (and it's rhetorical, I know why) is why has he included 7 countries whose citizens have killed precisely nobody on American soil in the last 40 years (for 'terrorist' reasons I mean)...

The answer is simply this:   That list of 7 countries was actually the list created by the Obama administration of countries that are known to harbor ISIS sympathizers.  Repeat:  this was based on the Obama administration's list.

But Obama was incompetent. We know this because Grabby has been yelling it for the last two years. Why should his policy reflect positively on Trump's? The fact is that he's selling this as a defense against terrorism but it still remains a simple act of normal, American political bullshit. Dave's point is a sound one.


I can't speak to Trump's motives - I know as much as the rest of the people here, and if they want to speculate on another person's motives, that's on them - but it's equally as plausible that it is a measure of establishing SOME continuity and some uniformity.   

Also, as to the notion of "they haven't killed anyone!"; what about plots that have (luckily) been foiled?  I think we're assuming a level of information and read-in that we don't actually have. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on January 30, 2017, 12:14:22 PM
What makes no sense is that the fact that they are green card holders means they were already vetted. Just needless antagonism toward people on the last step toward full citizenship.

But "needless antagonism" toward the "deplorables" is ok.  "Needless antagonism" for the "beeyonaires" (God I miss Bernie) is ok.   "Needless antagonism" toward "all Republicans" because they "want to see people die in order to stick it to Obama" is ok.   Please.  John Lennon waited something like four years to be granted his green card.   I think a weekend's worth of misunderstanding is a minor thing in the grand scheme of things, especially when we're talking about countries that BOTH PARTIES are in agreement that these countries are countries of concern (It was Obama's administration, and if I'm not mistaken John Kerry as Secretary of State that last reviewed this list). 

How about the inconvenience for all those people that lost their doctor under Obamacare?  Or were denied coverages because the Administration "rushed out" the website without making sure it worked?    I suppose that was all ok, because why?  It wasn't Trump?   

I get it; it was poorly done.  No argument.  But all this speculation into motives and all the resulting judgment is a little much.


Also: "why Iran"?  Well, it should be noted, they just shot the bird and thumbed their noses at the UN by testing a ballistic missile.   Frankly, I think THIS is "TERRIFYING".  Where's the outrage there? 

Needless antagonism by the state against a group of legal permanent residents whose only misdeed was to get on a plane on the wrong day is worse than all of those things, yes. And maybe one day you can tell us all the proper way to criticize this administration instead of just cutting down other people's arguments.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: chknptpie on January 30, 2017, 12:15:20 PM
For informational purposes
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/s960x960/16252066_10155977011908438_4471363992269805913_o.jpg?oh=681a928313654de3ac2b54b6e2927776&oe=5947E4E6)
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on January 30, 2017, 12:23:22 PM
I'm not saying people are overreacting, but for discussion's sake, this is really targeted at just 7 countries with poor governmental controls. Isn't this order rally just to prevent people from "piling in" before a new and likely more stringent immigration policy is enacted.

Possibly so, but my question to Trump here (and it's rhetorical, I know why) is why has he included 7 countries whose citizens have killed precisely nobody on American soil in the last 40 years (for 'terrorist' reasons I mean)...

The answer is simply this:   That list of 7 countries was actually the list created by the Obama administration of countries that are known to harbor ISIS sympathizers.  Repeat:  this was based on the Obama administration's list.

But Obama was incompetent. We know this because Grabby has been yelling it for the last two years. Why should his policy reflect positively on Trump's? The fact is that he's selling this as a defense against terrorism but it still remains a simple act of normal, American political bullshit. Dave's point is a sound one.


I can't speak to Trump's motives - I know as much as the rest of the people here, and if they want to speculate on another person's motives, that's on them - but it's equally as plausible that it is a measure of establishing SOME continuity and some uniformity.   

Also, as to the notion of "they haven't killed anyone!"; what about plots that have (luckily) been foiled?  I think we're assuming a level of information and read-in that we don't actually have.
My hunch is that outside your role as iconoclast you have a very good understanding of Trump's motives.

And it's not so much about who is on the list, but rather who is not that's problematic. We really do a shit job of picking our friends, and Papa Dumbass did us all a huge disservice by crawling into bed with King Fahd.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 12:31:06 PM
The number of checks and balances in place that are able to temper the white house administration's more authoritarian attempts at power have no bearing on whether the administration itself is fascist or not. Hitler was a fascist even when he was just making loud speeches in the Munich beer halls without a lick of real power. And the current administration, if not overtly fascist, have multiple hallmarks of a fascist, autocratic administration.

Nor does "having hallmarks of a fascist, autocratic administration" mean it IS a fascist, autocratic administration.    The checks and balances are important, not just because it protects the people from the autocrat, but to the extent that the policies and procedures pass muster, it's either proof that it ISN'T fascism, or it's a level of fascism that our system is prepared to accept.  If you read "Liberal Fascism", you'd know that this exercise pales in comparison to the "hallmarks of a fascist, autocratic administration" that have reared their heads, since at least the administration of the left's Ronald Reagan, FDR.   


(And it should be noted that in that same book, the author Goldberg, as well as Richard Bernstein of the NY Times and George Orwell - who knows his way around a fascist regime - pointed out that increasingly, the moniker "fascism" has lost it's original meaning and has morphed into a euphemism for "something not desirable by the left".).
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 12:38:40 PM
“The media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while. I want you to quote me on this. The media here is the opposition party."
- Steve Bannon, 2017 as White House Chief Strategist.

“We’re the platform for the alt-right."
- Steve Bannon on Breitbart, July 2016, shortly before leaving Breitbart to head Trump's campaign in August.

“Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal, too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.”
- Steve Bannon, 2013.

But there's no reason at all to be concernd about the future of the integrity of institutions, equal rights, or freedom of the press.

But Democratic Socialism is fine, the REVOLUTION, is to be APPLAUDED.   Please.

Democratic Socialism IS fine(Not perfect, just fine),   plenty of countries have one form or another of it.

Can you cite the grand decree or proclamation that says that YOUR form of extremism is okay, but other forms are not?  (Especially when using the standard of American republican representative democracy as the context.)  Unless you're hell bent on the narrow definition of "Fascism" as "Nazism", plenty of countries have a benign form of fascism too, and it is "not perfect, just fine".   Bulgaria, Armenia, Venezuela, Bolivia, France, Denmark, Greece, Spain, Ukraine, the Netherlands and Hungary all have what others here have called "the hallmarks of a fascist government".  Not saying it's my preference, but it's also not the end of the world.   

And none of this is to say that I think Trump - or his government - is "fascist".

 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Implode on January 30, 2017, 12:41:28 PM
I suppose you're against the Sexual Offenders registry list then?  Because that's all this is, essentially.

I think it's worth stating that I, too, think that registry is not a good thing.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 12:45:26 PM
“The media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while. I want you to quote me on this. The media here is the opposition party."
- Steve Bannon, 2017 as White House Chief Strategist.

“We’re the platform for the alt-right."
- Steve Bannon on Breitbart, July 2016, shortly before leaving Breitbart to head Trump's campaign in August.

“Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal, too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.”
- Steve Bannon, 2013.

But there's no reason at all to be concernd about the future of the integrity of institutions, equal rights, or freedom of the press.

But Democratic Socialism is fine, the REVOLUTION, is to be APPLAUDED.   Please.
False equivalence?  Apples and oranges? 

Democratic Socialism doesn't quash the media, destroy the state, or trample on individual rights.

Of course it does; it just quashes the media in a more subtle way (PC-ism), tramples different people's rights (the rich, intellectuals, anyone with an opinion that doesn't go lock step with the majority), and ultimately destroys the state by driving it bankrupt.  Somehow, that has been deemed okay.

It's still political extremism, and more partisanship. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 30, 2017, 12:48:05 PM
Sure, OK. 

So you're in favor of Steve Bannon and the things he said.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XJDenton on January 30, 2017, 12:51:19 PM
Of course it does; it just quashes the media in a more subtle way (PC-ism), tramples different people's rights (the rich, intellectuals, anyone with an opinion that doesn't go lock step with the majority), and ultimately destroys the state by driving it bankrupt.  Somehow, that has been deemed okay.

It's still political extremism, and more partisanship. 

As an intellectual who lives in a social democracy, I'm not sure your view of the system is based in reality.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 12:59:09 PM
This is actually the most unified I've seen this board in a single topic since the election. Maybe ever.

It's the most unified I've seen my other board, too.  Also, I don't know a single Republican, conservative, or libertarian from my law school class of 300 or so that actually voted for him (or at least admits to).  Most of them didn't vote for Hillary, but none voted for Trump.

Even many of the few people defending him on here didn't vote for him.  Which really makes me wonder, where his voters actually did come from.

I really don't understand where all his voters came from.

There are people here that voted for him.  "Boards" are not really a good judge of demographics.  I was a pariah to most on the Genesis board I used to post at, and I'm not that far right at all.   I'm easily the farthest right person on the other board I post (politically) on, and again, if a "pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-equal rights for women, anti-death penalty free-market capitalist" is as far right as you go, it's not really a good spread.   I think with a lot of the fear-mongering and hyperbole, we've chilled speech a little in that regard; I don't know that if I did vote for Trump I would say it here (I'm well on record that I didn't, from day 0, so that's not a cryptic hint or anything). 

I didn't vote for him for one simple reason:  I didn't think then and don't think now that your first elected office should be as President of the United States of America.  (There were other things: I hate the tweeting, I think his tariff and trade ideas are ludicrous from an economic standpoint, and I think the wall is a poor euphemism that went too far.)   

I do, though, understand the mentality of voting for him.  I know that much of my commentary here is not at all about Trump, per se.  I have little interest in sticking up for him personally.   I do, though have a really strong streak about standing up to sanctimony, and haughty, presumed "moral superiority", and most of the opposition to Trump simply REEKS of that.  I think Hillary's "deplorables" comment was very indicative of the separation in this country, and I think time will show it to be her most egregious (of several) error during the campaign.  That GALVANIZED people to a degree that I think she - or at least some of her followers; she's pretty smart - are still failing to see.    There are a TON of people that just don't want to be told what to think anymore, and they're willing to put up with this to get it.   I can't say I entirely disagree.   We are allowed to have dissenting opinions without being called "deplorable", or without enduring the much-vaunted "consequences", which really aren't "consequences" but rather are "punishments", without due process, without any safeguard or "check and balance".

You make it sound like any opposition to trump other than yours is irrational, emotional hogwash.

Not at all, and if that is what you took, I'm sorry.  But opposition that has to scream "FASCISM!" and "THIS IS THE WORST THING TO EVER HIT OUR COUNTRY" and "I'M TERRIFIED OF WHAT COMES NEXT!" when the only thing to come is bold, decisive leadership - albeit galvanizing leadership - then yeah.  There's plenty to criticize Trump about, and we don't have to make stuff up or cry wolf to do it.

You want a fair reasoned discussion of the downsides of Trump?  Let's talk...
- about the efficacy of tariffs and what he long term consequence - ECONOMICALLY - might be;
- about the efficacy of forcing companies to stay in the states and pay higher wages when they can get the same labor cheaper elsewhere;
- about the efficacy of a the GENERAL premise of immigration reform that upgrades the diligence necessary to get into this country
- the efficacy of having the policy of the United States played out in twitter bites, and the efficacy of having our national policy undergo deep dives in our media;
- the integrity (or lack thereof) in the reporting of the Trump administration.  The degree to which a) media outlets are increasingly resorting to op-ed masquerading as true journalism and are relying on false interpretations and opinionated reactions to Trump policies, in lieu of what the ACTUAL policies say, and b) the extent to which Trump is instigating or at least not mitigating this phenomenon
- the increasing lack of touch with respect to liberals and the populace that voted for Trump, and now Trump and those that opposed (and still do) his Presidency;
- pros and cons of a "bold, decisive President"

There's plenty to talk about there and I didn't once mention "fascism" or "TERROR" or "orange" or "alternative facts". 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 01:12:43 PM
This is a list of CRIMINALS who committed other crimes.

Criminals who all just happen to be migrants just as a large campaign is being started against migrants both legally and in propaganda.

Since when does "criminals" get an asterisk?  Since when is "migrants" an exception to being a criminal?  Do you think that guy - the singer for Lamb of God, I think it was - got to claim "MIGRANT!" when he was held without trial in that prison because someone died at his show?

Quote
Quote
There is no "targeting" of a protected group here.

Jew's weren't a protected group in 1930s Germany either.

We're not 1930's Germany.   Presumably we're an enlightened democracy that has had half a century to vet who should be a protected group or not.    If we put "criminals" in that, what's the point of even HAVING criminals?     I suppose you're against the Sexual Offenders registry list then?  Because that's all this is, essentially.
Counter-productive feel good legislation that began only as a pet cause for people who rely on electioneering for their livelihood. A bunch of bullshit, frankly.

I don't disagree with that practically, but the underlying point is that they are the same, and if you're against one, you're against the other, and so the argument isn't "TRUMP! FACIST!" it's "counter-productive feel good legislation that began only as a pet cause for people who rely on electioneering for their livelihood, and a bunch of bullshit."
 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 01:39:48 PM
Since when does "criminals" get an asterisk?

Around the time the government decided to single out a certain group of them in order to advertise their criminal activity

That's where you're wrong. They're NOT singling out a certain group.   They're just advertising the criminal activity.  It's not "Jews" with crimes, it's not "blacks" with crimes, or any other group that had they been listed by themselves it would be problematic.  It' CRIMINALS with crimes. 

Quote
If this was a generic criminal list I would be less inclined to complain, but Trump, for example, is not advocating lists of white/blue collar criminals even though they do far more damage. This is deliberately targeted at a sub-section of criminals in order to tar a demographic, one he has consistently demonised in speech and proposed policy, with the same brush. I for one hold the controversial view that people shouldn't be punished for crimes they did not commit.

I don't understand that.  It is blue/white collar criminals. It's ANYONE who committed a crime, as long as one of those crimes is "illegally being in the United States". 

Quote
Quote
I suppose you're against the Sexual Offenders registry list then?

Yes.

Well at least you're consistent.  I'll give you that.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 01:47:10 PM
What makes no sense is that the fact that they are green card holders means they were already vetted. Just needless antagonism toward people on the last step toward full citizenship.

But "needless antagonism" toward the "deplorables" is ok.  "Needless antagonism" for the "beeyonaires" (God I miss Bernie) is ok.   "Needless antagonism" toward "all Republicans" because they "want to see people die in order to stick it to Obama" is ok.   Please.  John Lennon waited something like four years to be granted his green card.   I think a weekend's worth of misunderstanding is a minor thing in the grand scheme of things, especially when we're talking about countries that BOTH PARTIES are in agreement that these countries are countries of concern (It was Obama's administration, and if I'm not mistaken John Kerry as Secretary of State that last reviewed this list). 

How about the inconvenience for all those people that lost their doctor under Obamacare?  Or were denied coverages because the Administration "rushed out" the website without making sure it worked?    I suppose that was all ok, because why?  It wasn't Trump?   

I get it; it was poorly done.  No argument.  But all this speculation into motives and all the resulting judgment is a little much.


Also: "why Iran"?  Well, it should be noted, they just shot the bird and thumbed their noses at the UN by testing a ballistic missile.   Frankly, I think THIS is "TERRIFYING".  Where's the outrage there? 

Needless antagonism by the state against a group of legal permanent residents whose only misdeed was to get on a plane on the wrong day is worse than all of those things, yes. And maybe one day you can tell us all the proper way to criticize this administration instead of just cutting down other people's arguments.

To YOU.  I don't agree.   So what then? Who decides?  Well, one option is our President.   

As for your last point, I've already been quite clear on that (as, I might add, has Bosk).  I'm not a mod, I don't get to tell you how to reply (and likely wouldn't even if I could; being a Libertarian and all), but I can - and will, at the pleasure of the court (the mods) - continue to point out ad hominem knee-jerk arguments that are purely vindictive and lacking in any real substance other than pure emotion.   The credibility of labeling everything you disagree with - for whatever reason - as either "fascist!" or "terrifying!" is almost zero at this point.  Almost every criticism of these Executive Orders is couched in misinformation, mis-stated facts, or some other obfuscation that undermines the criticism itself.  If Trump is SO bad, why the need for all the hyperbole?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XJDenton on January 30, 2017, 01:53:06 PM
That's where you're wrong. They're NOT singling out a certain group.

Quote
It's ANYONE who committed a crime, as long as one of those crimes is "illegally being in the United States".

So they are singling out a single group/subset of criminals then.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 01:56:48 PM
I can't speak to Trump's motives - I know as much as the rest of the people here, and if they want to speculate on another person's motives, that's on them - but it's equally as plausible that it is a measure of establishing SOME continuity and some uniformity.   

Also, as to the notion of "they haven't killed anyone!"; what about plots that have (luckily) been foiled?  I think we're assuming a level of information and read-in that we don't actually have.
My hunch is that outside your role as iconoclast you have a very good understanding of Trump's motives.

And it's not so much about who is on the list, but rather who is not that's problematic. We really do a shit job of picking our friends, and Papa Dumbass did us all a huge disservice by crawling into bed with King Fahd.

I have my guesses like everyone else, but they're MY guesses, and I don't suppose to make policy based on them.  Unlike many here, I've seen people like Trump (and Rex Tillorson) move from private sector into the public, and it wasn't anything like the "anti-corporate", "all rich people are heartless, ruthless soulless scumbags who need to be stopped" want us to believe.   There are always exceptions, but for the most part, it's NOT a aggrandizing, money-making proposition, but rather a form - good or bad is in the eye of the beholder, and sometimes depending on your voter registration card - of giving back. 

I'm with you a 1000% on Saudi Arabia.   But since Reagan, we've been unwilling to tweak that nose, and that includes Clinton and Obama, so to call out Trump on it is wrong from the get-go, then to justify it with opinionated, subjective motivations, is worse, then to actually ARGUE about it, and throw ad hominem arguments at the people you're talking with... well, I can't even. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XeRocks81 on January 30, 2017, 01:58:57 PM
What makes no sense is that the fact that they are green card holders means they were already vetted. Just needless antagonism toward people on the last step toward full citizenship.

But "needless antagonism" toward the "deplorables" is ok.  "Needless antagonism" for the "beeyonaires" (God I miss Bernie) is ok.   "Needless antagonism" toward "all Republicans" because they "want to see people die in order to stick it to Obama" is ok.   Please.  John Lennon waited something like four years to be granted his green card.   I think a weekend's worth of misunderstanding is a minor thing in the grand scheme of things, especially when we're talking about countries that BOTH PARTIES are in agreement that these countries are countries of concern (It was Obama's administration, and if I'm not mistaken John Kerry as Secretary of State that last reviewed this list). 

How about the inconvenience for all those people that lost their doctor under Obamacare?  Or were denied coverages because the Administration "rushed out" the website without making sure it worked?    I suppose that was all ok, because why?  It wasn't Trump?   

I get it; it was poorly done.  No argument.  But all this speculation into motives and all the resulting judgment is a little much.


Also: "why Iran"?  Well, it should be noted, they just shot the bird and thumbed their noses at the UN by testing a ballistic missile.   Frankly, I think THIS is "TERRIFYING".  Where's the outrage there? 

Needless antagonism by the state against a group of legal permanent residents whose only misdeed was to get on a plane on the wrong day is worse than all of those things, yes. And maybe one day you can tell us all the proper way to criticize this administration instead of just cutting down other people's arguments.

To YOU.  I don't agree.   So what then? Who decides?  Well, one option is our President.   

As for your last point, I've already been quite clear on that (as, I might add, has Bosk).  I'm not a mod, I don't get to tell you how to reply (and likely wouldn't even if I could; being a Libertarian and all), but I can - and will, at the pleasure of the court (the mods) - continue to point out ad hominem knee-jerk arguments that are purely vindictive and lacking in any real substance other than pure emotion.   The credibility of labeling everything you disagree with - for whatever reason - as either "fascist!" or "terrifying!" is almost zero at this point.  Almost every criticism of these Executive Orders is couched in misinformation, mis-stated facts, or some other obfuscation that undermines the criticism itself.  If Trump is SO bad, why the need for all the hyperbole?

I think having sympathy, and showing solidarity with people affected by those excecutive orders, like has happened in airports over the weekend, is a worthy thing.   I think emotions have a place in the discourse.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 30, 2017, 02:01:28 PM
The Dow Jones sank to its lowest level in more than three months on Monday as markets reacted to the global outcry following President Donald Trump's executive order on extreme vetting. (http://www.nbcnews.com/business/markets/markets-slump-reaction-uncertainty-global-outcry-over-immigration-ban-n714301)
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 02:10:27 PM
Sure, OK. 

So you're in favor of Steve Bannon and the things he said.

Who me?  I never said anything of the sort.   
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: TAC on January 30, 2017, 02:11:25 PM
I didn't ask why it included those 7 countries.  I asked why it EXCLUDED other countries from which terrorists have actually entered the US.
That question was indirectly answered.  Likely for the same reason it excluded any other country that the Obama administration's list excluded: because it took the list of 7 countries the Obama administration created and used it verbatim?  Beyond that, I couldn't tell you.  You'd probably have to ask someone in the Obama administration.

But you just banned him!   ;D








I'm kidding!
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: bosk1 on January 30, 2017, 02:18:48 PM
Oh, wow.  :lol
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Implode on January 30, 2017, 02:24:53 PM
:lol

Oh no, you guys are onto us. Gonna take my last check as a professional protester and get out of here! :meepmeep:
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 02:27:36 PM
Of course it does; it just quashes the media in a more subtle way (PC-ism), tramples different people's rights (the rich, intellectuals, anyone with an opinion that doesn't go lock step with the majority), and ultimately destroys the state by driving it bankrupt.  Somehow, that has been deemed okay.

It's still political extremism, and more partisanship. 

As an intellectual who lives in a social democracy, I'm not sure your view of the system is based in reality.

It is here.  Here, social democracy is big on the social bullying; if you don't toe the line with ACCEPTANCE (tolerance is so '90's) you're bullied into forced acquiescence.   The last election here is proof of the second thing; the left's entire platform was predicated on the top 20% being responsible for the ills of the rest of the population.  EVERY platform was on the back of the so-called ungrateful rich who - despite being in one of the more progressive taxation schemes in the world - who have done nothing but rape and pillage the poor of this country for decades now.   And our debt has SKYROCKETED under the last eight years of what isn't really "democratic socialism" but is close, and with the complete economic irresponsibility of most of Bernie's plans, would likely only increase.  There IS a limit.   The Soviet Union found it in the late '80's.  We'd be looking at something akin to that before too long. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XeRocks81 on January 30, 2017, 02:28:37 PM
Sure, OK. 

So you're in favor of Steve Bannon and the things he said.

Who me?  I never said anything of the sort.   

NO but you went off on a tangent about democratic socialism instead.

Anyway my hat is off to you Stadler,  you've turned this thread around like a one-man army of buzzkill. Kudos  :biggrin:
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 02:30:37 PM
To YOU.  I don't agree.   So what then? Who decides?  Well, one option is our President.   

As for your last point, I've already been quite clear on that (as, I might add, has Bosk).  I'm not a mod, I don't get to tell you how to reply (and likely wouldn't even if I could; being a Libertarian and all), but I can - and will, at the pleasure of the court (the mods) - continue to point out ad hominem knee-jerk arguments that are purely vindictive and lacking in any real substance other than pure emotion.   The credibility of labeling everything you disagree with - for whatever reason - as either "fascist!" or "terrifying!" is almost zero at this point.  Almost every criticism of these Executive Orders is couched in misinformation, mis-stated facts, or some other obfuscation that undermines the criticism itself.  If Trump is SO bad, why the need for all the hyperbole?

I think having sympathy, and showing solidarity with people affected by those excecutive orders, like has happened in airports over the weekend, is a worthy thing.   I think emotions have a place in the discourse.

Of COURSE they do.  I'm not an animal.  But it shouldn't be the basis for the counter-policy.   Should Trump have been more forgiving? Maybe; there are arguments either way, but no one here is making those arguments.  They're just yelling FACIST! and assuming that we're all TERRIFIED and will fall in line.   
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 30, 2017, 02:31:03 PM
Sure, OK. 

So you're in favor of Steve Bannon and the things he said.

Who me?  I never said anything of the sort.
When RuRoRaul made a post of quotes from Bannon and a perfectly reasonable question/comment/concern about rights, instead of addressing that you posted something negative about Democratic Socialism, which is completely beside the point.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 02:32:59 PM
The Dow Jones sank to its lowest level in more than three months on Monday as markets reacted to the global outcry following President Donald Trump's executive order on extreme vetting. (http://www.nbcnews.com/business/markets/markets-slump-reaction-uncertainty-global-outcry-over-immigration-ban-n714301)

What's the point of this, other than to imply that Trump caused it?   Didn't I get lambasted not three days ago for saying the EXACT same thing about Obama and the crash of '09?

For the record, I think the market was reacting to Trump, and it's another indicator of his inexperience with that level of power.   But fair is fair.   
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 30, 2017, 02:34:26 PM
The Dow Jones sank to its lowest level in more than three months on Monday as markets reacted to the global outcry following President Donald Trump's executive order on extreme vetting. (http://www.nbcnews.com/business/markets/markets-slump-reaction-uncertainty-global-outcry-over-immigration-ban-n714301)

What's the point of this, other than to imply that Trump caused it?   Didn't I get lambasted not three days ago for saying the EXACT same thing about Obama and the crash of '09?
I posted it EXACTLY because you said that.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on January 30, 2017, 02:35:51 PM
The Dow Jones sank to its lowest level in more than three months on Monday as markets reacted to the global outcry following President Donald Trump's executive order on extreme vetting. (http://www.nbcnews.com/business/markets/markets-slump-reaction-uncertainty-global-outcry-over-immigration-ban-n714301)

What's the point of this, other than to imply that Trump caused it?   Didn't I get lambasted not three days ago for saying the EXACT same thing about Obama and the crash of '09?

For the record, I think the market was reacting to Trump, and it's another indicator of his inexperience with that level of power.   But fair is fair.

But what is interesting is that the DOW sunk to it's lowest level in 3 months aka since Trump won.  The DOW is still doing very well since he won, but yes I do agree that the immigration ban is bad for American business.  The company I work for (tech business) is going hardcore against this because they feel it hurts our business.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: TAC on January 30, 2017, 02:38:18 PM
But last week, it was over 20k.

Apparently it dips today and there's a million Arnold Horchacks going Oh! Oh! Oh!


This is so tiring.

Not reading the thread, but everyday it's something else.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 30, 2017, 02:44:30 PM
everyday it's something else.
Yeah, that's the problem.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on January 30, 2017, 02:48:59 PM
What makes no sense is that the fact that they are green card holders means they were already vetted. Just needless antagonism toward people on the last step toward full citizenship.

But "needless antagonism" toward the "deplorables" is ok.  "Needless antagonism" for the "beeyonaires" (God I miss Bernie) is ok.   "Needless antagonism" toward "all Republicans" because they "want to see people die in order to stick it to Obama" is ok.   Please.  John Lennon waited something like four years to be granted his green card.   I think a weekend's worth of misunderstanding is a minor thing in the grand scheme of things, especially when we're talking about countries that BOTH PARTIES are in agreement that these countries are countries of concern (It was Obama's administration, and if I'm not mistaken John Kerry as Secretary of State that last reviewed this list). 

How about the inconvenience for all those people that lost their doctor under Obamacare?  Or were denied coverages because the Administration "rushed out" the website without making sure it worked?    I suppose that was all ok, because why?  It wasn't Trump?   

I get it; it was poorly done.  No argument.  But all this speculation into motives and all the resulting judgment is a little much.


Also: "why Iran"?  Well, it should be noted, they just shot the bird and thumbed their noses at the UN by testing a ballistic missile.   Frankly, I think THIS is "TERRIFYING".  Where's the outrage there? 

Needless antagonism by the state against a group of legal permanent residents whose only misdeed was to get on a plane on the wrong day is worse than all of those things, yes. And maybe one day you can tell us all the proper way to criticize this administration instead of just cutting down other people's arguments.

To YOU.  I don't agree.   So what then? Who decides?  Well, one option is our President.   

As for your last point, I've already been quite clear on that (as, I might add, has Bosk).  I'm not a mod, I don't get to tell you how to reply (and likely wouldn't even if I could; being a Libertarian and all), but I can - and will, at the pleasure of the court (the mods) - continue to point out ad hominem knee-jerk arguments that are purely vindictive and lacking in any real substance other than pure emotion.   The credibility of labeling everything you disagree with - for whatever reason - as either "fascist!" or "terrifying!" is almost zero at this point.  Almost every criticism of these Executive Orders is couched in misinformation, mis-stated facts, or some other obfuscation that undermines the criticism itself.  If Trump is SO bad, why the need for all the hyperbole?

That's fine, you can do whatever you want. But could it hurt to just engage on the merits a bit more?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 02:54:58 PM
Sure, OK. 

So you're in favor of Steve Bannon and the things he said.

Who me?  I never said anything of the sort.   

NO but you went off on a tangent about democratic socialism instead.

Anyway my hat is off to you Stadler,  you've turned this thread around like a one-man army of buzzkill. Kudos  :biggrin:

How is it a buzzkill?   Not playing along with the pack?  I don't know; I don't do this to be a contrarian, but I'd say that's a reason to be PROUD. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on January 30, 2017, 02:55:27 PM
Sure, OK. 

So you're in favor of Steve Bannon and the things he said.

Who me?  I never said anything of the sort.   

NO but you went off on a tangent about democratic socialism instead.

Anyway my hat is off to you Stadler,  you've turned this thread around like a one-man army of buzzkill. Kudos  :biggrin:

Stadler knocking down all the logical fallacies like:

(https://media.giphy.com/media/J4kGS8aPKhmG4/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on January 30, 2017, 02:57:02 PM
We are in PR, I feel like almost every topic is going to be buzzkill  :lol  well except the marijuana legalization thread   :hat
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Elite on January 30, 2017, 03:08:26 PM
It's immoral, ridiculous and just completely wrong. What the hell was he thinking? This whole thing was 't even thought out properly. What the hell did DJT think would happen? That there would be no repercussions from sensible people at all? Of course not. This is without a doubt a fascist measure that serve no purpose other than to be anti-democratic and nationalistic with an autoritarian flair. It's frankly the most disgusting thing I've seen happen in a Western world 'democracy'.

Really?   Worse than "black" and "white" toilets?   Worse than all Japanese put in internment camps?   Worse than the euthanasia experiments of the '20's?   Do I even need to mention the experiments on soldiers and prisoners regarding LSD and other psychotropic drugs?  How about the grand-daddy of all, slavery?   

You're REALLY pushing the hyperbole here.   REALLY pushing it.
I may be wrong, but I took "I've seen" as things he'd seen happen during his lifetime.

Yeah, this is indeed true. Although it might have been ill-worded. Though I'm sure there's stuff you (not necessarily directed at Stadler) can come up with that are similar to some extent, I doubt you'll find anything like it in the Western world in recent history.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 03:12:27 PM
What makes no sense is that the fact that they are green card holders means they were already vetted. Just needless antagonism toward people on the last step toward full citizenship.

But "needless antagonism" toward the "deplorables" is ok.  "Needless antagonism" for the "beeyonaires" (God I miss Bernie) is ok.   "Needless antagonism" toward "all Republicans" because they "want to see people die in order to stick it to Obama" is ok.   Please.  John Lennon waited something like four years to be granted his green card.   I think a weekend's worth of misunderstanding is a minor thing in the grand scheme of things, especially when we're talking about countries that BOTH PARTIES are in agreement that these countries are countries of concern (It was Obama's administration, and if I'm not mistaken John Kerry as Secretary of State that last reviewed this list). 

How about the inconvenience for all those people that lost their doctor under Obamacare?  Or were denied coverages because the Administration "rushed out" the website without making sure it worked?    I suppose that was all ok, because why?  It wasn't Trump?   

I get it; it was poorly done.  No argument.  But all this speculation into motives and all the resulting judgment is a little much.


Also: "why Iran"?  Well, it should be noted, they just shot the bird and thumbed their noses at the UN by testing a ballistic missile.   Frankly, I think THIS is "TERRIFYING".  Where's the outrage there? 

Needless antagonism by the state against a group of legal permanent residents whose only misdeed was to get on a plane on the wrong day is worse than all of those things, yes. And maybe one day you can tell us all the proper way to criticize this administration instead of just cutting down other people's arguments.

To YOU.  I don't agree.   So what then? Who decides?  Well, one option is our President.   

As for your last point, I've already been quite clear on that (as, I might add, has Bosk).  I'm not a mod, I don't get to tell you how to reply (and likely wouldn't even if I could; being a Libertarian and all), but I can - and will, at the pleasure of the court (the mods) - continue to point out ad hominem knee-jerk arguments that are purely vindictive and lacking in any real substance other than pure emotion.   The credibility of labeling everything you disagree with - for whatever reason - as either "fascist!" or "terrifying!" is almost zero at this point.  Almost every criticism of these Executive Orders is couched in misinformation, mis-stated facts, or some other obfuscation that undermines the criticism itself.  If Trump is SO bad, why the need for all the hyperbole?

That's fine, you can do whatever you want. But could it hurt to just engage on the merits a bit more?

Are you making fun of me?  I've been BEGGING to engage on the merits this entire time. That's the whole point.  "IT'S FASCISM! AND IT'S TERRIFYING" is NOT the merits!   There's very little here that IS "the merits".  I don't exactly like what Trump's doing, and I certainly don't like the "shoot now ask questions later" approach, so there's a lot to discuss.

I'm just baffled by the general complaints about how we're so divided as a country and there's no debate, and we can't get past this grid lock... and then the dialogue is "Trump's got orange hair and is trying to be HITLER!"  It's not productive.   Hell, even if you think he IS being Hitler, at least dig in as to why.  Nuts and bolts. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: chknptpie on January 30, 2017, 03:17:38 PM
Stadler - I'm interested to know your opinions of Steve Bannon and how he should\will be influencing the current administration.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on January 30, 2017, 03:30:43 PM
What makes no sense is that the fact that they are green card holders means they were already vetted. Just needless antagonism toward people on the last step toward full citizenship.

But "needless antagonism" toward the "deplorables" is ok.  "Needless antagonism" for the "beeyonaires" (God I miss Bernie) is ok.   "Needless antagonism" toward "all Republicans" because they "want to see people die in order to stick it to Obama" is ok.   Please.  John Lennon waited something like four years to be granted his green card.   I think a weekend's worth of misunderstanding is a minor thing in the grand scheme of things, especially when we're talking about countries that BOTH PARTIES are in agreement that these countries are countries of concern (It was Obama's administration, and if I'm not mistaken John Kerry as Secretary of State that last reviewed this list). 

How about the inconvenience for all those people that lost their doctor under Obamacare?  Or were denied coverages because the Administration "rushed out" the website without making sure it worked?    I suppose that was all ok, because why?  It wasn't Trump?   

I get it; it was poorly done.  No argument.  But all this speculation into motives and all the resulting judgment is a little much.


Also: "why Iran"?  Well, it should be noted, they just shot the bird and thumbed their noses at the UN by testing a ballistic missile.   Frankly, I think THIS is "TERRIFYING".  Where's the outrage there? 

Needless antagonism by the state against a group of legal permanent residents whose only misdeed was to get on a plane on the wrong day is worse than all of those things, yes. And maybe one day you can tell us all the proper way to criticize this administration instead of just cutting down other people's arguments.

To YOU.  I don't agree.   So what then? Who decides?  Well, one option is our President.   

As for your last point, I've already been quite clear on that (as, I might add, has Bosk).  I'm not a mod, I don't get to tell you how to reply (and likely wouldn't even if I could; being a Libertarian and all), but I can - and will, at the pleasure of the court (the mods) - continue to point out ad hominem knee-jerk arguments that are purely vindictive and lacking in any real substance other than pure emotion.   The credibility of labeling everything you disagree with - for whatever reason - as either "fascist!" or "terrifying!" is almost zero at this point.  Almost every criticism of these Executive Orders is couched in misinformation, mis-stated facts, or some other obfuscation that undermines the criticism itself.  If Trump is SO bad, why the need for all the hyperbole?

That's fine, you can do whatever you want. But could it hurt to just engage on the merits a bit more?

Are you making fun of me?  I've been BEGGING to engage on the merits this entire time. That's the whole point.  "IT'S FASCISM! AND IT'S TERRIFYING" is NOT the merits!   There's very little here that IS "the merits".  I don't exactly like what Trump's doing, and I certainly don't like the "shoot now ask questions later" approach, so there's a lot to discuss.

I'm just baffled by the general complaints about how we're so divided as a country and there's no debate, and we can't get past this grid lock... and then the dialogue is "Trump's got orange hair and is trying to be HITLER!"  It's not productive.   Hell, even if you think he IS being Hitler, at least dig in as to why.  Nuts and bolts. 

Okay. I'm not making fun of you it's just genuinely how it comes across to me - for someone who repeatedly claims to not like Trump it's hard to get a detailed criticism of anything he does out of you. But if you're saying otherwise I apologize for the misunderstanding. Sorry to get so personal. Moving on...
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: bosk1 on January 30, 2017, 03:40:37 PM
I can't speak for Stadler (and wouldn't want to if I could), but I can say that I feel similarly and have similarly said that I don't like him either.  But by the same token, I similarly can't really criticize much that he has actually done so far.  As Stadler has tried to point out, the vast majority of the criticism out there is either so hyperbolic or so based on misinformation that what people are trying to criticize doesn't really bear much resemblance to reality, so criticism isn't really productive.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 03:55:46 PM
Stadler - I'm interested to know your opinions of Steve Bannon and how he should\will be influencing the current administration.

I wish I knew more about the makeup of the organization and how the power was distributed.  I don't like any "one voice", even if I am in agreement with that voice.  I am okay with outlying voices, IF there is a corresponding exchange of ideas.   I don't at all share the same view that most who oppose Trump seem to have, that it's a man-baby in a diaper and Steve Bannon is continually whispering "Jews, bad! Muslims, bad!  Blacks bad!" into his ear.  (Or you can insert whoever you dislike the most in there; I have a friend who's very liberal and VERY anti-corporate, and his version is "Man-baby" with Rex Tillerson whispering "Profits, good! Taxes, bad! Regulations, bad!  Global warming, screw it!").  But I think that the dynamics of the cabinet are important, and we can't see that yet. 

I know this is painful for some, but I don't at all agree with censoring certain voices or ideas, even at the Presidential level.  Implementation of those ideas is a different story, but I think at this point, so far, some of the alleged racism and bigotry is very unfounded (in fact, the opposite; it is a very inclusive group, just watch the press conferences; it's just not a very WARM and FUZZY group, and that's the difference) and Bannon's main influence is in the way the message is communicated, not the message itself.  I have no way of knowing, and this is speculation - but you asked and I respect you so I owe you an answer - I think Trump's continued Tweeting is probably somewhat attributable to Bannon.  I don't at all think, though, that if you took Bannon out of the picture that we wouldn't have this (or other) Executive Orders.   In fact, I think the fact that he used Obama's language/amendment to target certain countries was specifically intended (and likely NOT Bannon's idea).  In my opinion it has nothing to do with where Trump has investments, or where he can make money.   I think it does lay the precursor to future moves, internationally, and I think it is also a sign that he is NOT in bed with Russia as many suppose.   Keeping refugees in Syria is potentially a problem for Russia. 

What he's doing is actually pretty politically shrewd.  He's ticking off the boxes one by one on his campaign promises.   If they get shot down either constitutionally, or Congressionally, we can deal with that later - and he can plausibly claim to have tried, - but he came in and did EXACTLY like he promised.   

As for Bannon himself, well, I don't know him obviously.  Reasonably smart guy with whom I have little in common with regard to identity politics.   I'm not a big fan of bullying and censoring, though, so we accept that some people disagree with us and we stay diligent.  Optically, I wouldn't have him anywhere near my cabinet, but if he serves a role, I don't at all agree that one contrary position renders everything else void.

Did I answer your question? 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 30, 2017, 03:57:42 PM
I can't speak for Stadler (and wouldn't want to if I could), but I can say that I feel similarly and have similarly said that I don't like him either.  But by the same token, I similarly can't really criticize much that he has actually done so far.  As Stadler has tried to point out, the vast majority of the criticism out there is either so hyperbolic or so based on misinformation that what people are trying to criticize doesn't really bear much resemblance to reality, so criticism isn't really productive.

He may not want to answer for me, but that's as good as I could have written it.

What more do you want me to say? I gave a list of things above, but he hasn't done any of that yet.  I'm all in on criticizing Trump, but let's have something other than speculation to do it on.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: RuRoRul on January 30, 2017, 04:24:29 PM
Then since, I think the original aim of this thread (though I know it may have gotten away from that) is to discuss specific actions taken in the first 100 days, I will focus specifically on something he has done in the last couple of days - appoint Steve Bannon to the National Security Council, and remove the director of intelligence and of the joint chiefs of the military of permanent members of the highest level committee.

In my opinion this single action demonstrates pretty well a lot of the key concerns with the Trump administration. The incompetence of Donald Trump (marginalising the military and intelligence agencies when comes to national security), the cronyism and inappropriate level of influence of figures such as Bannon, the general concern over Trump's attitude towards immigrants and racial minorities (due to Bannon's history running the largest "alt-right" media organisation Breitbart, which at the very least was comfortable with its position as home to news which appealed to white supremacists), and worrying moves to consolodate power to Trump and a small, loyal group around him.

Note that I am not saying this individual action is evidence we have reached an extreme scenario that might be invisioned due to those concerns, only that for me it is troubling on a number of fronts beyond the more blatantly obvious.

As for hyperbole, I would say that it is hyperbole to accuse everyone who points to actions or statements of the administration that are concerning in part because they appear to be a small step in a partiuclar problematic direction they may be going in as "SCREAMING about FACISM." Stadler - you obviously contribute a lot here and have developed a manner of posting and debating here that does not cross the line of rule breaking and that bosk and the other mods are used to judging your tone from, which is good. But I wouldn't let that make you think that your style is the gold standard for how to discuss the issues, and that every post you make is conductive to discussion and people must discuss it in the way that YOU have set the tone for. You are also sometimes guilty of exaggeration, out of context quotes, tangents and ad hominem arguments that make people feel as though they are being disrespected or shut out of discussing things - to be honest I would say almost everyone can be guilty of that on occasion here, myself included. But if you're going to complain about not being able to have a proper discussion, don't kid yourself that it is only everyone else that's to blame for that every time.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: RuRoRul on January 30, 2017, 04:31:31 PM
Stadler - I'm interested to know your opinions of Steve Bannon and how he should\will be influencing the current administration.

I wish I knew more about the makeup of the organization and how the power was distributed.  I don't like any "one voice", even if I am in agreement with that voice.  I am okay with outlying voices, IF there is a corresponding exchange of ideas.   I don't at all share the same view that most who oppose Trump seem to have, that it's a man-baby in a diaper and Steve Bannon is continually whispering "Jews, bad! Muslims, bad!  Blacks bad!" into his ear.  (Or you can insert whoever you dislike the most in there; I have a friend who's very liberal and VERY anti-corporate, and his version is "Man-baby" with Rex Tillerson whispering "Profits, good! Taxes, bad! Regulations, bad!  Global warming, screw it!").  But I think that the dynamics of the cabinet are important, and we can't see that yet. 

I know this is painful for some, but I don't at all agree with censoring certain voices or ideas, even at the Presidential level.  Implementation of those ideas is a different story, but I think at this point, so far, some of the alleged racism and bigotry is very unfounded (in fact, the opposite; it is a very inclusive group, just watch the press conferences; it's just not a very WARM and FUZZY group, and that's the difference) and Bannon's main influence is in the way the message is communicated, not the message itself.  I have no way of knowing, and this is speculation - but you asked and I respect you so I owe you an answer - I think Trump's continued Tweeting is probably somewhat attributable to Bannon.  I don't at all think, though, that if you took Bannon out of the picture that we wouldn't have this (or other) Executive Orders.   In fact, I think the fact that he used Obama's language/amendment to target certain countries was specifically intended (and likely NOT Bannon's idea).  In my opinion it has nothing to do with where Trump has investments, or where he can make money.   I think it does lay the precursor to future moves, internationally, and I think it is also a sign that he is NOT in bed with Russia as many suppose.   Keeping refugees in Syria is potentially a problem for Russia. 

What he's doing is actually pretty politically shrewd.  He's ticking off the boxes one by one on his campaign promises.   If they get shot down either constitutionally, or Congressionally, we can deal with that later - and he can plausibly claim to have tried, - but he came in and did EXACTLY like he promised.   

As for Bannon himself, well, I don't know him obviously.  Reasonably smart guy with whom I have little in common with regard to identity politics.   I'm not a big fan of bullying and censoring, though, so we accept that some people disagree with us and we stay diligent.  Optically, I wouldn't have him anywhere near my cabinet, but if he serves a role, I don't at all agree that one contrary position renders everything else void.

Did I answer your question?
(I should say that I had not read this post when I typed my previous one so the last part was not response to this at all :) ).

I would say it's one thing not to censor voices at the presidential level, which can justify Bannon as an adviser. But I wonder what possible justification there is for removing the director of intelligence and the joint chiefs as permanent principals of the National Security Council and installing Bannon instead. That's not just leaving Bannon uncensored - that's giving him quite unprecedented influence and, arguably using your terminology, "censoring" the military and intelligence community - on matters of national security.

Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on January 30, 2017, 04:42:26 PM
So this just came out:

Acting Attorney General Orders Justice Dept. Not to Defend Refugee Ban

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/attorney-general-civil-rights-refugee.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

Quote
“I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right,” Ms. Yates wrote in a letter to Justice Department lawyers. “At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful.”
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on January 30, 2017, 05:13:10 PM
So this just came out:

Acting Attorney General Orders Justice Dept. Not to Defend Refugee Ban

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/attorney-general-civil-rights-refugee.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

Quote
“I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right,” Ms. Yates wrote in a letter to Justice Department lawyers. “At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful.”

 :lol Who are these people!

If he stays true to form he'll fire her immediately. The fact that she's doing her job won't matter. He needs yes men around him.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: bosk1 on January 30, 2017, 05:14:18 PM
Next on The White House Apprentice!
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XeRocks81 on January 30, 2017, 07:46:10 PM
So this just came out:

Acting Attorney General Orders Justice Dept. Not to Defend Refugee Ban

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/attorney-general-civil-rights-refugee.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

Quote
“I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right,” Ms. Yates wrote in a letter to Justice Department lawyers. “At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful.”

 :lol Who are these people!

If he stays true to form he'll fire her immediately. The fact that she's doing her job won't matter. He needs yes men around him.

well that didn't take too long  http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/acting-attorney-general-tells-doj-staff-not-defend-trump-refugee-order/
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Adami on January 30, 2017, 07:50:37 PM
Woah. Barto, could you pm me the winning poweball numbers?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: pogoowner on January 30, 2017, 08:10:16 PM
Besides Sally Yates getting canned, the other story I'm seeing today is this:

Quote
Senior staffers on the House Judiciary Committee helped Donald Trump's top aides draft the executive order curbing immigration from seven Muslim-majority nations, but the Republican committee chairman and party leadership were not informed, according to multiple sources involved in the process.

[...]

The work of the committee aides began during the transition period after the election and before Donald Trump was sworn in. The staffers signed nondisclosure agreements, according to two sources familiar with the matter. Trump's transition operation forced its staff to sign these agreements, but it would be unusual to extend that requirement to congressional employees. Rexrode declined to comment on the nondisclosure pacts.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-immigration-congress-order-234392
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: TAC on January 30, 2017, 08:14:09 PM
Sean Hannity (yeah yeah, I know) had a great opening monologue tonight. Hopefully it'll be on youtube tomorrow to link. I'm not a huge Hannity fan, but he states a pretty strong case for this order and aligns it with Obama's top security guys' concerns, as well as the picking out of these 7 nations. Also, there are like 50 mostly Muslim nations not on the list.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Cool Chris on January 30, 2017, 09:19:01 PM
H1Bs being targeted next. Seattle tech companies getting their panties in a wad at the potential lost of cheap(er) foreign labor.

Also, Howard Schultz pledges to hire 10k refugees. (no, I am not still bitter about that whole Sonics thing...)

Is it so wrong of me to wish these companies, not to mention our elected leaders, have the best interests of Americans in mind?

Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on January 30, 2017, 09:33:31 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3eFd5_VUAA2yJC.jpg:large)

Reads like a tweet!

Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on January 30, 2017, 09:34:55 PM
H1Bs being targeted next. Seattle tech companies getting their panties in a wad at the potential lost of cheap(er) foreign labor.

Also, Howard Schultz pledges to hire 10k refugees. (no, I am not still bitter about that whole Sonics thing...)

Is it so wrong of me to wish these companies, not to mention our elected leaders, have the best interests of Americans in mind?



https://news.starbucks.com/news/starbucks-focuses-hiring-strategy-on-veterans-and-military-spouses
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Cool Chris on January 30, 2017, 09:43:15 PM
That is from 2013, and to his credit, I think Howie is up to 8,000 of that goal. So I salute him for that.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on January 30, 2017, 09:45:24 PM
Yeah, I know. I just saw people whining on Twitter about why they aren't hiring 10k vets instead. Well...
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on January 30, 2017, 09:47:52 PM
Next on The White House Apprentice!

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3eFd5_VUAA2yJC.jpg:large)

(http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/522f6126eab8ea096b897f56/i-quit-is-currently-outpacing-youre-fired.jpg)
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Adami on January 30, 2017, 09:49:25 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3eFd5_VUAA2yJC.jpg:large)

Reads like a tweet!

Wait, that's not real, is it?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Implode on January 30, 2017, 09:51:11 PM
It's 100% real.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on January 30, 2017, 09:52:16 PM
Oh it's real.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Elite on January 31, 2017, 12:36:57 AM
Firing people who disagree with you. Where have we seen that before?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Progmetty on January 31, 2017, 01:04:35 AM
I've been away from my computer for the last few days so I'm barely catching up, still not home so it's difficult to find the quote with my phone but someone earlier in this thread said that it was already difficult for people to get here and I wanted to +1 that statement. My brother in Egypt, is a banker, and he's been trying to get a visit visa to come see my babies since they were born in 2014, he applied at the U.S. embassy in Cairo 4 times, each time the processing takes about 4 month and he has been denied every time. I keep telling him to try again but it's expensive since to make an appointment for the visa interview you gotta file an application for 600$. They never gave a reason why he's being denied the first 3 times but the last time he stressed the interviewer for a justification and he said "Because I don't believe you, I don't believe you'll come back".
My babies are now two years old and he had another child who's now 17 month old and I still haven't seen his or he mine, let alone the fact that I haven't seen him since 2010, he has the finances and the vacation time to come but I don't. That's up to 2016 when I got laid off my job and now have a ton of time but still no money to make the trip.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: SwedishGoose on January 31, 2017, 01:20:23 AM
Exactly what did going from very hard to impossible to visit the USA for anyone from the 7 countries accieve.

Does anyone think that this will stop any terrorists from entering the country? They would have been vetted out before is my firm belief.

This only serves to hinder leagal immigration and travel. Illegal immigration will not be affected by this.

And why the double standard? A person with a brittish passport and Irakian citizenship will be allowed but for instance a person with a swedish passport and irakian citizenship will not. How is the reasoning behind that?

I definitely hope that DT will be put into place by the high court...
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Progmetty on January 31, 2017, 01:37:56 AM
Man I was afraid this day will come, please let's not refer to Trump as "DT"  :facepalm:
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: SwedishGoose on January 31, 2017, 01:54:35 AM
Man I was afraid this day will come, please let's not refer to Trump as "DT"  :facepalm:

 :mehlin
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on January 31, 2017, 06:39:36 AM
Man I was afraid this day will come, please let's not refer to Trump as "DT"  :facepalm:

 :lol
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 31, 2017, 06:47:19 AM
Then since, I think the original aim of this thread (though I know it may have gotten away from that) is to discuss specific actions taken in the first 100 days, I will focus specifically on something he has done in the last couple of days - appoint Steve Bannon to the National Security Council, and remove the director of intelligence and of the joint chiefs of the military of permanent members of the highest level committee.

In my opinion this single action demonstrates pretty well a lot of the key concerns with the Trump administration. The incompetence of Donald Trump (marginalising the military and intelligence agencies when comes to national security), the cronyism and inappropriate level of influence of figures such as Bannon, the general concern over Trump's attitude towards immigrants and racial minorities (due to Bannon's history running the largest "alt-right" media organisation Breitbart, which at the very least was comfortable with its position as home to news which appealed to white supremacists), and worrying moves to consolodate power to Trump and a small, loyal group around him.

You know that this is not exactly "new", right?  Rather, it's a codification of what has been done at the National Security level for several years now.  If you have a problem with what Trump is doing, fair enough, but where was the criticism when David Axlerod was in these meetings?  Granted, he wasn't an "official member", technically, but that's an administrative difference, not a substantive one.   Why is Bannon's influence "inappropriate" but the influence of people like Axlerod, Emmanuel, Rove, etc. aren't?  It can't be as simple as "I disagree with them", can it?   

Quote
Note that I am not saying this individual action is evidence we have reached an extreme scenario that might be invisioned due to those concerns, only that for me it is troubling on a number of fronts beyond the more blatantly obvious.

What is the "blatantly obvious" concern.  I must've missed it. 

Quote
As for hyperbole, I would say that it is hyperbole to accuse everyone who points to actions or statements of the administration that are concerning in part because they appear to be a small step in a partiuclar problematic direction they may be going in as "SCREAMING about FACISM." Stadler - you obviously contribute a lot here and have developed a manner of posting and debating here that does not cross the line of rule breaking and that bosk and the other mods are used to judging your tone from, which is good. But I wouldn't let that make you think that your style is the gold standard for how to discuss the issues, and that every post you make is conductive to discussion and people must discuss it in the way that YOU have set the tone for. You are also sometimes guilty of exaggeration, out of context quotes, tangents and ad hominem arguments that make people feel as though they are being disrespected or shut out of discussing things - to be honest I would say almost everyone can be guilty of that on occasion here, myself included. But if you're going to complain about not being able to have a proper discussion, don't kid yourself that it is only everyone else that's to blame for that every time.

I'm not looking to be the gold standard, and not once ever have I claimed to be above the fray, or perfect in anything I do.  That is a FUNDAMENTAL POINT of my arguments, and most people - because they view the world through their lenses - fail to catch this.   I actually not only don't think I'm the gold standard, or that I'm right all the time, but I KNOW I'm not.  I'm HUMAN, and therefore, I know for an uncontested FACT that I'm wrong about SOMETHING, I just don't know what it is (though I suspect it has something to do with my views on healthcare).   

What I am, though, is basically the only one - or one of a few - not screaming fire in a crowded movie theater every time Trump farts.  Maybe it's because I've had the chance to live through these feelings - not "terror", specifically, but certainly a form of dread mixed with disgust - for eight years now, and I realize that while things are clearly not as good as they could be, they aren't as bad as they could be either, and the same is likely true of Trump.  Where we suffer, and where we have to be diligent - dealing with sloppy drafting, and the pesky details of governing a country the size of the U.S. - will hopefully be outweighed by an economic resurgence, and a softening of the ideological restraints that the PC culture have shackled us in.  Perhaps we can lessen the degree to which we are told what to think, told what is "right", and we can be allowed to draw conclusions - even contrary ones - in our own right. 

Where I break from the crowd - significantly - is that while I don't like Bannon, don't like his ideas, and sort of resent his presence for various reasons, I also don't view him any differently than any of a 100 far left advisers to presidents past.  To me, Steve Bannon and, say, Rahm Emmanuel are interchangeable.  NONE difference, as Nigel Tufnel might say.  So why are we scared now?  Isn't extremism the part that makes it bad? So why is YOUR extremism okay, and Bannon's isn't?    Because it involves "race"?   Assume for a second that Bannon IS the flaming racist that everyone to the left of John Kasich thinks he is.   He marginalizes 12% of the population.  That's bad, right?   So why is Bernie a "revolutionary" for marginalizing 20% or more of the population?   Because he's YOUR revolutionary?   
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 31, 2017, 06:55:30 AM
(I should say that I had not read this post when I typed my previous one so the last part was not response to this at all :) ).

I would say it's one thing not to censor voices at the presidential level, which can justify Bannon as an adviser. But I wonder what possible justification there is for removing the director of intelligence and the joint chiefs as permanent principals of the National Security Council and installing Bannon instead. That's not just leaving Bannon uncensored - that's giving him quite unprecedented influence and, arguably using your terminology, "censoring" the military and intelligence community - on matters of national security.

Who is censoring anyone?   According to EVERY press release, every statement I've read, they are not EXCLUDED from anything.  This just codifies what has been general practice for years.  Even Axlerod, trying like hell to toe the line, had to resort to "I'm an alternative fact!" headline to get the controversy going, as he conceded he was in many of these meetings, and that some of the "permanent principals" weren't at every meeting.  So what's ACTUALLY different?   Bannon is one voice in the room.  Unless and until you or I are IN that room - or someone squeals, which they are likely to do; it's human nature - we have no basis to assume that Bannon's voice is any louder, any more influential, than anyone else's.

Why are we not noting that Trump ADDED the CIA Director to the list?  Is it because it doesn't fit the narrative?  After all, wasn't Trump supposed to be shitting on the intelligence agencies?  Wasn't that one of the criticisms?  Seems he's mended the bridge, but that's not news, at least not in this day and age of "news" masquerading as "op-ed".   
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 31, 2017, 06:56:48 AM
Woah. Barto, could you pm me the winning poweball numbers?

No, shit, huh?    Anyone thinking that maybe "el Barto" is actually Steve Bannon incognito?   :) 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 31, 2017, 06:59:36 AM
Firing people who disagree with you. Where have we seen that before?

Maybe in every administration since Washington.  Is that what you mean?   FDR was notorious for this kind of nonsense.   Maybe not outright "firing", but certainly pitting his staff against one another, telling one person one thing, and another person another, giving overlapping assignments to people then demoting or getting rid of (by attrition) those that weren't team players.   
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Podaar on January 31, 2017, 07:07:08 AM
Why are we not noting that Trump ADDED the CIA Director to the list?  Is it because it doesn't fit the narrative?  After all, wasn't Trump supposed to be shitting on the intelligence agencies?  Wasn't that one of the criticisms?  Seems he's mended the bridge, but that's not news, at least not in this day and age of "news" masquerading as "op-ed".   

Personally I think that's a terrible move. The NSC is supposed to coordinate the various intelligence agencies and head off competition. Replacing the Director of National Intelligence with the CIA director shows preference to the CIA which could thrust them back into keeping secrets from the other agencies. Again. The very thing that hobbled our Intelligence Community prior to 9/11 and lead to their failure with detecting and stopping the plot.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on January 31, 2017, 07:10:57 AM
(I should say that I had not read this post when I typed my previous one so the last part was not response to this at all :) ).

I would say it's one thing not to censor voices at the presidential level, which can justify Bannon as an adviser. But I wonder what possible justification there is for removing the director of intelligence and the joint chiefs as permanent principals of the National Security Council and installing Bannon instead. That's not just leaving Bannon uncensored - that's giving him quite unprecedented influence and, arguably using your terminology, "censoring" the military and intelligence community - on matters of national security.

Who is censoring anyone?   According to EVERY press release, every statement I've read, they are not EXCLUDED from anything.  This just codifies what has been general practice for years.  Even Axlerod, trying like hell to toe the line, had to resort to "I'm an alternative fact!" headline to get the controversy going, as he conceded he was in many of these meetings, and that some of the "permanent principals" weren't at every meeting.  So what's ACTUALLY different?   Bannon is one voice in the room.  Unless and until you or I are IN that room - or someone squeals, which they are likely to do; it's human nature - we have no basis to assume that Bannon's voice is any louder, any more influential, than anyone else's.

Why are we not noting that Trump ADDED the CIA Director to the list?  Is it because it doesn't fit the narrative?  After all, wasn't Trump supposed to be shitting on the intelligence agencies?  Wasn't that one of the criticisms?  Seems he's mended the bridge, but that's not news, at least not in this day and age of "news" masquerading as "op-ed".   

I think there's a clear difference between Axelrod back-benching some of the meetings and Bannon being an actual principal in the meetings and a permanent menber. People in the natsec community from both parties have said as much.

edit:

Also I will take the bold step and come out and say, yes, being a white nationalist is categorically worse than having either far left or far right economic views.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 31, 2017, 07:17:07 AM
So I watched Extra!  or whatever that shit show is with Mario Lopez last night, as they were covering the SAG awards and, well, who doesn't need to see what happened at the SAG awards.   After about four or five ridiculous episodes of entitled celebrities pounding their chest and proclaiming "This is MY America!" (and no, not hyperbole, since Ashton Kutcher pounded his chest, and in perfect Michael Kelso mode proclaimed, "This is MY America!" to great cheering.) and more than one proclamation that this ban was an attack on Muslims, I decided to do some research.

I found that there are over 2 BILLION Muslims in the world (about 30% of the population).

The top ten countries with Muslim populations total about 1 BILLION Muslims.  These are (in order):
 = Indonesia
 = Pakistan
 = India
 = Bangladesh
 = Nigeria (at this point, a pattern was emerging; can you spot it yet?)
 = Iran
 = Turkey
 = Egypt
 = Algeria
 = Sudan

But wait; the ban is supposed to be an attack on MUSLIMS.  So why are only two of the seven "listed" countries on that list (totaling about 112 MILLION Muslims)?    Then I added the number of Muslims in the seven target countries and came up with just under 200 MILLION.   Less than 10% of the world's population.  Then I looked at the known primary ISIS locations:
 = Iran
 = Syria
 = Libya
 = Yemen
 = Algeria

Hmm, another pattern.

Seems pretty clear to me that a) the seven countries list is a matter of consistency, trusting the work put in by the Obama Administration to identify countries of concern, b) there is a far greater correlation between the "banned countries" and ISIS, than there is Muslims, and c) if the effort WAS to target Muslims, it is a piss poor job of doing so, since it missed 8 of the 10 largest Muslim populations in the world, and only "touched" less than 10% of the world populations.  This is like being an anti-Semite, and directing all your wrath at Luxembourg.   
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 31, 2017, 07:21:36 AM
Why are we not noting that Trump ADDED the CIA Director to the list?  Is it because it doesn't fit the narrative?  After all, wasn't Trump supposed to be shitting on the intelligence agencies?  Wasn't that one of the criticisms?  Seems he's mended the bridge, but that's not news, at least not in this day and age of "news" masquerading as "op-ed".   

Personally I think that's a terrible move. The NSC is supposed to coordinate the various intelligence agencies and head off competition. Replacing the Director of National Intelligence with the CIA director shows preference to the CIA which could thrust them back into keeping secrets from the other agencies. Again. The very thing that hobbled our Intelligence Community prior to 9/11 and lead to their failure with detecting and stopping the plot.

This is a fair point.   If the objective was to add an intelligence voice to soup, why CIA and not the voice that touches, presumably, all the intelligence communities we have?  This is likely a more political move - if not "party politics" than interagency politics - than Bannon ever will be. This is sort of FDR all over again.  Where's Bill Donovan when we need him?  :)
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Chino on January 31, 2017, 07:26:08 AM
So I watched Extra!  *snip*

Nice post, for an islamophobe. I kid. I kid.

The biggest problem with this administration is that there doesn't seem to be anyone that will make the argument that you just did, and it isn't a difficult or complex one to understand. Simple math. Something the majority of this country seems hell bent on never trying to understand. And it isn't just the administration. Many GOP leaning news networks won't use this defense either, and they should be. Their "readers" or listeners don't want to hear facts and logic any more than Ashton Kutcher does. They want to hear how much of a pussy liberals are. And shame on CNN and MSNBC for avoiding it and giving credit where credit is due.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 31, 2017, 07:26:16 AM
I think there's a clear difference between Axelrod back-benching some of the meetings and Bannon being an actual principal in the meetings and a permanent menber. People in the natsec community from both parties have said as much.

edit:

Also I will take the bold step and come out and say, yes, being a white nationalist is categorically worse than having either far left or far right economic views.

But you have to recognize that while 'race' is extremely important, it's not a "silver bullet" issue for everyone, and where there's conflict, "race rights" (I guess you'd say "civil rights") don't pre-empt all the other rights under the Constitution.  I think the idea of "white supremacy" is a scientifically unfounded one, and is extremely narrow-minded and limiting in almost every way, but to me, it's not a trump card (for that reason alone I dislike our President; couldn't have a different last name??) that usurps every other issue.   To me, if we're not strong economically, all the identity politics in the world aren't going to matter one bit.   
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Podaar on January 31, 2017, 07:31:07 AM
Stadler,

I'll agree with you that some people (although I don't see it here at this forum, so I'm not sure who you're arguing with) are needlessly setting their hair on fire over the ban. Yet, didn't Trump earn some of this? Think back on the campaign and how many times he talked of having a Muslim ban. Is it really any surprise (or unreasonable) that people either see this as his motivation now or at least a first step to getting there.

Also, this equivalency argument about this ban and the Obama ban can't be squared until we know if Trump and his crew had actionable intel of a threat.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 31, 2017, 07:35:59 AM
Speaking of Luxembourg, that's a good looking family right there:

(http://i1165.photobucket.com/albums/q591/Stadler111/The%20Grand%20Ducal%20Royal%20Family%20of%20Luxembourg_zpszquaa1w4.jpg) (http://s1165.photobucket.com/user/Stadler111/media/The%20Grand%20Ducal%20Royal%20Family%20of%20Luxembourg_zpszquaa1w4.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 31, 2017, 07:45:40 AM
Stadler,

I'll agree with you that some people (although I don't see it here at this forum, so I'm not sure who you're arguing with) are needlessly setting their hair on fire over the ban. Yet, didn't Trump earn some of this? Think back on the campaign and how many times he talked of having a Muslim ban. Is it really any surprise (or unreasonable) that people either see this as his motivation now or at least a first step to getting there.

Also, this equivalency argument about this ban and the Obama ban can't be squared until we know if Trump and his crew had actionable intel of a threat.

Well, I absolutely do see it here, though it's not my place to name names, and I'm not here to throw people under the bus.  But to your point, at what point do we put partisan politics aside and let some semblance of reason take over?  During a campaign - where there is some need for caution - he outright called for a Muslim ban.   Now why, when he as a mandate (debated though it may be), he has a friendly Congress, and he potentially has a stacked court, is he backing off on that?   Put politics aside, put the actual odiousness of a Muslim ban aside for a second - as el Barto likes to say, let's get out of the "fog of controversy" - does it make any rational sense to call for a more polarizing strategy when you have more to lose, then use subterfuge when you're an alleged immature power fiend and you have numbers?   Of course not.   

I think that's part of my resorting to the (it seems) inflammatory "TERROR!" and "BANNON!".  It meant to imply haste, and a quickness to judge that would be absent if real reason was being used.  I'm not necessarily saying that all the anti-Trump arguments are unreasonable, because they're not, but I am saying that some of us are so hell bent on making the guy into a pariah that they're ignoring contradictory evidence.   You can't have it both ways; you can't argue that Trump is a Man-baby with the subtlety of a Motorhead concert, then when it suits you ascribe to him the nimbleness of Yngwie Malmsteen and find your "racism" in the subtleness of a Segovia estudio.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XeRocks81 on January 31, 2017, 07:54:32 AM

I think that's part of my resorting to the (it seems) inflammatory "TERROR!" and "BANNON!".  It meant to imply haste, and a quickness to judge that would be absent if real reason was being used.  I'm not necessarily saying that all the anti-Trump arguments are unreasonable, because they're not, but I am saying that some of us are so hell bent on making the guy into a pariah that they're ignoring contradictory evidence.   You can't have it both ways; you can't argue that Trump is a Man-baby with the subtlety of a Motorhead concert, then when it suits you ascribe to him the nimbleness of Yngwie Malmsteen and find your "racism" in the subtleness of a Segovia estudio.

There's nothing subtle about the racism of this particular executive order.  But I'll fully admit I'm not the most rational person in the best of times and my province just had a disturbed young man, who is apparently an Trump supporting online-troll,  kill 6 innocent people and wound 19 in a Mosque so that may be coloring my thoughts. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: kaos2900 on January 31, 2017, 08:01:27 AM
Stadler, I just want to say that I wish I had the ability to communicate my thoughts as well as you. I could pretty much quote 99% of your posts with ditto rather than posting my own disjointed thoughts.

I think something most of the people decrying the ban are not talking about is that it is temporary. 90 days. Why is that being ignored?



Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on January 31, 2017, 08:17:21 AM
In other news, Trump stays keeping campaign promises.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/seal-american-girl-die-first-trump-era-u-s-military-n714346

Quote
In what an official said was the first military raid carried out under President Donald Trump, two Americans were killed in Yemen on Sunday — one a member of SEAL Team 6 and the other the 8-year-old daughter of Anwar al-Awlaki, the New Mexico-born al Qaeda leader who himself was killed in a U.S. strike five years ago.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-terrorists-families/

Quote
"The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families," Trump said.

 :sad:
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on January 31, 2017, 08:22:25 AM
So I watched Extra!  or whatever that shit show is with Mario Lopez last night, as they were covering the SAG awards and, well, who doesn't need to see what happened at the SAG awards.   After about four or five ridiculous episodes of entitled celebrities pounding their chest and proclaiming "This is MY America!" (and no, not hyperbole, since Ashton Kutcher pounded his chest, and in perfect Michael Kelso mode proclaimed, "This is MY America!" to great cheering.) and more than one proclamation that this ban was an attack on Muslims, I decided to do some research.

I found that there are over 2 BILLION Muslims in the world (about 30% of the population).

The top ten countries with Muslim populations total about 1 BILLION Muslims.  These are (in order):
 = Indonesia
 = Pakistan
 = India
 = Bangladesh
 = Nigeria (at this point, a pattern was emerging; can you spot it yet?)
 = Iran
 = Turkey
 = Egypt
 = Algeria
 = Sudan

But wait; the ban is supposed to be an attack on MUSLIMS.  So why are only two of the seven "listed" countries on that list (totaling about 112 MILLION Muslims)?    Then I added the number of Muslims in the seven target countries and came up with just under 200 MILLION.   Less than 10% of the world's population.  Then I looked at the known primary ISIS locations:
 = Iran
 = Syria
 = Libya
 = Yemen
 = Algeria

Hmm, another pattern.

Seems pretty clear to me that a) the seven countries list is a matter of consistency, trusting the work put in by the Obama Administration to identify countries of concern, b) there is a far greater correlation between the "banned countries" and ISIS, than there is Muslims, and c) if the effort WAS to target Muslims, it is a piss poor job of doing so, since it missed 8 of the 10 largest Muslim populations in the world, and only "touched" less than 10% of the world populations.  This is like being an anti-Semite, and directing all your wrath at Luxembourg.   
I think the problem you overlook is that he's expressing a preference for Christian asylum seekers. I understand the rationale, and I understand that religion has been used as a criterion for entry all along, so there's no need to defend it. What I will point out is that religion can be a factor in a "content neutral" manner. A person persecuted because of their religion gets preferred over one who does not. A Christian being persecuted should not get priority over a Sunni being persecuted. This is the sort of thing I've been on about, and something I know you dislike as much as I do.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 31, 2017, 08:28:23 AM
If you have a problem with what Trump is doing, fair enough, but where was the criticism when David Axlerod was in these meetings?  Granted, he wasn't an "official member", technically, but that's an administrative difference, not a substantive one.   Why is Bannon's influence "inappropriate" but the influence of people like Axlerod, Emmanuel, Rove, etc. aren't?  It can't be as simple as "I disagree with them", can it?   
Rove wasn't included in Bush's NSC.  Bush, in one of the few cogent and thoughtful moves of his presidency, thought that would be inappropriate and look like politics were driving security measures.

At any rate, while troubling, Bannon's presence on the council isn't as bad as the exclusion of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence.  You know, the ones who actually DO the security part of National Security.  Their exclusion is mind-boggling, and their exclusion coupled with Bannon's inclusion means that security measures will DEFINITELY be done with political ends in mind. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Adami on January 31, 2017, 08:31:56 AM
Stadler, I just want to say that I wish I had the ability to communicate my thoughts as well as you. I could pretty much quote 99% of your posts with ditto rather than posting my own disjointed thoughts.

I think something most of the people decrying the ban are not talking about is that it is temporary. 90 days. Why is that being ignored?

I'm really sick at the moment, so I'm just quoting you, but my post is in reply to you and to Stadler in general.

First off, people are worried because it's a red flag. It's a first step and we're nervous about what that next step is. If we reserved worry for only when things were too far gone to be undone, then we'd have failed miserably.

Next @Stadler, my brother from another set of parents all together. I can see where others are coming from when they say that you hold your posting style to be the gold standard, but I wouldn't quite say that. I wouldn't even say you hold your worldview as the gold standard. To me, it feels like, and I could very well be wrong, that you come off as holding your sense of reasoning as the gold standard. In your opinion, any human being with any set of beliefs should be able to hold any political office and we're not really supposed to be too worried about anything. I mean, I can see you defending David Duke becoming president, since just because we don't agree with the KKK and their racism, we shouldn't try to limit anyone from holding office or power. However, I would disagree. We have seen numerous times how personal beliefs influence policy, how policy influences society, how society then approves of political changes that would otherwise be scary. All it takes is a shift in the social zeitgeist. Let's not forget America already went through the McCarthy era, and an era of putting a whole group of people into internment camps because of their national heritage. We've conducted deadly medical experiments on people based solely on their skin color and SES level. And all of this in just 20th century. Imagining that America is somehow beyond such things is simply being idealistic.

I agree with you 100% on being annoyed by hyperbole. As I'm sure you've noticed. But at this point, you're just doing the same thing by not engaging in any of the arguments themselves and simply discussing the hyperbole. Clearly people here are going to stick to using hyperbole, so either people like you and I can approach their hyperbole in a more constructive manner or we can just brush it off as exactly that, hyperbole, not fact. However, while I disagree with hyperbole, it's also incorrect to brush off or ignore warning signs, red flags or early moves toward what can be a terrible outcome. I will never compare Trump to Hitler or anything of the sort, but I'll use the holocaust as an example simply because it's the most easy and, again, I'm really sick and can't think too well at the moment. That said, a lot of people look back at the 3rd Reich and Nazi Germany as only an example of them at their most extreme and at the end of what was a long progression to that point. Hitler didn't show up one day and just start the holocaust. It took years and years and small moves, and ultimately unjustified rationales that played on fear and anger to build to what was eventually Nazi Germany. If anyone says "well, we'll just wait till it gets that bad" is not doing their due diligence as a citizen to protect the values of their country. Believe me, I come from another "democracy", where overtime, all of these tactics were used to promote accepted racism. Once that racism is accepted, then it's already too late to prevent harm. I've personally seen (in the 21st century, at that, with all the media and world-checks and balances abound) politicians use their personal views of prejudice to change policy, which changed social opinion, which was then used to justify more political change and so forth. It's also a country that has demonized the media and "leftists" as forces of evil that are against the greater nation. People are buying into it, and it is creating an increasingly scary situation. America is beginning to use very similar tactics. Also keep in mind, Nazi Germany didn't happen without the approval of most Germans, they were sold on fear and anger. Fear and anger toward an scapegoat group, fear and anger toward outsiders who were deemed less important than their own citizens. It took years, but they were sold on it and supported the hatred that enveloped the country.

So no, Trump is not Hitler. America is not Nazi Germany. We're not authoritarian. We're not fascist. However, many of us, are becoming increasingly concerned that we may be heading down the initial path in that direction. That is when things need to be stopped, changed and countered. If we all waited till it was too late, then we'd be powerless. Hell, we'd be part of it.

TLDR: I dunno bro, read it.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 31, 2017, 08:35:13 AM
^  :tup ^
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XeRocks81 on January 31, 2017, 08:42:54 AM


Next @Stadler, my brother from another set of parents all together. I can see where others are coming from when they say that you hold your posting style to be the gold standard, but I wouldn't quite say that. I wouldn't even say you hold your worldview as the gold standard. To me, it feels like, and I could very well be wrong, that you come off as holding your sense of reasoning as the gold standard. In your opinion, any human being with any set of beliefs should be able to hold any political office and we're not really supposed to be too worried about anything. I mean, I can see you defending David Duke becoming president, since just because we don't agree with the KKK and their racism, we shouldn't try to limit anyone from holding office or power. However, I would disagree. We have seen numerous times how personal beliefs influence policy, how policy influences society, how society then approves of political changes that would otherwise be scary. All it takes is a shift in the social zeitgeist. Let's not forget America already went through the McCarthy era, and an era of putting a whole group of people into internment camps because of their national heritage. We've conducted deadly medical experiments on people based solely on their skin color and SES level. And all of this in just 20th century. Imagining that America is somehow beyond such things is simply being idealistic.

I agree with you 100% on being annoyed by hyperbole. As I'm sure you've noticed. But at this point, you're just doing the same thing by not engaging in any of the arguments themselves and simply discussing the hyperbole. Clearly people here are going to stick to using hyperbole, so either people like you and I can approach their hyperbole in a more constructive manner or we can just brush it off as exactly that, hyperbole, not fact. However, while I disagree with hyperbole, it's also incorrect to brush off or ignore warning signs, red flags or early moves toward what can be a terrible outcome. I will never compare Trump to Hitler or anything of the sort, but I'll use the holocaust as an example simply because it's the most easy and, again, I'm really sick and can't think too well at the moment. That said, a lot of people look back at the 3rd Reich and Nazi Germany as only an example of them at their most extreme and at the end of what was a long progression to that point. Hitler didn't show up one day and just start the holocaust. It took years and years and small moves, and ultimately unjustified rationales that played on fear and anger to build to what was eventually Nazi Germany. If anyone says "well, we'll just wait till it gets that bad" is not doing their due diligence as a citizen to protect the values of their country. Believe me, I come from another "democracy", where overtime, all of these tactics were used to promote accepted racism. Once that racism is accepted, then it's already too late to prevent harm. I've personally seen (in the 21st century, at that, with all the media and world-checks and balances abound) politicians use their personal views of prejudice to change policy, which changed social opinion, which was then used to justify more political change and so forth. It's also a country that has demonized the media and "leftists" as forces of evil that are against the greater nation. People are buying into it, and it is creating an increasingly scary situation. America is beginning to use very similar tactics. Also keep in mind, Nazi Germany didn't happen without the approval of most Germans, they were sold on fear and anger. Fear and anger toward an scapegoat group, fear and anger toward outsiders who were deemed less important than their own citizens. It took years, but they were sold on it and supported the hatred that enveloped the country.

 :hefdaddy
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Podaar on January 31, 2017, 08:44:26 AM
At any rate, while troubling, Bannon's presence on the council isn't as bad as the exclusion of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence.  You know, the ones who actually DO the security part of National Security.  Their exclusion is mind-boggling, and their exclusion coupled with Bannon's inclusion means that security measures will DEFINITELY be done with political ends in mind.

My understanding is that they aren't excluded as much as not being required, unless the meeting is specifically about their purview. Same goes with the addition of the CIA director. Although, I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.

[edit]

@ Adami. Nicely put.  :tup
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Podaar on January 31, 2017, 09:00:29 AM
In other news, Trump stays keeping campaign promises.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/seal-american-girl-die-first-trump-era-u-s-military-n714346

Quote
In what an official said was the first military raid carried out under President Donald Trump, two Americans were killed in Yemen on Sunday — one a member of SEAL Team 6 and the other the 8-year-old daughter of Anwar al-Awlaki, the New Mexico-born al Qaeda leader who himself was killed in a U.S. strike five years ago.

Oh boy.

I guess the Yemen ban makes more sense now. Does that mean the next action will be in Khartoum?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on January 31, 2017, 09:22:24 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-keep-obama-lgbt-workplace-protections-002309956.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-keep-obama-lgbt-workplace-protections-002309956.html)  Something good to talk about
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XeRocks81 on January 31, 2017, 09:28:08 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-keep-obama-lgbt-workplace-protections-002309956.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-keep-obama-lgbt-workplace-protections-002309956.html)  Something good to talk about

Good, there were rumblings yesterday that he might've struck down that one. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 31, 2017, 09:28:15 AM
Wow.  Well, that's certainly good to hear.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on January 31, 2017, 09:31:46 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-keep-obama-lgbt-workplace-protections-002309956.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-keep-obama-lgbt-workplace-protections-002309956.html)  Something good to talk about

Good, there were rumblings yesterday that he might've struck down that one.

I saw talk on social media about this too the last couple days and wasn't sure where it came from, I had hoped it wasn't true and didn't see how/why he would do that since he hadn't been anti-LGBT.  Glad that wasn't the case.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: mikeyd23 on January 31, 2017, 09:37:12 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-keep-obama-lgbt-workplace-protections-002309956.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-keep-obama-lgbt-workplace-protections-002309956.html)  Something good to talk about

Good, there were rumblings yesterday that he might've struck down that one.

I saw talk on social media about this too the last couple days and wasn't sure where it came from, I had hoped it wasn't true and didn't see how/why he would do that since he hadn't been anti-LGBT.  Glad that wasn't the case.

This is a good move on Trumps part, and honestly not surprising. Trumps much closer to the left on different social issues than many other Republicans.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 31, 2017, 09:37:42 AM
Next @Stadler, my brother from another set of parents all together. I can see where others are coming from when they say that you hold your posting style to be the gold standard, but I wouldn't quite say that. I wouldn't even say you hold your worldview as the gold standard. To me, it feels like, and I could very well be wrong, that you come off as holding your sense of reasoning as the gold standard. In your opinion, any human being with any set of beliefs should be able to hold any political office and we're not really supposed to be too worried about anything. I mean, I can see you defending David Duke becoming president, since just because we don't agree with the KKK and their racism, we shouldn't try to limit anyone from holding office or power. However, I would disagree. We have seen numerous times how personal beliefs influence policy, how policy influences society, how society then approves of political changes that would otherwise be scary. All it takes is a shift in the social zeitgeist. Let's not forget America already went through the McCarthy era, and an era of putting a whole group of people into internment camps because of their national heritage. We've conducted deadly medical experiments on people based solely on their skin color and SES level. And all of this in just 20th century. Imagining that America is somehow beyond such things is simply being idealistic.

For what it's worth, I too think your post was "+1" and it goes without saying (I hope, anyway) that I deeply respect your opinion.   You might just be the "gold standard" in terms of what I'm trying to get to. 

On that, though, I don't hold ANYTHING I do as the "Gold Standard" for anything.  But to the extent that it's mine, and I don't think it sucks outright, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do.  Not post?  At the very least, I'm not at all telling people that they are morally wrong for nothing else than not thinking like I do (as someone who posts here has done).  I'm not at all demanding that others hold a particular issue, for example race, at the same level of indignation as I do (as someone else who has posted recently has done).  I don't WANT you to think what I do, or think like I do.  That's how we grow and improve; the healthy competition of IDEAS.  Not the healthy competition of FEARS, or EMOTIONS, or FEELINGS.   But IDEAS.   

But, and I've said this before: you DO have to consider the same facts as I - or anyone else on ANY side of the issue - does.  You don't get to ignore that it CAN'T be a "ban on Muslims" when 90% of the world's Muslim's (and perhaps more, because there are exclusions even for the seven named countries) aren't subject to it.  That's not "my opinion".  That's not my "gold standard of reasoning".   That's FACT.   You don't have to agree that Bannon is but one equal voice among many (I've conceded that we don't know the relative volumes, so your guess is as good as mine).   But you DON'T get to ignore that he's not the first advisor in those meetings, and while this CODIFIES what Obama did, it's not at all different in PRACTICE from what Obama did.   You DON'T get to make up facts: the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence are not EXCLUDED.  They are simply not on the "Permanent List".   They can attend any meeting they want, and in fact, they could, in theory, attend EVERY meeting if there is relevance and interest.   That's not my "opinion".  That is not the product of my "gold standard in reasoning".   It's simply reading the facts and accepting them for what they are.   If you have proof that those facts are not accurate, let's hear it.  But I don't think it's too rude or over the top to say that I'm not really interested in someone's creative manufactured world view.  It's not relevant, it's not productive, and it's not practical.

I don't feel at all like I'm telling others what to do or think or feel. I do, though, feel VERY strongly that I am fighting to perhaps change minds that the entire world doesn't think like they do, and just because THEY think a certain way doesn't a) make it automatically right, and b) doesn't entitle you to some moral superiority in terms of resulting policy.  Okay, great, you abhor racism.  Guess what; so do I.  But I understand that the Constitution is a document of competing rights, and no one right trumps all the others.   We have to balance.   It's not a right that everyone has to share your opinion. 


As for the last, I'm not idealistic.  I don't at all think we're "beyond" these things.  I do, though, have a realpolitik about these things.   Something WILL happen again.  I don't know what it is.  Probably won't be internment camps or medical tests, but we're humans.  We're fucked up.  Some of us like to diddle our sons and daughters.  Others of us like to eat our neighbors, with fava beans and a nice Chiante.   Others of us think it's sport to hunt, rape and kill defenseless young women.   Others of us think it's a decent enough idea to put our newborn into a microwave to dry them off after a bath.   We are going to have moments of atrocity.   We can strive to minimize or eliminate them, and certainly our government and our representation scheme is intended that we not have anything like that at the macro, governmental level, but the point is, we are an imprecise species.  We don't stop ALL driving because roughly 30,000 people per year die on the road.  We don't close down hospitals because roughly 80,000 people die each year from infections caught in hospitals.   So if we implement a terrorist prevention policy, and the most egregious thing is some student gets detained for five hours and asked about their social media?  I don't mean to be cold, here, but I'm not really losing a ton of sleep about that.   Not because I don't care about human rights but because I'm trying to maintain a bit of perspective.   

Quote
I agree with you 100% on being annoyed by hyperbole. As I'm sure you've noticed. But at this point, you're just doing the same thing by not engaging in any of the arguments themselves and simply discussing the hyperbole. Clearly people here are going to stick to using hyperbole, so either people like you and I can approach their hyperbole in a more constructive manner or we can just brush it off as exactly that, hyperbole, not fact. However, while I disagree with hyperbole, it's also incorrect to brush off or ignore warning signs, red flags or early moves toward what can be a terrible outcome. I will never compare Trump to Hitler or anything of the sort, but I'll use the holocaust as an example simply because it's the most easy and, again, I'm really sick and can't think too well at the moment. That said, a lot of people look back at the 3rd Reich and Nazi Germany as only an example of them at their most extreme and at the end of what was a long progression to that point. Hitler didn't show up one day and just start the holocaust. It took years and years and small moves, and ultimately unjustified rationales that played on fear and anger to build to what was eventually Nazi Germany. If anyone says "well, we'll just wait till it gets that bad" is not doing their due diligence as a citizen to protect the values of their country. Believe me, I come from another "democracy", where overtime, all of these tactics were used to promote accepted racism. Once that racism is accepted, then it's already too late to prevent harm. I've personally seen (in the 21st century, at that, with all the media and world-checks and balances abound) politicians use their personal views of prejudice to change policy, which changed social opinion, which was then used to justify more political change and so forth. It's also a country that has demonized the media and "leftists" as forces of evil that are against the greater nation. People are buying into it, and it is creating an increasingly scary situation. America is beginning to use very similar tactics. Also keep in mind, Nazi Germany didn't happen without the approval of most Germans, they were sold on fear and anger. Fear and anger toward an scapegoat group, fear and anger toward outsiders who were deemed less important than their own citizens. It took years, but they were sold on it and supported the hatred that enveloped the country.

I understand all that.   But there's a difference.   It's one thing to ignore that work camp being built down the street and say "well, it's nothing."   I'm not at all advocating that we put our heads in the sand.   I am saying, though, that a piece of paper that changes the status (in theory, not practice) of a particular cabinet member, in keeping with the last eight years (of a President with a different ideology) is not at all the same as asking one to ignore why those men in black uniforms trucked off our next door neighbors at midnight last night, never to be seen from again.   Having a phone conversation with the leader of the third most powerful country in the world, a week after you take office, is not at all the same thing as Hitler signing an agreement of cooperation with the Pope, AFTER the Pope was made aware of a gross and repeated string of human atrocities.   If "midnight" is catastrophe, I'm not suggesting we wait until 11:58 PM; I'm saying, we're at about 12:01 PM.  Can we at least wait until the minute hand has physically moved first? 

Quote
So no, Trump is not Hitler. America is not Nazi Germany. We're not authoritarian. We're not fascist. However, many of us, are becoming increasingly concerned that we may be heading down the initial path in that direction. That is when things need to be stopped, changed and countered. If we all waited till it was too late, then we'd be powerless. Hell, we'd be part of it.

Be concerned.  No one said not to.   Hell, in some ways, I'M concerned about some of the pathways that the President is taking.  I think this ban is foolhardy on about four different levels.   I've already covered why.   Say so, and we'll talk about it.  But to jump from "hey, I need to know more about this; it doesn't smell right" to "I'M TERRIFIED!  FACIST YET!?" (the latter half from a real post from this board within the last couple days) is ridiculous.   You want me to respond to the issues; how do you respond to that?   What's the issue to respond to?   Don't think I'm not painfully aware that I am finding myself in the abhorrent position of defending potential racists and potentially fascist actors and actions.   But - and no, I don't put myself in that category even if I aspire to it - John Adams took the same philosophical approach when he defended three (I think it was three) British soldiers brought to trial in colonial America.  I'm not defending their specific ideas as much as I am defending their right to HAVE specific ideas.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on January 31, 2017, 09:43:35 AM
Good points from both of you, love it when there is good discussion  :corn
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 31, 2017, 09:54:04 AM
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence are not EXCLUDED.  They are simply not on the "Permanent List".   They can attend any meeting they want, and in fact, they could, in theory, attend EVERY meeting if there is relevance and interest.   That's not my "opinion".  That is not the product of my "gold standard in reasoning".   It's simply reading the facts and accepting them for what they are.   If you have proof that those facts are not accurate, let's hear it. 
The wording of the Executive Order about the NSC reorg is that the Chairman and the Director "shall attend where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed."  They won't know when those things will be discussed unless someone lets them know, so the only conclusion I can draw from that is that their presence will be invitation only, and they will not be attending any meeting they want.

Am I misreading that?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XeRocks81 on January 31, 2017, 10:49:09 AM

But, and I've said this before: you DO have to consider the same facts as I - or anyone else on ANY side of the issue - does.  You don't get to ignore that it CAN'T be a "ban on Muslims" when 90% of the world's Muslim's (and perhaps more, because there are exclusions even for the seven named countries) aren't subject to it.  That's not "my opinion".  That's not my "gold standard of reasoning".   That's FACT.   You don't have to agree that Bannon is but one equal voice among many (I've conceded that we don't know the relative volumes, so your guess is as good as mine).   But you DON'T get to ignore that he's not the first advisor in those meetings, and while this CODIFIES what Obama did, it's not at all different in PRACTICE from what Obama did.   You DON'T get to make up facts: the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence are not EXCLUDED.  They are simply not on the "Permanent List".   They can attend any meeting they want, and in fact, they could, in theory, attend EVERY meeting if there is relevance and interest.   That's not my "opinion".  That is not the product of my "gold standard in reasoning".   It's simply reading the facts and accepting them for what they are.   If you have proof that those facts are not accurate, let's hear it.  But I don't think it's too rude or over the top to say that I'm not really interested in someone's creative manufactured world view.  It's not relevant, it's not productive, and it's not practical. 

But I think what you are presenting here as facts is still an interpretation  to a certain degree.   By that I mean you are presenting them in a way that dismisses any concern.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 31, 2017, 11:31:53 AM

But, and I've said this before: you DO have to consider the same facts as I - or anyone else on ANY side of the issue - does.  You don't get to ignore that it CAN'T be a "ban on Muslims" when 90% of the world's Muslim's (and perhaps more, because there are exclusions even for the seven named countries) aren't subject to it.  That's not "my opinion".  That's not my "gold standard of reasoning".   That's FACT.   You don't have to agree that Bannon is but one equal voice among many (I've conceded that we don't know the relative volumes, so your guess is as good as mine).   But you DON'T get to ignore that he's not the first advisor in those meetings, and while this CODIFIES what Obama did, it's not at all different in PRACTICE from what Obama did.   You DON'T get to make up facts: the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence are not EXCLUDED.  They are simply not on the "Permanent List".   They can attend any meeting they want, and in fact, they could, in theory, attend EVERY meeting if there is relevance and interest.   That's not my "opinion".  That is not the product of my "gold standard in reasoning".   It's simply reading the facts and accepting them for what they are.   If you have proof that those facts are not accurate, let's hear it.  But I don't think it's too rude or over the top to say that I'm not really interested in someone's creative manufactured world view.  It's not relevant, it's not productive, and it's not practical. 

But I think what you are presenting here as facts is still an interpretation  to a certain degree.   By that I mean you are presenting them in a way that dismisses any concern.

Here's the difference though, and again, not saying I'm the "gold standard", but I will say that - for better or worse, in my opinion, most people don't do this - I'm not looking for any particular end meaning. It is what it is.   If Donald Trump calls someone a "n*****", I'm not going to parse that in a way that says "well he's not a racist".  I'm not looking to defend him.  But I'm also not going into this looking for things to be fearful of, or to "catch" him in a moment of fascism.   I'm also not married to that many positions.  There are a couple, I'm sure, and maybe someone more objective can point them out, but I'm more than willing to change a position if the facts point in that direction.  I'm almost paranoid about seeing the world the way it is, and not the way I want to see it.   (No joke, it's probably the thing I talk about most in therapy). 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: mikeyd23 on January 31, 2017, 11:46:57 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/01/31/daily-202-trump-sacking-acting-a-g-raises-new-questions-about-his-respect-for-the-rule-of-law/588feeb8e9b69b432bc7e09d/?utm_term=.766df4af0c90

Wondering people's thoughts on Trump firing the acting AG. From where I sit, it actually seemed like the right move. Regardless of whether she thought the EO was moral or not, or whether she agreed with it or not shouldn't matter. To the best of my knowledge, the EO doesn't break the law. Isn't her duty as acting AG to defend the lawful actions of the government and advise the government to act differently if they want to do something illegal? If the EO isn't illegal she should have stood behind it. She didn't and was let go. Once again, regardless of how people feel about the EO itself, this course of action toward the acting AG seemed reasonable to me.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on January 31, 2017, 11:49:12 AM
The subsequent statement after her firing was more troubling to me.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: mikeyd23 on January 31, 2017, 11:53:19 AM
The subsequent statement after her firing was more troubling to me.

Yeah it read like the administration trying to justify itself in the dumbest way possible. All they had to say was that she failed to uphold the duties of her office. That's it. Period.

Once again (I've found myself in this position several times in the past week and a half) I don't necessarily disagree with what the Trump administration is doing, but just the way they do it.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on January 31, 2017, 12:02:56 PM
The firing for the most part is a moot point to me since Sessions will be confirmed soon enough.  I think that was fine for her though, stand up for what she believes in her last moments in position.  Commendable on some levels.  Firing was right IMO, but moot.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on January 31, 2017, 12:21:39 PM
Quote
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic

Nowhere does it say to execute the unlawful orders of the president. I'm not saying that they are unlawful, mind you, but there's a very good chance that they are and she has the discretion to make that decision. If she felt that what he ordered was unconstitutional then she had an obligation to not enforce it. Morality doesn't factor into it. Legality does.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on January 31, 2017, 12:36:48 PM
Quote
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic

Nowhere does it say to execute the unlawful orders of the president. I'm not saying that they are unlawful, mind you, but there's a very good chance that they are and she has the discretion to make that decision. If she felt that what he ordered was unconstitutional then she had an obligation to not enforce it. Morality doesn't factor into it. Legality does.

I don't have the link on hand but if you go back none other than Jeff Sessions actually asked Yates about this exact scenario in her confirmation hearing.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: mikeyd23 on January 31, 2017, 12:45:04 PM
Quote
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic

Nowhere does it say to execute the unlawful orders of the president. I'm not saying that they are unlawful, mind you, but there's a very good chance that they are and she has the discretion to make that decision. If she felt that what he ordered was unconstitutional then she had an obligation to not enforce it. Morality doesn't factor into it. Legality does.

I must have missed the part where those orders were unlawful (I haven't seen anything that stated the EO didn't align with the law). And I'm not being sarcastic, I'm honestly saying I haven't seen anything to back that up. That would change a lot for me. Can you provide any links to show how exactly the EO was unlawful?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XeRocks81 on January 31, 2017, 12:48:53 PM
El Barto  only said there's CHANCE it could be unlawful.  In any case  the ACLU is challenging it: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/president-trumps-first-week-aclu-hands-him-first-stinging-rebuke?redirect=blog/president-trumps-first-week-aclu-hands-him-first-stinging-rebuke
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on January 31, 2017, 12:52:14 PM
But wouldn't the AG defending the EO actually figure out if it is lawful or not?  As in, bring it to the courts to decide.  If they don't defend, then what happens?  I'm very curious to know if this is legal or not.  Besides it likely swaying my opinion, it also would be nice to just know since some say it is legal and some say illegal.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: mikeyd23 on January 31, 2017, 12:52:56 PM
El Barto  only said there's CHANCE it could be unlawful.  In any case  the ACLU is challenging it: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/president-trumps-first-week-aclu-hands-him-first-stinging-rebuke?redirect=blog/president-trumps-first-week-aclu-hands-him-first-stinging-rebuke

I fully understand he said there is a chance it is unlawful, I'll reword, basically I'm asking for a source as to what grounds that chance stands on.

I'm hoping the article you just linked is not the grounds that chance stands on, it's basically a Trump bashing piece based totally off of assumption.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Adami on January 31, 2017, 12:53:42 PM
Slightly tangential, but I couldn't find much information on ISIS doing a lot in Iran. However, they have been doing quite a few attacks in Saudi Arabia, as well as Egypt.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Adami on January 31, 2017, 12:55:12 PM
El Barto  only said there's CHANCE it could be unlawful.  In any case  the ACLU is challenging it: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/president-trumps-first-week-aclu-hands-him-first-stinging-rebuke?redirect=blog/president-trumps-first-week-aclu-hands-him-first-stinging-rebuke

I fully understand he said there is a chance it is unlawful, I'll reword, basically I'm asking for a source as to what grounds that chance stands on.

I'm hoping the article you just linked is not the grounds that chance stands on, it's basically a Trump bashing piece based totally off of assumption.

I'm pretty sick and brain dead, but I did read something about congress saying in 1965 that immigration can't be stopped due to nationality. Then again, I read it in the New York times, which is not only fake news, but also part of the opposition (according to him) so it's probably all lies anyway.

Also, no one checked to see if it was legal before it was implemented. It was prudent of her to try to stop it until the legality can be worked out for sure. You don't just act and then figure out later if it was legal or illegal. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XeRocks81 on January 31, 2017, 12:58:02 PM
El Barto  only said there's CHANCE it could be unlawful.  In any case  the ACLU is challenging it: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/president-trumps-first-week-aclu-hands-him-first-stinging-rebuke?redirect=blog/president-trumps-first-week-aclu-hands-him-first-stinging-rebuke

I fully understand he said there is a chance it is unlawful, I'll reword, basically I'm asking for a source as to what grounds that chance stands on.

I'm hoping the article you just linked is not the grounds that chance stands on, it's basically a Trump bashing piece based totally off of assumption.

sorry about the ACLU link it was the only thing that came to mind.  If you strip out everything else it looks like it's being challenged on the grounds of "violating the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution" 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on January 31, 2017, 01:00:38 PM
But wouldn't the AG defending the EO actually figure out if it is lawful or not?  As in, bring it to the courts to decide.  If they don't defend, then what happens?  I'm very curious to know if this is legal or not.  Besides it likely swaying my opinion, it also would be nice to just know since some say it is legal and some say illegal.
There are definitely examples of AGs refusing to defend a law.

I can only conjure up three problems with this from a legal standpoint. For one, there's already a case winding its way through the courts regarding executive orders and immigration. It's not clear whether or not this is in the president's purview. The other is that preferring a specific religion over another is almost certainly going to be problematic. Third is the case the ACLU is presenting which is a ton of these people have already been very well vetted. I have no idea how these would fly, but they're pegs to hang a legal hat.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: mikeyd23 on January 31, 2017, 01:04:34 PM
I think Trump has been advised that Federal Immigration Law Section 1182(f) provides him legal grounds to do this. It states:

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate”

Saw this article the other day that explains it well:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444371/donald-trump-executive-order-ban-entry-seven-muslim-majority-countries-legal

It addresses that 1965 Immigration Law you mentioned too Adami.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on January 31, 2017, 01:06:59 PM
Also, no one checked to see if it was legal before it was implemented. It was prudent of her to try to stop it until the legality can be worked out for sure. You don't just act and then figure out later if it was legal or illegal.

Definitely agree.

But wouldn't the AG defending the EO actually figure out if it is lawful or not?  As in, bring it to the courts to decide.  If they don't defend, then what happens?  I'm very curious to know if this is legal or not.  Besides it likely swaying my opinion, it also would be nice to just know since some say it is legal and some say illegal.
There are definitely examples of AGs refusing to defend a law.

And what was the end result? I do not know.  A quick google search leads me to lots of Republican vs. Democrat battling which is annoying.  If the AG doesn't defend, does the lawsuit against the action proceed or the action gets dropped (which I would guess to happen)?  I would like to see some of this stuff thrown at the wall to see what sticks from a legal perspective and honestly, as I agreed to Adami above, I would have hoped this stuff was tested against the law before implemented.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on January 31, 2017, 01:07:54 PM

Quote
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic

Nowhere does it say to execute the unlawful orders of the president. I'm not saying that they are unlawful, mind you, but there's a very good chance that they are and she has the discretion to make that decision. If she felt that what he ordered was unconstitutional then she had an obligation to not enforce it. Morality doesn't factor into it. Legality does.

I don't have the link on hand but if you go back none other than Jeff Sessions actually asked Yates about this exact scenario in her confirmation hearing.

Found it:

Quote
Video of Yates' 2015 confirmation hearing as deputy attorney general shows Sen. Jeff Sessions grilling her about her responsibility to then-President Barack Obama should he require her to execute "unlawful" views. Sessions is now Donald Trump's pick to lead the Justice Department.
"You have to watch out because people will be asking you to do things and you need to say no. You think the attorney general has the responsibility to say no to the President if he asks for something that's improper?" Sessions asks Yates.
"A lot of people have defended the Lynch nomination, for example by saying, 'Well, he appoints somebody who's going to execute his views, what's wrong with that?' " the GOP senator from Alabama asks, referring to Obama's 2014 nomination of Loretta Lynch as attorney general.
"But if the views the President wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney general or the deputy attorney general say no?"
Yates replies: "Senator, I believe the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution and to give their independent legal advice to the President."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/31/politics/sally-yates-jeff-sessions-deputy-attorney-general-hearing/
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: mikeyd23 on January 31, 2017, 01:09:32 PM
Also, no one checked to see if it was legal before it was implemented. It was prudent of her to try to stop it until the legality can be worked out for sure. You don't just act and then figure out later if it was legal or illegal.

Definitely agree.

Just playing devils advocate here, how do we know that for sure?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Adami on January 31, 2017, 01:10:29 PM
Also, no one checked to see if it was legal before it was implemented. It was prudent of her to try to stop it until the legality can be worked out for sure. You don't just act and then figure out later if it was legal or illegal.

Definitely agree.

Just playing devils advocate here, how do we know that for sure?

I'm way too lazy to find links, but it was pretty well documented, I believe, that when the law was enacted, very few people had even looked at it or knew all the details of it.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: mikeyd23 on January 31, 2017, 01:13:12 PM
I'm way too lazy to find links, but it was pretty well documented, I believe, that when the law was enacted, very few people had even looked at it or knew all the details of it.

Okay, once again, I'm really not trying to be argumentative, I'm asking because it's being stated here like it's fact.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Adami on January 31, 2017, 01:17:30 PM
I'm way too lazy to find links, but it was pretty well documented, I believe, that when the law was enacted, very few people had even looked at it or knew all the details of it.

Okay, once again, I'm really not trying to be argumentative, I'm asking because it's being stated here like it's fact.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban/
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: mikeyd23 on January 31, 2017, 01:25:25 PM
I'm way too lazy to find links, but it was pretty well documented, I believe, that when the law was enacted, very few people had even looked at it or knew all the details of it.

Okay, once again, I'm really not trying to be argumentative, I'm asking because it's being stated here like it's fact.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-travel-ban/

Seems like that article makes it clear that the roll out of implementing this EO was bad, which I totally agree with. But, bad implementation =/= "no one checking to see if it was legal".
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Adami on January 31, 2017, 01:28:24 PM
No, but when very few people have had to look at it, it's pretty reasonable that few people checked the legality of it. That process alone could take a while.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: chknptpie on January 31, 2017, 01:34:06 PM
(lots in the past 2 pages that I don't care to quote...)
I really appreciate that you take the time to give me a response. My questions are really to help educate myself on beliefs and ideas that make up different political stances than my own. Adami really hit a lot of my feelings on the issue so I don’t feel like I need to give more of that subject unless you are interested lol.

Some of your other posts have made me wonder what your opinion on the Patriot Act is? It seems like you (please correct me if I’m wrong) are willing to let go of some of your(and others) personal liberties for national security?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: mikeyd23 on January 31, 2017, 01:34:57 PM
No, but when very few people have had to look at it, it's pretty reasonable that few people checked the legality of it. That process alone could take a while.

That seems reasonable to me as well, like I said I was just wondering why we were assuming "no one" checked to see if it was legal, seemed a bit exaggerated. I agree it was done quickly, but I'm thinking (going out on a limb here) Trump's administration is going to be quick with things as much as possible. Not because I think they are trying to sneak anything past people, but because that's what Trump is accustomed to coming from the business world, especially the world of development, where time is literally money. I think even Obama said something along the lines that he thought Trump's biggest hurdle would be working things through the system because it can take so long to get certain things done in government.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Adami on January 31, 2017, 01:37:28 PM
You're right, "no one" was an exageration, sorry. I should have said the appropriate people.

And Trump doesn't need ulterior motives to act that way, however it's still not how a president should act and will likely result in...well....what it has.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: mikeyd23 on January 31, 2017, 01:41:25 PM
And Trump doesn't need ulterior motives to act that way, however it's still not how a president should act and will likely result in...well....what it has.

Agreed.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 31, 2017, 02:12:09 PM
El Barto  only said there's CHANCE it could be unlawful.  In any case  the ACLU is challenging it: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/president-trumps-first-week-aclu-hands-him-first-stinging-rebuke?redirect=blog/president-trumps-first-week-aclu-hands-him-first-stinging-rebuke

I fully understand he said there is a chance it is unlawful, I'll reword, basically I'm asking for a source as to what grounds that chance stands on.

I'm hoping the article you just linked is not the grounds that chance stands on, it's basically a Trump bashing piece based totally off of assumption.

I'm pretty sick and brain dead, but I did read something about congress saying in 1965 that immigration can't be stopped due to nationality. Then again, I read it in the New York times, which is not only fake news, but also part of the opposition (according to him) so it's probably all lies anyway.

Also, no one checked to see if it was legal before it was implemented. It was prudent of her to try to stop it until the legality can be worked out for sure. You don't just act and then figure out later if it was legal or illegal.

Not reading ahead, so if this was answered...

As I understand it, the firing is not JUST because she didn't uphold it.  The "betrayal" language - while unfortunate - was because (and these are my words) she hung Trump out to dry.

According to the press conference today, the Executive Order WAS run through the Justice Department and was deemed to comply with U.S. law.   They saw the language, and in fact weighed in on the language, so Justice blessed this.   Then, after it was released, and the feces contacted the oscillating air movement device, she pulls the "I'm not going to support this!" card; it was purely political, and purely an effort to make Trump the President look bad. 

If it wasn't political, why not voice the opinions behind closed doors, during the review process, and debate the issue there? Or provide language that DID work?  Or perhaps, provide feedback that "hey this is going to be a disaster"?  No, she make it about her, thus the "betrayal". 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on January 31, 2017, 02:13:19 PM
One of the lessons we learned from the Bush administration is that presidents will have their legal team draft an explanation for what they think is legal, and then pronounce it legal. See the Gonzalez memo (enhanced interrogation) for an example. My hunch is that he had his lawyers determine that it was lawful and then off he went. Just speculation on my part, but it seems to be how these things get vetted. Obama's XO lessening enforcement of immigration probably followed the exact same path.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on January 31, 2017, 02:29:25 PM
(lots in the past 2 pages that I don't care to quote...)
I really appreciate that you take the time to give me a response. My questions are really to help educate myself on beliefs and ideas that make up different political stances than my own. Adami really hit a lot of my feelings on the issue so I don’t feel like I need to give more of that subject unless you are interested lol.

Some of your other posts have made me wonder what your opinion on the Patriot Act is? It seems like you (please correct me if I’m wrong) are willing to let go of some of your(and others) personal liberties for national security?

I'm back and forth on the Patriot Act.  I don't think it was "an affrontery to the basic tenets of the Constitution" or anything, but I think there are some parts that are problematic.  I generally am not a "well, if you don't do anything wrong, you don't have to worry about it" kind of guy.  I think the process is important.  I think you need things like warrants, though I do give a little leeway to things like "special courts" - not public record - to grant such warrants.  I think we need to let law enforcement do their job, but we need to make sure that law enforcement isn't used by others to do THEIR jobs, if that makes sense. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on January 31, 2017, 05:02:22 PM
Here we have the excitingly titled "STATEMENT OF FORMER ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS IN OPPOSITION TO ENFORCEMENT OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER TITLED “PROTECTING THE
NATION FROM FOREIGN  TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES," signed by 70 US prosecutors explaining why they agreed with Yates's refusal to play ball. I'm not throwing this out there to say that she's right, I have my own reasons for that, but because people here have questioned the rationale. These lads and lasses provide some.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/images/01/31/open.letter..2017-1-31.with.signatories.440.p.m..pdf

Quote
We could not candidly tell a court, consistent with these principles, that the United States has the right to bar admission to people who are otherwise lawfully permitted to enter the
United States, based solely on the fact that others of their religion are perceived to be potential security threats.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: millahh on January 31, 2017, 05:36:00 PM
So much for cracking down on drug prices...he actually weakened Mediacare's leverage.  Our stock shot up about 4% today, and we're the company that has publicly pledged to keep our prices under control.   :rollin :rollin :rollin
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on January 31, 2017, 05:50:50 PM
So much for cracking down on drug prices...he actually weakened Mediacare's leverage.  Our stock shot up about 4% today, and we're the company that has publicly pledged to keep our prices under control.   :rollin :rollin :rollin

Can you explain how?  I'm curious.  I posted an article on the ACA thread about how Trump wants to lower pharm prices through deregulation.  I admit to knowing little here so I am interested in hearing from your view on what's going on.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: millahh on January 31, 2017, 06:50:57 PM
So much for cracking down on drug prices...he actually weakened Mediacare's leverage.  Our stock shot up about 4% today, and we're the company that has publicly pledged to keep our prices under control.   :rollin :rollin :rollin

Can you explain how?  I'm curious.  I posted an article on the ACA thread about how Trump wants to lower pharm prices through deregulation.  I admit to knowing little here so I am interested in hearing from your view on what's going on.

Replied in the ACA thread
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Progmetty on January 31, 2017, 09:13:39 PM
Slightly tangential, but I couldn't find much information on ISIS doing a lot in Iran. However, they have been doing quite a few attacks in Saudi Arabia, as well as Egypt.

There can't be ISIL in Iran bro, ISIL is Sunni, Iran is Shia. Iran wants ISIL gone.
As for Egypt, we had the armed militants of Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, which the military uses to justify crackdowns, jailing without due process and media blackouts. Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis swore allegiance to ISIL a while back and now just call themselves ISIL. This is what happened in Libya as well, these kinda groups are all separate but they fall in line behind the strongest and most famous one and call themselves by it's name, it's the same thing that happened with Al Qaeda back in the day when they were "the shit" heh, none of these groups are organized or powerful enough to be networking across borders, they just influence each other.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Cool Chris on January 31, 2017, 09:27:18 PM
Thank you for summing up why America has no business meddling in these affairs.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Progmetty on January 31, 2017, 09:37:48 PM
But it did and it does and things are the way they are now because of the meddling. But Trump won't change that cause I believe he simply can't, Rand Paul was the only candidate with plans of truly sever any and all U.S. activities in the Arab world and even though I know it would have been difficult for him to do so; I still believed that he would have been able to take a step in the right direction.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Cyclopssss on February 01, 2017, 04:37:53 AM
This will not end well....
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: hefdaddy42 on February 01, 2017, 08:45:03 AM
Slightly tangential, but I couldn't find much information on ISIS doing a lot in Iran. However, they have been doing quite a few attacks in Saudi Arabia, as well as Egypt.

There can't be ISIL in Iran bro, ISIL is Sunni, Iran is Shia. Iran wants ISIL gone.
Thanks for confirming, that was my initial thought as well.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on February 01, 2017, 09:16:31 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3l57WYW8AAHHr3.jpg:large)

Happy Black History Month!
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: hefdaddy42 on February 01, 2017, 09:40:31 AM
 :facepalm:

Everything is about him.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on February 01, 2017, 10:03:05 AM
Here we have the excitingly titled "STATEMENT OF FORMER ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS IN OPPOSITION TO ENFORCEMENT OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER TITLED “PROTECTING THE
NATION FROM FOREIGN  TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES," signed by 70 US prosecutors explaining why they agreed with Yates's refusal to play ball. I'm not throwing this out there to say that she's right, I have my own reasons for that, but because people here have questioned the rationale. These lads and lasses provide some.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/images/01/31/open.letter..2017-1-31.with.signatories.440.p.m..pdf

Quote
We could not candidly tell a court, consistent with these principles, that the United States has the right to bar admission to people who are otherwise lawfully permitted to enter the
United States, based solely on the fact that others of their religion are perceived to be potential security threats.

Not to play lawyer, here, but that is worded VERY carefully.  If they're not being excluded for their religion - and they're not, no matter how you slice it, because "Christian" Iranians are not being allowed in, yet Muslims from, say, Saudi Arabia or India are - then their statement is not on point.   It's not because of "religion", it's because of country of origin.   So rephrase that statement from the lawyers to read "others of their COUNTRY", instead of "others of their RELIGION", and legally, they are dead wrong.

It just smacks of politics all around.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on February 01, 2017, 10:14:46 AM
Christian Iranians are getting preferential treatment over Moslem Iranians, are they not?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on February 01, 2017, 11:04:10 AM
Christian Iranians are getting preferential treatment over Moslem Iranians, are they not?

I'm sure I'll be proven wrong before the little wheel stops turning after I hit "Post", but not by anything I've read to date. 

EDIT:  I just googled.  Top three responses:

"Christian group expresses concern over Trump's refugee ban"
"Iranian refugee living in Jacksonville worried about Christians friends still in Iran"
"Trump halts program to bring Jewish, Christian, Baha'i refugees from Iran"

Doesn't sound to me like there's a difference there.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: hefdaddy42 on February 01, 2017, 11:37:35 AM
Christian Leaders Denounce Trump’s Plan to Favor Christian Refugees (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/christian-leaders-denounce-trumps-plan-to-favor-christian-immigrants.html?_r=0)

Quote
The executive order he signed on Friday gives preference to refugees who belong to a religious minority in their country, and have been persecuted for their religion.

The president detailed his intentions during an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network on Friday, saying his administration is giving priority to Christians because they had suffered “more so” than others, “so we are going to help them.”
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on February 01, 2017, 11:55:59 AM
Yeah, my take on Christian groups complaining was not that they thought it would hurt them but rather that even they thought this was morally wrong and contrary to American values.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: hefdaddy42 on February 01, 2017, 12:15:08 PM
Yeah, my take on Christian groups complaining was not that they thought it would hurt them but rather that even they thought this was morally wrong and contrary to American values.
Exactly. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Cool Chris on February 01, 2017, 12:55:39 PM
Dems should just think of it at Affirmative Action  :laugh:
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on February 01, 2017, 03:05:03 PM
Dems should just think of it at Affirmative Action  :laugh:

Haha, right?  Change "Christian" to "Muslim" or "Jew" or "African American" and they'd be tripping over themselves patting themselves on the back for all they do for human rights.   Please.

Nancy Pelosi: "Tell them you're Muslim!  Tell them you're Muslim!" 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on February 01, 2017, 03:23:49 PM
Dems should just think of it at Affirmative Action  :laugh:

Haha, right?  Change "Christian" to "Muslim" or "Jew" or "African American" and they'd be tripping over themselves patting themselves on the back for all they do for human rights.   Please.

Nancy Pelosi: "Tell them you're Muslim!  Tell them you're Muslim!"
I'm currently not familiar with what she did, though I'll look into it, but is her using religion as a prop any different than Trump using national defense as one?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on February 01, 2017, 04:08:52 PM
 ::)
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: lonestar on February 01, 2017, 04:16:26 PM
Dems should just think of it at Affirmative Action  :laugh:

 :lol
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: chknptpie on February 01, 2017, 07:47:15 PM
President Donald Trump threatened in a phone call with his Mexican counterpart to send U.S. troops to stop "bad hombres down there" unless the Mexican military does more to control them itself...
http://time.com/4657474/donald-trump-enrique-pena-nieto-mexico-bad-hombres/?xid=time_socialflow_facebook

Donald Trump told Malcolm Turnbull the US-Australia refugee resettlement agreement was “the worst deal ever” and warned he was going to “get killed” politically during their one-on-one call last weekend...
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/02/trump-told-turnbull-refugee-agreement-was-the-worst-deal-ever-report

If either are true - concerning language with Foreign leaders.



Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on February 01, 2017, 08:04:56 PM
The only reason Mexico is doing anything at all to reign in the malos hombres is because we're footing the bill. Their bad actors are generally our problem.

I'm really wanting to see somebody stand up to him. I'm intrigued at whether or not he flies off the handle. We've seen how easy it is to goad him, and I want to see it on a diplomatic level. Frankly, going to war with Mexico would be somewhat comical, and even more so if it were because el Presiente told him to fuck his mother.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: TAC on February 01, 2017, 08:06:49 PM
Australia?? We're going to bust Australia's balls? WTF??
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: lonestar on February 01, 2017, 08:37:23 PM
Australia?? We're going to bust Australia's balls? WTF??

Seems that way...I just got home and this was all I've read so far...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/no-gday-mate-on-call-with-australian-pm-trump-badgers-and-brags/2017/02/01/88a3bfb0-e8bf-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html?utm_term=.bec1c71ecc98 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/no-gday-mate-on-call-with-australian-pm-trump-badgers-and-brags/2017/02/01/88a3bfb0-e8bf-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html?utm_term=.bec1c71ecc98)

Be interested to see other pieces to get a better picture of what went down.

Seems Mexico is denying that Donald threatened to send troops, so that one may be a fib.

I'm now gonna make a grill cheese and some soup and stop reading. Eleven days in and I'm fucking exhausted already.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Progmetty on February 01, 2017, 09:03:16 PM
(https://scontent-dft4-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/16298950_10154880087132092_9157346731385036064_n.jpg?oh=ddd0b499430b8fee17272b19025a9d2a&oe=5900F0E7)

I have a confession to make; up until a week or so before the inauguration I was convinced to myself that Trump has never personally tweeted, as in thought of and typed a tweet, I always thought there is just no way someone in his status has the time, the vindictiveness or the silliness, let alone the patience, to post tweets and follow up on the feuds, etc.
I was convinced someone was doing it for him, someone of the Kellyanne Conway kinda capacity, but now I think there's no way the people around him would be allowing that, so this has to be him and the people around him are letting him continue to do it for a variety of reasons, I suspect mainly to avoid provoking him by making him feel too "managed".
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on February 01, 2017, 09:10:15 PM
(https://puu.sh/tKy8B/686aaf71a1.png)

 :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh:


edit: Meanwhile, Reuters has 'US military officials' saying this about the Yemen raid gone wrong:

Quote
U.S. military officials told Reuters that Trump approved his first covert counterterrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations.

As a result, three officials said, the attacking SEAL team found itself dropping onto a reinforced al Qaeda base defended by landmines, snipers, and a larger than expected contingent of heavily armed Islamist extremists.

The Pentagon directed queries about the officials' characterization of the raid to U.S. Central Command. The latter pointed only to its statement on Wednesday.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-commando-idUSKBN15G5RX
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: pogoowner on February 01, 2017, 09:12:36 PM
Maybe he should study the deal before he tweets about it?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on February 01, 2017, 09:14:19 PM
Maybe he should study the deal before he tweets about it?

Or angrily hangs up on the Australian prime minister.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on February 01, 2017, 09:22:18 PM
Yeah, if he doesn't understand it how can he say it's dumb? Oh, yeah. Thinking bad.

Also, why did he need to study the details of the raid to approve it? It's not his job. The guys a jackass and he's opposed to reason, but in this case it's the military's role to come up with plans and presumably they thought they had a winner. I doubt he said "here, attack this place on the map," despite their objections. What he should do is accept ultimate responsibility for an operation that went awry, but that's not Trump's demeanor, and we haven't a president do that in twenty years.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: MrBoom_shack-a-lack on February 02, 2017, 01:16:51 AM
Quote from: POTUS about Black History Month
Well, the election, it came out really well. Next time we’ll triple the number or quadruple it. We want to get it over 51, right? At least 51.
Well this is Black History Month, so this is our little breakfast, our little get-together. Hi Lynn, how are you? Just a few notes. During this month, we honor the tremendous history of African-Americans throughout our country. Throughout the world, if you really think about it, right? And their story is one of unimaginable sacrifice, hard work, and faith in America. I’ve gotten a real glimpse—during the campaign, I’d go around with Ben to a lot of different places I wasn’t so familiar with. They’re incredible people. And I want to thank Ben Carson, who’s gonna be heading up HUD. That’s a big job. That’s a job that’s not only housing, but it’s mind and spirit. Right, Ben? And you understand, nobody’s gonna be better than Ben.
Last month, we celebrated the life of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., whose incredible example is unique in American history. You read all about Dr. Martin Luther King a week ago when somebody said I took the statue out of my office. It turned out that that was fake news. Fake news. The statue is cherished, it’s one of the favorite things in the—and we have some good ones. We have Lincoln, and we have Jefferson, and we have Dr. Martin Luther King. But they said the statue, the bust of Martin Luther King, was taken out of the office. And it was never even touched. So I think it was a disgrace, but that’s the way the press is. Very unfortunate.
I am very proud now that we have a museum on the National Mall where people can learn about Reverend King, so many other things. Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I noticed. Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, and millions more black Americans who made America what it is today. Big impact.
I’m proud to honor this heritage and will be honoring it more and more. The folks at the table in almost all cases have been great friends and supporters. Darrell—I met Darrell when he was defending me on television. And the people that were on the other side of the argument didn’t have a chance, right? And Paris has done an amazing job in a very hostile CNN community. He’s all by himself. You’ll have seven people, and Paris. And I’ll take Paris over the seven. But I don’t watch CNN, so I don’t get to see you as much as I used to. I don’t like watching fake news. But Fox has treated me very nice. Wherever Fox is, thank you.
We’re gonna need better schools and we need them soon. We need more jobs, we need better wages, a lot better wages. We’re gonna work very hard on the inner city. Ben is gonna be doing that, big league. That’s one of the big things that you’re gonna be looking at. We need safer communities and we’re going to do that with law enforcement. We’re gonna make it safe. We’re gonna make it much better than it is right now. Right now it’s terrible, and I saw you talking about it the other night, Paris, on something else that was really—you did a fantastic job the other night on a very unrelated show.
I’m ready to do my part, and I will say this: We’re gonna work together. This is a great group, this is a group that’s been so special to me. You really helped me a lot. If you remember I wasn’t going to do well with the African-American community, and after they heard me speaking and talking about the inner city and lots of other things, we ended up getting—and I won’t go into details—but we ended up getting substantially more than other candidates who had run in the past years. And now we’re gonna take that to new levels. I want to thank my television star over here—Omarosa’s actually a very nice person, nobody knows that. I don’t want to destroy her reputation but she’s a very good person, and she’s been helpful right from the beginning of the campaign, and I appreciate it. I really do. Very special.
So I want to thank everybody for being here.
That's the most embarrassing, disrespectful and dumbest speech i've ever heard from someone in his position.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Cyclopssss on February 02, 2017, 01:48:50 AM
That's an actual, real speech?! Good Lord.  :omg:
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Elite on February 02, 2017, 02:30:01 AM
That's absolutely ridiculous. I witnessed the debate club of 15 year olds at the school I teach in and they make better sentences and stories that actually make sense. It's like he's completely improvising and doesn't have the slightest fucking idea what to say.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: eric42434224 on February 02, 2017, 04:39:40 AM
And he simply can't help going off on the media tangent in every paragraph.  He is clearly obsessed.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: TAC on February 02, 2017, 05:57:02 AM
Not arguing the merits of this particular story, but get ready for this kind of shit for the next few years. Nothing but covering asses and shifting blame.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: ? on February 02, 2017, 06:42:45 AM
He can't get over losing the popular vote and stop dissing the media, can he? :lolpalm: What a childish, petty man.
I have a confession to make; up until a week or so before the inauguration I was convinced to myself that Trump has never personally tweeted, as in thought of and typed a tweet, I always thought there is just no way someone in his status has the time, the vindictiveness or the silliness, let alone the patience, to post tweets and follow up on the feuds, etc.
I was convinced someone was doing it for him, someone of the Kellyanne Conway kinda capacity, but now I think there's no way the people around him would be allowing that, so this has to be him and the people around him are letting him continue to do it for a variety of reasons, I suspect mainly to avoid provoking him by making him feel too "managed".
I read an article that said that if the tweet is sent from an iPhone in the daytime, it's written by an assistant, while Trump uses the account himself on an Android phone the rest of the time.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on February 02, 2017, 07:07:53 AM
Dems should just think of it at Affirmative Action  :laugh:

Haha, right?  Change "Christian" to "Muslim" or "Jew" or "African American" and they'd be tripping over themselves patting themselves on the back for all they do for human rights.   Please.

Nancy Pelosi: "Tell them you're Muslim!  Tell them you're Muslim!"
I'm currently not familiar with what she did, though I'll look into it, but is her using religion as a prop any different than Trump using national defense as one?

Of course.  One is a national policy that effects everyone equally, the other is a victim-based tactic to cull favor.  That Representative is no more in danger of any discrimination based on this travel ban than Taylor Swift is, and if his ideas are strong enough, him being a "muslim" - and having Nancy scream it into the mike she thought was dead - shouldn't change a thing.   
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on February 02, 2017, 07:16:00 AM
He can't get over losing the popular vote and stop dissing the media, can he? :lolpalm: What a childish, petty man.
I have a confession to make; up until a week or so before the inauguration I was convinced to myself that Trump has never personally tweeted, as in thought of and typed a tweet, I always thought there is just no way someone in his status has the time, the vindictiveness or the silliness, let alone the patience, to post tweets and follow up on the feuds, etc.
I was convinced someone was doing it for him, someone of the Kellyanne Conway kinda capacity, but now I think there's no way the people around him would be allowing that, so this has to be him and the people around him are letting him continue to do it for a variety of reasons, I suspect mainly to avoid provoking him by making him feel too "managed".
I read an article that said that if the tweet is sent from an iPhone in the daytime, it's written by an assistant, while Trump uses the account himself on an Android phone the rest of the time.

That was from an alleged analysis of his tweets during the campaign.  The analysis covered topics, word choice, etc., things that linguistic analysts look at all the time. I don't know if it's true or not, and since Tweeting is dumb to start with, to me it doesn't matter.  A tweet from an iPhone by a staffer is as useless as a tweet from an Android by the President himself.   

There should be NO TWEETS, by anyone.

As for the speech, well, it does suck, but it's not like it wasn't a known quantity.  Clearly, 304 electors (and maybe more, who still voted for Clinton) didn't hold "oratorical skills" as one of the presiding requirements to be President.   I'm not fond of his speaking at all, but I'd much rather have an effective, decisive leader who speaks poorly than a silver-tongued car salesman who can't figure out how to get things done without misleading the public and backroom deals that completely undermine his stated intent.     I'll just leave that where it is. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: hefdaddy42 on February 02, 2017, 07:18:37 AM
The groundhog saw its shadow this morning and said, "Four more years of this shit?"
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: RuRoRul on February 02, 2017, 07:23:38 AM
He probably sneaks his phone into the toilet with him so he can Tweet unsupervised.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on February 02, 2017, 07:26:11 AM
I'd much rather have an effective, decisive leader who speaks poorly than a silver-tongued car salesman who can't figure out how to get things done without misleading the public and backroom deals that completely undermine his stated intent.     I'll just leave that where it is. 

let us know when you find this person
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: hefdaddy42 on February 02, 2017, 07:27:12 AM
He probably sneaks his phone into the toilet with him so he can Tweet unsupervised.
I think he doesn't give a shit whether he is supervised or not.  He doesn't brook dissent, so any of his operatives who would object to his tweeting have already been told to go fuck themselves.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: RuRoRul on February 02, 2017, 07:35:32 AM
He probably sneaks his phone into the toilet with him so he can Tweet unsupervised.
I think he doesn't give a shit whether he is supervised or not.  He doesn't brook dissent, so any of his operatives who would object to his tweeting have already been told to go fuck themselves.
I dunno, they confiscated his phone for a bit on the campaign and there are some obvious cases where you can see where he has sent out a Tweet obviously given to him by his strategists rather than something he wrote himself... maybe no one would confiscate it from him now, but you can easily imagine people around him annoying him going "Mr. President, what are you typing? No, I think there might be something better to say than LOSERS there... Mr. President, don't you want to look at this instead?" I reckon sometimes he would want to get away from it all, and get the peace and privacy to squeeze out a couple of extra juicy Tweets  :P
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Chino on February 02, 2017, 07:40:47 AM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/donald-trump-wall-mexico-developer-says-most-idiotic-thing-ever-jorge-perez-a7556581.html

Quote
"Miami real estate tycoon Jorge Perez said he declined an invitation by President Donald Trump to help build a wall along the US border with Mexico"

"“The wall is the most idiotic thing I’ve ever seen or heard in my life,” said Perez, who was raised in Colombia by Cuban parents. “A wall for what? You think a wall is going to stop people that are hungry? Good employment in Mexico, economic growth in Mexico, equality is going to stop people from coming over the border.”"

Does the president even have the authority to call up and hand select contractors? What would stop him from selecting companies he has a hand in and funnelling taxpayer funds into his bank accounts?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on February 02, 2017, 07:52:46 AM
I'd much rather have an effective, decisive leader who speaks poorly than a silver-tongued car salesman who can't figure out how to get things done without misleading the public and backroom deals that completely undermine his stated intent.     I'll just leave that where it is. 

let us know when you find this person

He's our President, and you know it.  Half of what you're complaining against is exactly what I wrote.   He's got a supremely qualified Secretary of State.  He's got perhaps the perfect pick for the Supreme Court, all things considered, in Gorsuch (it's a pipe dream of epic, Cheech and Chong proportions to think that Garland was ever going to be the pick; that wouldn't be an olive branch, that would be a FUCK YOU to Republican Congress, and the people that voted him into office).  Flawed in execution, granted, but being fixed daily, the Executive Order is addressing the PRIMARY issue from both parties during the election.  He's doing what most Dems wish Obama did in his first 20 days back in '09. 

Yeah, I wish he was more eloquent.  But that is only personal opinion, like I prefer my singers to not use cookie monster vocals.  That doesn't mean that Barney Greenway blows.   
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on February 02, 2017, 07:54:57 AM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/donald-trump-wall-mexico-developer-says-most-idiotic-thing-ever-jorge-perez-a7556581.html

Quote
"Miami real estate tycoon Jorge Perez said he declined an invitation by President Donald Trump to help build a wall along the US border with Mexico"

"“The wall is the most idiotic thing I’ve ever seen or heard in my life,” said Perez, who was raised in Colombia by Cuban parents. “A wall for what? You think a wall is going to stop people that are hungry? Good employment in Mexico, economic growth in Mexico, equality is going to stop people from coming over the border.”"

Does the president even have the authority to call up and hand select contractors? What would stop him from selecting companies he has a hand in and funnelling taxpayer funds into his bank accounts?

Most government contracting rules that I know of would not allow this to happen.  He can SUGGEST that someone bid, but that's about it.   That's not to say he can't call contractors to get information as to how it might be done, or get input into what would be required (though the final specs will also have to go through a review process under federal procurement rules.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on February 02, 2017, 08:05:49 AM
I'd much rather have an effective, decisive leader who speaks poorly than a silver-tongued car salesman who can't figure out how to get things done without misleading the public and backroom deals that completely undermine his stated intent.     I'll just leave that where it is. 

let us know when you find this person

He's our President, and you know it.  Half of what you're complaining against is exactly what I wrote.   He's got a supremely qualified Secretary of State.  He's got perhaps the perfect pick for the Supreme Court, all things considered, in Gorsuch (it's a pipe dream of epic, Cheech and Chong proportions to think that Garland was ever going to be the pick; that wouldn't be an olive branch, that would be a FUCK YOU to Republican Congress, and the people that voted him into office).  Flawed in execution, granted, but being fixed daily, the Executive Order is addressing the PRIMARY issue from both parties during the election.  He's doing what most Dems wish Obama did in his first 20 days back in '09. 

Yeah, I wish he was more eloquent.  But that is only personal opinion, like I prefer my singers to not use cookie monster vocals.  That doesn't mean that Barney Greenway blows.   

I don't share your rosy outlook in the slightest.

And for the record while I take great issue with what Rs did to Garland last year, I don't have a problem with Gorsuch. I'm no originalist (to say the least) but he seems like the real deal.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on February 02, 2017, 08:07:50 AM
decisive

You say decisive, I say impulsive.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on February 02, 2017, 08:11:11 AM
decisive

You say decisive, I say impulsive.

...let's call the whole thing off?


please?



obama?



(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3qxMHDUMAA4cVb.jpg:large)

dammit.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: hefdaddy42 on February 02, 2017, 08:21:26 AM
decisive

You say decisive, I say impulsive.
Same.  Sure, he makes decisions and acts on them quickly, but they are rarely well-thought out.  He has no impulse control, and this has been borne out in action, word, and tweet.  He is what he is, all the time.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on February 02, 2017, 08:26:09 AM
Dems should just think of it at Affirmative Action  :laugh:

Haha, right?  Change "Christian" to "Muslim" or "Jew" or "African American" and they'd be tripping over themselves patting themselves on the back for all they do for human rights.   Please.

Nancy Pelosi: "Tell them you're Muslim!  Tell them you're Muslim!"
I'm currently not familiar with what she did, though I'll look into it, but is her using religion as a prop any different than Trump using national defense as one?

Of course.  One is a national policy that effects everyone equally, the other is a victim-based tactic to cull favor.  That Representative is no more in danger of any discrimination based on this travel ban than Taylor Swift is, and if his ideas are strong enough, him being a "muslim" - and having Nancy scream it into the mike she thought was dead - shouldn't change a thing.
They're both hollow, meaningless buzzwords in the political context. Unless you believe that everything that's done in the name of protecting us is actually done for the reason of protecting us. I'm thinking of Grabby's "statement" on the firing of Sally Yates, where she "refused to enforce a law designed to protect the United States." Why does she hate America!
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on February 02, 2017, 08:31:29 AM
decisive

You say decisive, I say impulsive.
Same.  Sure, he makes decisions and acts on them quickly, but they are rarely well-thought out.  He has no impulse control, and this has been borne out in action, word, and tweet.  He is what he is, all the time.

Right.  Decisive implies some sort of consideration of consequences for your actions.  I'm not sure he even understands the concept of consequences.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Cool Chris on February 02, 2017, 10:41:08 AM
Quote
Good employment in Mexico, economic growth in Mexico, equality is going to stop people from coming over the border

Feel free to work on that, Mexico.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on February 02, 2017, 12:49:19 PM
I'd much rather have an effective, decisive leader who speaks poorly than a silver-tongued car salesman who can't figure out how to get things done without misleading the public and backroom deals that completely undermine his stated intent.     I'll just leave that where it is. 

let us know when you find this person

He's our President, and you know it.  Half of what you're complaining against is exactly what I wrote.   He's got a supremely qualified Secretary of State.  He's got perhaps the perfect pick for the Supreme Court, all things considered, in Gorsuch (it's a pipe dream of epic, Cheech and Chong proportions to think that Garland was ever going to be the pick; that wouldn't be an olive branch, that would be a FUCK YOU to Republican Congress, and the people that voted him into office).  Flawed in execution, granted, but being fixed daily, the Executive Order is addressing the PRIMARY issue from both parties during the election.  He's doing what most Dems wish Obama did in his first 20 days back in '09. 

Yeah, I wish he was more eloquent.  But that is only personal opinion, like I prefer my singers to not use cookie monster vocals.  That doesn't mean that Barney Greenway blows.   

I don't share your rosy outlook in the slightest.

And for the record while I take great issue with what Rs did to Garland last year, I don't have a problem with Gorsuch. I'm no originalist (to say the least) but he seems like the real deal.

And please don't misunderstand me; I'm not at all trying to get you to have my rosy outlook (though I don't think it's "rosy"; I think to some degree with respect to things that have happened, it's closer to reality).  All I'm saying is that you have to ACCOUNT for it.  Neither is fact at this point, and neither can be assured, even if you feel inordinately confident. In all honestly, the reality is probably somewhere in the middle, but it doesn't make much sense, in the face of extremism politically (and no, I don't mean Trump), to have extremism in reaction either.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on February 02, 2017, 12:52:35 PM
decisive

You say decisive, I say impulsive.

Not an unfair criticism.   Maybe it's my background (having worked - indirectly - for people like Jack Welch for much of my career) but I don't have a problem with impulsive.   I guess when you compare an "impulsive" act like this travel order - which is really just a call for MORE REVIEW, read, more deliberation, more "thinking it through" - with a so-called well-thought out thing like the ACA (which was anything but) AND there's no "more review", it just is what it is, I'm kind of okay with impulsive.   At least it's finite.   
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on February 02, 2017, 12:56:47 PM
decisive

You say decisive, I say impulsive.

...let's call the whole thing off?


please?



obama?



(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3qxMHDUMAA4cVb.jpg:large)

dammit.

Are you suggesting we'd be better off going back a year and having Obama back?   Please.  He's not the disaster most conservatives think, but he's certainly not going to go down in history in the top half of Presidents, and while there are problem of impulsiveness and execution in this, the first 15 +/- days of the Administration, I for one am rather willing to take my chances with the devil we're figuring out as we go, rather than the devil that bedeviled us for eight years.   No desire whatsoever for more wishy washy foreign policy, more debt, more unpopular laws rammed down our throats in order to meet one singular message, more legacy building (if you don't think Obama's ego is as big - if not manifested differently - than Trump's, you're not paying attention) and more unnecessary and counterproductive over-pandering to identity politics and select special interest groups. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on February 02, 2017, 01:00:10 PM
They're both hollow, meaningless buzzwords in the political context. Unless you believe that everything that's done in the name of protecting us is actually done for the reason of protecting us. I'm thinking of Grabby's "statement" on the firing of Sally Yates, where she "refused to enforce a law designed to protect the United States." Why does she hate America!

I'm not sure I follow, hoss.  I mean, I get why you call them hollow buzzwords, but the fact that one is an ideal and one is humanized is not minor, and if you're right, that makes the "Muslim" worse, because you're pandering a persons identity for a meaningless political advantage.   It's why I abhor my own state Senator, Chris Murphy, who has pimped and whored those families from Sandy Hook so he can make his political bones.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on February 02, 2017, 01:02:47 PM
decisive

You say decisive, I say impulsive.

Not an unfair criticism.   Maybe it's my background (having worked - indirectly - for people like Jack Welch for much of my career) but I don't have a problem with impulsive.   I guess when you compare an "impulsive" act like this travel order - which is really just a call for MORE REVIEW, read, more deliberation, more "thinking it through" - with a so-called well-thought out thing like the ACA (which was anything but) AND there's no "more review", it just is what it is, I'm kind of okay with impulsive.   At least it's finite.
I think where I and probably some others have a problem is that it's not "just a call for MORE REVIEW, read, more deliberation, more "thinking it through"". There's already an insane amount of review going on, and I can't imagine that somebody didn't point that out to him. I get that you want to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding his motivations, and that's honestly a fine strategy, but there comes a time when some of us become comfortable making assumptions based on past history and some glaring character flaws.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on February 02, 2017, 01:04:29 PM
They're both hollow, meaningless buzzwords in the political context. Unless you believe that everything that's done in the name of protecting us is actually done for the reason of protecting us. I'm thinking of Grabby's "statement" on the firing of Sally Yates, where she "refused to enforce a law designed to protect the United States." Why does she hate America!

I'm not sure I follow, hoss.  I mean, I get why you call them hollow buzzwords, but the fact that one is an ideal and one is humanized is not minor, and if you're right, that makes the "Muslim" worse, because you're pandering a persons identity for a meaningless political advantage.   It's why I abhor my own state Senator, Chris Murphy, who has pimped and whored those families from Sandy Hook so he can make his political bones.
I think you get it, and I won't argue that one is worse than the other. To me it all just reeks of political opportunism and exploitation. Whether it's taking advantage of a person's religion or praying on the fears of cowards it's all rotten.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on February 02, 2017, 01:12:08 PM
Are you suggesting we'd be better off going back a year and having Obama back?   Please.  He's not the disaster most conservatives think, but he's certainly not going to go down in history in the top half of Presidents, and while there are problem of impulsiveness and execution in this, the first 15 +/- days of the Administration, I for one am rather willing to take my chances with the devil we're figuring out as we go, rather than the devil that bedeviled us for eight years.   No desire whatsoever for more wishy washy foreign policy, more debt, more unpopular laws rammed down our throats in order to meet one singular message, more legacy building (if you don't think Obama's ego is as big - if not manifested differently - than Trump's, you're not paying attention) and more unnecessary and counterproductive over-pandering to identity politics and select special interest groups. 

I was just joking, but yes, I would rather have more Obama than this. But speaking of gambling I'd rather roll the dice and have a randomly selected member of this forum to run the country over Trump so it's not like my bar is very high for 'would you rather' scenarios :lol




Hell, give me W!
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Chino on February 02, 2017, 01:16:31 PM
Are you suggesting we'd be better off going back a year and having Obama back?   Please.  He's not the disaster most conservatives think, but he's certainly not going to go down in history in the top half of Presidents, and while there are problem of impulsiveness and execution in this, the first 15 +/- days of the Administration, I for one am rather willing to take my chances with the devil we're figuring out as we go, rather than the devil that bedeviled us for eight years.   No desire whatsoever for more wishy washy foreign policy, more debt, more unpopular laws rammed down our throats in order to meet one singular message, more legacy building (if you don't think Obama's ego is as big - if not manifested differently - than Trump's, you're not paying attention) and more unnecessary and counterproductive over-pandering to identity politics and select special interest groups. 

I was just joking, but yes, I would rather have more Obama than this. But speaking of gambling I'd rather roll the dice and have a randomly selected member of this forum to run the country over Trump so it's not like my bar is very high for 'would you rather' scenarios :lol




Hell, give me W!

You would not want me as POTUS. Believe me.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: bosk1 on February 02, 2017, 01:17:39 PM
At least, not while we have a 2-story White House.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Elite on February 02, 2017, 01:18:12 PM
I'd take my chances.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on February 02, 2017, 01:19:17 PM
At least, not while we have a 2-story White House.

Wow, the gift that keeps on giving  :rollin

(http://i.imgur.com/MF25PIO.png)
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on February 02, 2017, 01:24:21 PM
At least, not while we have a 2-story White House.

Wow, the gift that keeps on giving  :rollin

(http://i.imgur.com/MF25PIO.png)
yeah, that was a pretty good one.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Chino on February 02, 2017, 01:41:22 PM
At least, not while we have a 2-story White House.

Dick!  :lol



 :heart
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Implode on February 02, 2017, 02:12:59 PM
Idk. Free weekly screenings of Avatar and and ID4, increased funding for professional RC races, and better surveillance for fraudulent parking squatters doesn't sound too bad in comparison.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: hefdaddy42 on February 02, 2017, 02:15:51 PM
Is Chino old enough to serve?  Minimum age is 35, if memory serves.

I TOTALLY have that part covered.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on February 02, 2017, 02:20:39 PM
Idk. Free weekly screenings of Avatar and and ID4, increased funding for professional RC races, and better surveillance for fraudulent parking squatters doesn't sound too bad in comparison.

Plus mass production from 3d printing and lots and lots of lettuce for everyone to eat!  Got my vote
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: hefdaddy42 on February 02, 2017, 02:32:02 PM
Cones
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: axeman90210 on February 02, 2017, 02:35:27 PM
Forget hiring more border patrol, we need to hire more lot attendants and cut down on all this illegal parking.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: bosk1 on February 02, 2017, 02:37:57 PM
Registering for "So There's This Cone" Party, 2020.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on February 02, 2017, 02:45:41 PM
decisive

You say decisive, I say impulsive.

Not an unfair criticism.   Maybe it's my background (having worked - indirectly - for people like Jack Welch for much of my career) but I don't have a problem with impulsive.   I guess when you compare an "impulsive" act like this travel order - which is really just a call for MORE REVIEW, read, more deliberation, more "thinking it through" - with a so-called well-thought out thing like the ACA (which was anything but) AND there's no "more review", it just is what it is, I'm kind of okay with impulsive.   At least it's finite.
I think where I and probably some others have a problem is that it's not "just a call for MORE REVIEW, read, more deliberation, more "thinking it through"". There's already an insane amount of review going on, and I can't imagine that somebody didn't point that out to him. I get that you want to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding his motivations, and that's honestly a fine strategy, but there comes a time when some of us become comfortable making assumptions based on past history and some glaring character flaws.


And I'm not immune to them either.  I'm not dumb, and I don't live under a rock.   But while it's part of the factual basis to make a decision, it shouldn't be the ONLY decision.  I see a lot of "well, all bets are off because it's Trump".  A friend I respect very much (even if politically we're Roth and Hagar) said that point blank: "Fuck ANYTHING that has to do with Trump.  Block EVERYTHING."  C'mon.

I think he's not handling Australia well at all.   I still hate the Tweeting.  I don't like the recent quote, "For those that have heard about the tough phone calls, don't WORRY about it. Don't worry about it!".   Well, when I'm told not to worry, I typically worry. 

Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on February 02, 2017, 02:47:23 PM
Are you suggesting we'd be better off going back a year and having Obama back?   Please.  He's not the disaster most conservatives think, but he's certainly not going to go down in history in the top half of Presidents, and while there are problem of impulsiveness and execution in this, the first 15 +/- days of the Administration, I for one am rather willing to take my chances with the devil we're figuring out as we go, rather than the devil that bedeviled us for eight years.   No desire whatsoever for more wishy washy foreign policy, more debt, more unpopular laws rammed down our throats in order to meet one singular message, more legacy building (if you don't think Obama's ego is as big - if not manifested differently - than Trump's, you're not paying attention) and more unnecessary and counterproductive over-pandering to identity politics and select special interest groups. 

I was just joking, but yes, I would rather have more Obama than this. But speaking of gambling I'd rather roll the dice and have a randomly selected member of this forum to run the country over Trump so it's not like my bar is very high for 'would you rather' scenarios :lol




Hell, give me W!

Haha, that's when I KNOW it's bad for you. :)  :) ;)


As for Chino, I'd vote for him for no other reason than he'd drive the Secret Service crazy with his RC vehicles.   First sitting President to shoot down a Secret Service drone with his OWN drone.   
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on February 02, 2017, 02:51:41 PM
At least, not while we have a 2-story White House.

(http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a398/username690/Lidge_Owned.jpg)

:rollin
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: lonestar on February 02, 2017, 04:45:59 PM
Savage bosk, just savage  :lol
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on February 02, 2017, 07:30:24 PM
Man this story keeps getting weirder and weirder:


http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/white-house-holocaust-jews-234572

White House nixed Holocaust statement naming Jews
Quote
The State Department drafted its own statement last month marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day that explicitly included a mention of Jewish victims, according to people familiar with the matter, but President Donald Trump’s White House blocked its release.

The existence of the draft statement adds another dimension to the controversy around the White House’s own statement that was released on Friday and set off a furor because it excluded any mention of Jews. The White House has stood by the statement, defending it as an “inclusive” message that was not intended to marginalize Jewish victims of the Holocaust.


According to three people familiar with the process, the State Department's Office of the Special Envoy on Holocaust Issues prepared its own statement for International Holocaust Remembrance Day that, like previous statements, commemorated Jewish victims.

Instead, the White House’s own statement drew widespread criticism for overlooking the Jews' suffering, and was cheered by neo-Nazi website the Daily Stormer.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XeRocks81 on February 02, 2017, 11:00:05 PM
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/02/02/kellyanne-conway-refers-to-fake-bowling-green-massacre.html?via=twitter_page

#bowlingforjustice   :rollin
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Chino on February 03, 2017, 05:46:53 AM
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/02/02/kellyanne-conway-refers-to-fake-bowling-green-massacre.html?via=twitter_page

#bowlingforjustice   :rollin

Alternative attacks.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on February 03, 2017, 06:21:52 AM
The contributions of the Bowling Green Massacre are something that is being recognized more and more
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Chino on February 03, 2017, 06:45:38 AM
Did you know that as many people died in the Bowling Green Massacre as have overdosed on Marijuana?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on February 03, 2017, 06:48:40 AM
I'm just glad Frederick Douglass got out alive.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Cyclopssss on February 03, 2017, 07:08:04 AM
http://the-daily.buzz/a/first-lady-melania-trump-may-never-move-to-washington?utm_content=inf_10_1163_2&tse_id=INF_7e544840e95a11e6a03c354c456e1db2 (http://the-daily.buzz/a/first-lady-melania-trump-may-never-move-to-washington?utm_content=inf_10_1163_2&tse_id=INF_7e544840e95a11e6a03c354c456e1db2)

Check out those costs...
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: ? on February 03, 2017, 07:53:42 AM
I misread "her husband's presidency" as "her husband's pregnancy" and was like "wut?" :lol
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on February 03, 2017, 10:06:18 AM
Government reveals over 100,000 visas revoked due to travel ban
Quote
Over 100,000 visas have been revoked as a result of President Trump’s ban on travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries, an attorney for the government revealed in Alexandria federal court Friday.

The number came out during a hearing in a lawsuit filed by attorneys for two Yemeni brothers who arrived at Dulles International Airport on Saturday and were quickly put on a return flight to Ethiopia in response to the president’s executive order.

The government attorney could not say how many people with visas were sent back to their home countries from Dulles in response to the travel ban.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/government-reveals-over-100000-visas-revoked-due-to-travel-ban/2017/02/03/7d529eec-ea2c-11e6-b82f-687d6e6a3e7c_story.html?utm_term=.b111c257587b
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on February 03, 2017, 10:19:07 AM
Man this story keeps getting weirder and weirder:


http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/white-house-holocaust-jews-234572

White House nixed Holocaust statement naming Jews
Quote
The State Department drafted its own statement last month marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day that explicitly included a mention of Jewish victims, according to people familiar with the matter, but President Donald Trump’s White House blocked its release.

The existence of the draft statement adds another dimension to the controversy around the White House’s own statement that was released on Friday and set off a furor because it excluded any mention of Jews. The White House has stood by the statement, defending it as an “inclusive” message that was not intended to marginalize Jewish victims of the Holocaust.


According to three people familiar with the process, the State Department's Office of the Special Envoy on Holocaust Issues prepared its own statement for International Holocaust Remembrance Day that, like previous statements, commemorated Jewish victims.

Instead, the White House’s own statement drew widespread criticism for overlooking the Jews' suffering, and was cheered by neo-Nazi website the Daily Stormer.

Why is this even a story?   I lost family in the camps (in Poland) that weren't Jewish.  Why is my family, and perhaps their neighbors (or anyone else dragged off to a camp because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time) now getting to be marginalized?   Trump had it right the first time, even if it was awkward, and now you have to make the point and exclude someone else?   What's the point?  Are you that desperate for a reason to criticize this President? 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on February 03, 2017, 10:32:27 AM
Man this story keeps getting weirder and weirder:


http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/white-house-holocaust-jews-234572

White House nixed Holocaust statement naming Jews
Quote
The State Department drafted its own statement last month marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day that explicitly included a mention of Jewish victims, according to people familiar with the matter, but President Donald Trump’s White House blocked its release.

The existence of the draft statement adds another dimension to the controversy around the White House’s own statement that was released on Friday and set off a furor because it excluded any mention of Jews. The White House has stood by the statement, defending it as an “inclusive” message that was not intended to marginalize Jewish victims of the Holocaust.


According to three people familiar with the process, the State Department's Office of the Special Envoy on Holocaust Issues prepared its own statement for International Holocaust Remembrance Day that, like previous statements, commemorated Jewish victims.

Instead, the White House’s own statement drew widespread criticism for overlooking the Jews' suffering, and was cheered by neo-Nazi website the Daily Stormer.

Why is this even a story?   I lost family in the camps (in Poland) that weren't Jewish.  Why is my family, and perhaps their neighbors (or anyone else dragged off to a camp because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time) now getting to be marginalized?   Trump had it right the first time, even if it was awkward, and now you have to make the point and exclude someone else?   What's the point?  Are you that desperate for a reason to criticize this President? 

You can note that many non-jews were killed during the Holocaust while also acknowledging that the extermination of jews was at its core. It's just weird to put out the statement they did and then incredulously double down on it with reporters. Oh and also the guy who runs the white house is an anti-semite so there's that too. Judging from the article I'm not the only one who noticed it, clearly.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on February 03, 2017, 02:53:59 PM
Man this story keeps getting weirder and weirder:


http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/white-house-holocaust-jews-234572

White House nixed Holocaust statement naming Jews
Quote
The State Department drafted its own statement last month marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day that explicitly included a mention of Jewish victims, according to people familiar with the matter, but President Donald Trump’s White House blocked its release.

The existence of the draft statement adds another dimension to the controversy around the White House’s own statement that was released on Friday and set off a furor because it excluded any mention of Jews. The White House has stood by the statement, defending it as an “inclusive” message that was not intended to marginalize Jewish victims of the Holocaust.


According to three people familiar with the process, the State Department's Office of the Special Envoy on Holocaust Issues prepared its own statement for International Holocaust Remembrance Day that, like previous statements, commemorated Jewish victims.

Instead, the White House’s own statement drew widespread criticism for overlooking the Jews' suffering, and was cheered by neo-Nazi website the Daily Stormer.

Why is this even a story?   I lost family in the camps (in Poland) that weren't Jewish.  Why is my family, and perhaps their neighbors (or anyone else dragged off to a camp because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time) now getting to be marginalized?   Trump had it right the first time, even if it was awkward, and now you have to make the point and exclude someone else?   What's the point?  Are you that desperate for a reason to criticize this President? 

You can note that many non-jews were killed during the Holocaust while also acknowledging that the extermination of jews was at its core. It's just weird to put out the statement they did and then incredulously double down on it with reporters. Oh and also the guy who runs the white house is an anti-semite so there's that too. Judging from the article I'm not the only one who noticed it, clearly.

Who's the "guy that runs the White House"? 

Trump?  Where's the proof he's an "anti-Semite"?   The tweet about Jon Stewart?
Bannon?   Where's the proof he's an "anti-Semite"?  The debunked report about the private school search?
Someone else? 

Again, because I feel like I have to, I'm not supporting Trump or Bannon, but you can't just throw around vitriolic accusations like "anti-Semite" without some concrete proof, not supposition, or wishful thinking (because it's so much easier to hate if they're really bad people, right?).

Point of the story is that you can't ascribe motivations to the statement without a WHOLE lot more information than we have at this point.   
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: bosk1 on February 03, 2017, 02:59:17 PM
Well, but Trump is known to associate with anti-Semite racists.  So that makes him an anti-Semite racist.  And since he associates with them, and Bannon is a known associate of his, that makes Bannon an anti-Semite racist too.  It's really not that complicated.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: hefdaddy42 on February 03, 2017, 03:03:24 PM
Not sure about all that, but I have it on good authority that "the guy who runs the White House" is Bannon.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on February 03, 2017, 03:04:05 PM
"Bad company corrupts good character".  Can you imagine what it does to someone with bad-to-no character?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: hefdaddy42 on February 03, 2017, 03:04:38 PM
"Bad company corrupts good character".  Can you imagine what it does to someone with bad-to-no character?
:tup
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on February 03, 2017, 03:09:44 PM
Yeah Bannon, the guy whose website ran anti-semitic content and who wrote antisemitic dog whistles about (((globalist elites))) into Trump's speeches.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Adami on February 03, 2017, 06:25:01 PM
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/827499871011819520

Trump implying that his new ban will help stop attacks like this.

Looked into it, turns out the attacker was Egyptian with Emirati visa. So the ban wouldn't have prevented this in the slightest.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Cool Chris on February 03, 2017, 08:12:14 PM
Oh Gov Dimslee, why can't you just stick with what you know: screwing up our state, and not the whole country?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on February 04, 2017, 10:45:36 AM
Trump lashes out at judge as travel ban is put on ice (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-travel-ban-legal-win-234634)
"This so-called judge"

This child has no business holding an office related to the rule of law. I'd say that somebody needs to explain to him that just because he likes something doesn't mean that it's legal, but of course his problem with reality would make it impossible to teach him anything.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on February 04, 2017, 11:18:56 AM
He does not give a lick about institutions.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Adami on February 04, 2017, 11:48:20 PM
Quote
Because the ban was lifted by a judge, many very bad and dangerous people may be pouring into our country. A terrible decision

Really wish he wouldn't resort to using fear mongering to such an extent.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: DragonAttack on February 05, 2017, 12:01:56 AM
More people with ties to Michigan natives, and who have served in the military, have killed more Americans on our soil than those from the banned so called 'terrorist' nations.

Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols ring a bell to anyone? 

Next thing you know, Dearborn, Michigan will have a wall around it.  Which would suck, because the restaurants and delis are fab, and their HS football teams kick axe. 

[Glad I got out of Michigan before my passport got pulled or restricted...]

And now, before I go to sleep (which is great, sleep is the best, sleep's the best, the best I tell you), I bow down to pray before the nation's leaders that Schwarzenegger gets higher ratings on his show, because, 'what the hell', that's really important to the world
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: TAC on February 05, 2017, 06:43:00 AM

[Glad I got out of Michigan before my passport got pulled or restricted...]
 

I heard it wasn't all of Michigan. It was only the small part to the north, which BTW, was identified by The Obama Administration and Congress. The large, main southern part, is not part of the ban.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: XJDenton on February 05, 2017, 07:44:43 AM
Quote
Because the ban was lifted by a judge, many very bad and dangerous people may be pouring into our country. A terrible decision

Really wish he wouldn't resort to using fear mongering to such an extent.

The fear mongering is less concerning to me than his belittlement and undermining of the independent judiciary.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Scorpion on February 06, 2017, 04:48:37 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/EqRmu5j.png)

So... apparently it's the fault of the judge and the whole court system if "something happens".

No, nothing to see here, completely normal and not at all concerning. Move along.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Chino on February 06, 2017, 06:54:24 AM
Does anyone outside of r/the_donald and Alex Jones really support this? And by "this", I don't mean border security. I mean our so-called president behaving in this fashion and speaking as he does.

(http://ir.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/a55.png)
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on February 06, 2017, 06:56:57 AM
Dear Leader is the only true source of information.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: orcus116 on February 06, 2017, 07:22:24 AM
I like how he's implying that there wasn't extensive vetting in place prior to his EO.

Also does this guy ever sleep?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on February 06, 2017, 07:25:55 AM
Cocaine is a hell of a drug.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: BlobVanDam on February 06, 2017, 07:58:04 AM
Does anyone outside of r/the_donald and Alex Jones really support this? And by "this", I don't mean border security. I mean our so-called president behaving in this fashion and speaking as he does.

(http://ir.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/a55.png)

I genuinely had to check that this was real. He has a scary attitude for a world leader.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on February 06, 2017, 08:19:21 AM
Not sure about all that, but I have it on good authority that "the guy who runs the White House" is Bannon.

That being?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on February 06, 2017, 08:25:01 AM
Yeah Bannon, the guy whose website ran anti-semitic content and who wrote antisemitic dog whistles about (((globalist elites))) into Trump's speeches.

Wait, what?   References to "globalist elites" are anti-Semitic references?    Are you being serious there?

BERNIE SANDERS' ENTIRE CAMPAIGN WAS PREDICATED ON "GLOBALIST ELITES".  HE'S A JEW.   

And as for the former, well, some of us aren't big on censoring messages, even if they are messages we don't agree with.  If I ran a website, and the format lent itself to dissenting views, I wouldn't at all censor anti-Semitic points of view.    Let the ideas be put forth, and let them be battled by better, more reasonable ideas.  If your position is so strong, you should be able to withstand their airing, and counter them with your own strong, so-called "right", ideas.   Your position defies human nature, defies science, and defies reason.   "Censoring" the ideas you don't like - even if that idea is "anti-Semitic" - is absolutely not in any way different than what you accuse Trump of doing and what you accuse the Hitler regime from doing. It's just that it's "your" idea, so you think it's "right".   You don't think "Hitler" thought he was right too? 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on February 06, 2017, 08:27:20 AM
I heard some interviews with consulate workers on NPR this weekend, and they're all pretty pissed off about the selfserving bullshit of all of this. It's like being the best baker in the world and having some asshat start blabbing to everybody in the world about how terrible your muffins are. Those guys spend years vetting people and do a damned thorough job. And if they can't deem somebody safe with complete certainty, they don't get int.

The other story we're hearing a lot is about people who finally got their visas after so many years and then sell everything they own to bankroll their relocation to the States, only to be told by some developmentally arrested weirdo they're never gonna make it. That must be really awful.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on February 06, 2017, 08:31:11 AM
Some of this is ineptness on the front lines, too, though.  I think the idea isn't as bad as most are making it out to be (it certainly is in no way shape or form a "Muslim Bad" as many critics are calling it) but in any event, I do think that we can't have every issue, every debate, every potential conflict play out in a Twitter feed.   It is nauseating.    I think it's counter-productive to call out judges (and other government officials) personally on their judgments and decisions made in their official capacity (it's the essence of the doctrine of "sovereign immunity"). 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on February 06, 2017, 08:42:19 AM
Some of this is ineptness on the front lines, too, though.  I think the idea isn't as bad as most are making it out to be (it certainly is in no way shape or form a "Muslim Bad" as many critics are calling it) but in any event, I do think that we can't have every issue, every debate, every potential conflict play out in a Twitter feed.   It is nauseating.    I think it's counter-productive to call out judges (and other government officials) personally on their judgments and decisions made in their official capacity (it's the essence of the doctrine of "sovereign immunity").
I'm surprised you don't recognize it for that. Between the preferential treatment for non-Moslems and Trumps rhetoric over the last two years, I think we all know that's precisely what it is.

"Brown M&Ms are a scourge to our democracy."
"We've got to keep our children from eating brown M&Ms."
"How does the CEO of Mars Inc. sleep at night knowing he's killing us all with his brown M&Ms?"
"I'm instituting a ban on all candies made from these seven Mars, Inc. plants. Exceptions will be made for an candies that are orange, yellow, green and blue."
"Of course this isn't a ban on brown M&Ms. That's just a lie propagated by fake news outlets. And the judge that sided with Mars, Inc. is an asshole and I think he beats his wife!"
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Scorpion on February 06, 2017, 08:48:19 AM
Hasn't Trump himself called it a "ban" when criticising the judge for overturning his executive order?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Chino on February 06, 2017, 10:27:55 AM
I like how he's implying that there wasn't extensive vetting in place prior to his EO.

Also does this guy ever sleep?

4AM EST is lunch time in Russia.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Adami on February 06, 2017, 10:34:52 AM
Can't The NY Times eventuallly sue him for slander?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on February 06, 2017, 12:13:35 PM
Some of this is ineptness on the front lines, too, though.  I think the idea isn't as bad as most are making it out to be (it certainly is in no way shape or form a "Muslim Bad" as many critics are calling it) but in any event, I do think that we can't have every issue, every debate, every potential conflict play out in a Twitter feed.   It is nauseating.    I think it's counter-productive to call out judges (and other government officials) personally on their judgments and decisions made in their official capacity (it's the essence of the doctrine of "sovereign immunity").
I'm surprised you don't recognize it for that. Between the preferential treatment for non-Moslems and Trumps rhetoric over the last two years, I think we all know that's precisely what it is.

"Brown M&Ms are a scourge to our democracy."
"We've got to keep our children from eating brown M&Ms."
"How does the CEO of Mars Inc. sleep at night knowing he's killing us all with his brown M&Ms?"
"I'm instituting a ban on all candies made from these seven Mars, Inc. plants. Exceptions will be made for an candies that are orange, yellow, green and blue."
"Of course this isn't a ban on brown M&Ms. That's just a lie propagated by fake news outlets. And the judge that sided with Mars, Inc. is an asshole and I think he beats his wife!"

But that's not entirely accurate.    At least the "I'm instituting a ban" line.

He IS calling it a ban.  A TRAVEL ban on those seven countries.  NOT a ban on "MUSLIMS".   Even if there are exceptions that are essentially "Not" Muslims, it's still not a ban ON Muslims.   There are almost two BILLION Muslims in this world.   Less than 200 million are impacted by the travel ban.     Of the top ten counties in the world in terms of Muslim population, TWO are on the travel ban list, and none in the top five.  One of those is Iran, that just tested a missile, against the requirements of the UN.    If it's really a "Muslim ban", Muslims ought to rest easy, because it's the worst ban of all time, if so. 



Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: 73109 on February 06, 2017, 12:14:06 PM
So not to scream TERRIFYING!!! FASCISM!! or any of the other things folks like Stadler often accuse people of doing...

...but isn't it, like, not cool that our president is mentally fucked up enough to genuinely believe that any and all negative polls—which almost all of them are at this point—are fake. Like, that is just a recipe not just for authoritarianism but totalitarianism. I have confidence in American institutions to keep stable while this wing-nut is president for four years (probably won't be eight) but that doesn't mean he isn't mentally unhinged, which is—yes—scary.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on February 06, 2017, 01:14:20 PM
So not to scream TERRIFYING!!! FASCISM!! or any of the other things folks like Stadler often accuse people of doing...

...but isn't it, like, not cool that our president is mentally fucked up enough to genuinely believe that any and all negative polls—which almost all of them are at this point—are fake. Like, that is just a recipe not just for authoritarianism but totalitarianism. I have confidence in American institutions to keep stable while this wing-nut is president for four years (probably won't be eight) but that doesn't mean he isn't mentally unhinged, which is—yes—scary.

Assuming of course that he ACTUALLY BELIEVES them to be fake.   This is twitter for god's sake; why we're having political discourse in 140-characters or less is beyond me.  The problem here isn't what is being said, it's how it being said.   I don't for a second believe that he ACTUALLY BELIEVES them to be fake.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on February 06, 2017, 01:28:12 PM
Some of this is ineptness on the front lines, too, though.  I think the idea isn't as bad as most are making it out to be (it certainly is in no way shape or form a "Muslim Bad" as many critics are calling it) but in any event, I do think that we can't have every issue, every debate, every potential conflict play out in a Twitter feed.   It is nauseating.    I think it's counter-productive to call out judges (and other government officials) personally on their judgments and decisions made in their official capacity (it's the essence of the doctrine of "sovereign immunity").
I'm surprised you don't recognize it for that. Between the preferential treatment for non-Moslems and Trumps rhetoric over the last two years, I think we all know that's precisely what it is.

"Brown M&Ms are a scourge to our democracy."
"We've got to keep our children from eating brown M&Ms."
"How does the CEO of Mars Inc. sleep at night knowing he's killing us all with his brown M&Ms?"
"I'm instituting a ban on all candies made from these seven Mars, Inc. plants. Exceptions will be made for an candies that are orange, yellow, green and blue."
"Of course this isn't a ban on brown M&Ms. That's just a lie propagated by fake news outlets. And the judge that sided with Mars, Inc. is an asshole and I think he beats his wife!"

But that's not entirely accurate.    At least the "I'm instituting a ban" line.

He IS calling it a ban.  A TRAVEL ban on those seven countries.  NOT a ban on "MUSLIMS".   Even if there are exceptions that are essentially "Not" Muslims, it's still not a ban ON Muslims.   There are almost two BILLION Muslims in this world.   Less than 200 million are impacted by the travel ban.     Of the top ten counties in the world in terms of Muslim population, TWO are on the travel ban list, and none in the top five.  One of those is Iran, that just tested a missile, against the requirements of the UN.    If it's really a "Muslim ban", Muslims ought to rest easy, because it's the worst ban of all time, if so.
I get your distinction, but from a practical, and more importantly legal, standpoint I don't find it compelling. A ban on Moslems from certain countries isn't going to fly, and nor should it. And while Moslems might think it an awful ban, terrorists have to be digging the shit out of it.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: 73109 on February 06, 2017, 01:34:46 PM
So not to scream TERRIFYING!!! FASCISM!! or any of the other things folks like Stadler often accuse people of doing...

...but isn't it, like, not cool that our president is mentally fucked up enough to genuinely believe that any and all negative polls—which almost all of them are at this point—are fake. Like, that is just a recipe not just for authoritarianism but totalitarianism. I have confidence in American institutions to keep stable while this wing-nut is president for four years (probably won't be eight) but that doesn't mean he isn't mentally unhinged, which is—yes—scary.

Assuming of course that he ACTUALLY BELIEVES them to be fake.   This is twitter for god's sake; why we're having political discourse in 140-characters or less is beyond me.  The problem here isn't what is being said, it's how it being said.   I don't for a second believe that he ACTUALLY BELIEVES them to be fake.

Ok, then perhaps he is just cold and calculating and is attempting get mindless idiots on his side. Let's postulate that he doesn't actually believe that any and all negative polls are manipulated by a cabal of journalists out to get him. Why say it? Why go on twitter and proclaim for the world to see that all negative press is fake and your ideas are actually nearly universally loved? I'm not exactly sure that is better than some mentally-ill belief that he can do no wrong and the world is out to fuck him.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: bosk1 on February 06, 2017, 01:36:34 PM
Poor judgment isn't necessarily mental illness. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Cool Chris on February 06, 2017, 01:38:36 PM
A ban on Moslems from certain countries isn't going to fly, and nor should it. And while Moslems might think it an awful ban, terrorists have to be digging the shit out of it.

Again, not a ban on Muslims. And if a 90 day travel ban from 7 countries to another country is going to trigger terrorism, I'd just as soon have such easily triggered people on the other side of the world.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on February 06, 2017, 02:33:31 PM
A ban on Moslems from certain countries isn't going to fly, and nor should it. And while Moslems might think it an awful ban, terrorists have to be digging the shit out of it.

Again, not a ban on Muslims. And if a 90 day travel ban from 7 countries to another country is going to trigger terrorism, I'd just as soon have such easily triggered people on the other side of the world.
Well, it's not really a 90 travel ban. It's more like a 4 year travel ban for all of the people who had their visas yanked out from under them and now have to start anew, assuming this moratorium expires and only a fool would bet on that happening. Moreover, it's not like this is going to keep the easily triggered out of the country, but that's not really the point. What it does do is play right into the rhetoric that ISIL has been preaching for the last several years. You can't create more bad guys than you kill and expect two win, and that's something that both Bush and Trump seem to not get. Keeping the war-mongering directed at terrorists rather than Moslems has always been very important, and singling out the latter, which he has most definitely done, hurts the cause.

Former NSA/CIA director Michael Hayden has been pretty outspoken about this whole deal:
Quote
But as a former station chief told me, in the places where intelligence officers operate, rumor, whisper and conspiratorial chatter rule people’s lives. It doesn’t take paranoia to connect the action of the executive order with the hateful, anti-Islamic language of the campaign. In the Middle East, with its honor-based cultures, it’s easier to recruit someone we have been shooting at than it is to recruit someone whose society has been insulted.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: 73109 on February 06, 2017, 04:45:51 PM
When will anybody in some sort of position of power have a modicum of brain functioning and realize that you can't have a president just say dumbass shit with no evidence whatsoever?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/02/06/president-trump-is-now-speculating-that-the-media-is-covering-up-terrorist-attacks/?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.4b2f673a1a93
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Cool Chris on February 06, 2017, 07:27:40 PM
You can't create more bad guys than you kill and expect two win...

No doubt, but when they are training their youth when they pop out of the womb to be terrorists, what exactly are we supposed to do to? The US farts side wise and they use that to motivate new terrorists. I am not advocating more killing, I am genuinely curious. 

Re: their "honor" code. That is something much of us our pretty sick and tired of hearing about, like it is some revered aspect of enlightenment. Post some inappropriate pictures online? Honor killing. Having a relationship with someone your family doesn't approve of? Honor killing. How do we deal with scum like this?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Adami on February 06, 2017, 07:32:09 PM
You can't create more bad guys than you kill and expect two win...

No doubt, but when they are training their youth when they pop out of the womb to be terrorists, what exactly are we supposed to do to? The US farts side wise and they use that to motivate new terrorists. I am not advocating more killing, I am genuinely curious. 


To some extent, sure. But most terrorists aren't trained or brainwashed to hate America or the west or any other country. A lot of them really just hate us because of all of the horrible things we're doing. It's much nice to just assume it's independent of us and they'd hate us anyway, but there's just not a ton of merit to that. I can't speak for every violent fighter out there, but after doing tons of research on Palestinian fighters, who are also victims of the myth that their just brainwashed as kids, I can tell you that most of them have real reasons to do what they do, and it's not just being raised from kids to be killers.

Hell, if we reduced the numbers down to only those brainwashed as kids? We'd have no problem.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Cool Chris on February 06, 2017, 07:38:12 PM
I know, I was a little over the top there. We are certainly no angels, and I am all for getting everyone , troops included, the hell out of there. But what are these numerous "horrible things" we are doing? Is it all largely centered around our support for Israel?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Adami on February 06, 2017, 07:44:34 PM
I know, I was a little over the top there. We are certainly no angels, and I am all for getting everyone , troops included, the hell out of there. But what are these numerous "horrible things" we are doing? Is it all largely centered around our support for Israel?

Ummm, parts of it may be centered on Israel. A lot of it is the fact that we're there, kind of acting like we own the place. Keep in mind, in America we hear about a drone strike taking out a terrorist cell, but to them? It's buildings blowing up because reasons. I mean, imagine where you live, Canadian troops regularly blowing stuff up. They don't tell you they're going to do  it, they don't tell you why usually, and they don't care too much about all of the chaos, destruction and terror inflicted, then in Canada, a headline reaches "major terrorist cell eliminated". You might grow up hating those god damn canadians. We often forget that they are actually experiencing the war that most of us are sitting back here discussing calmly. The truth behind it, the reasons behind it, the motives behind it, none of those things matter when all you know is that your local hospital was just blown up, you only care that some foreign force just blew up your hospital. No amount of "well we did it for XYZ reasons" will matter in the slightest bit.

Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: portnoy311 on February 06, 2017, 07:45:25 PM
So not to scream TERRIFYING!!! FASCISM!! or any of the other things folks like Stadler often accuse people of doing...

...but isn't it, like, not cool that our president is mentally fucked up enough to genuinely believe that any and all negative polls—which almost all of them are at this point—are fake. Like, that is just a recipe not just for authoritarianism but totalitarianism. I have confidence in American institutions to keep stable while this wing-nut is president for four years (probably won't be eight) but that doesn't mean he isn't mentally unhinged, which is—yes—scary.

Assuming of course that he ACTUALLY BELIEVES them to be fake.   This is twitter for god's sake; why we're having political discourse in 140-characters or less is beyond me.  The problem here isn't what is being said, it's how it being said.   I don't for a second believe that he ACTUALLY BELIEVES them to be fake.

I don't believe you actually think this. You constantly remind us words matter. Words matter. We shouldn't be saying things are terrifying. But, the POTUS tweeting to millions of followers that the media is fake and rigged against him - knowing full well that millions of his followers will believe it and eat it up - is ok, because hey, he probably doesn't BELIEVE it?! Why the double standard FOR Trump? I do think you're going beyond yourself to defend the man at this point.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Cool Chris on February 06, 2017, 07:49:15 PM
Adami, thank you for expressing what I had thought, but not strongly enough to express. You are more aware of the specifics than I am.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: pogoowner on February 06, 2017, 09:06:58 PM
I know, I was a little over the top there. We are certainly no angels, and I am all for getting everyone , troops included, the hell out of there. But what are these numerous "horrible things" we are doing? Is it all largely centered around our support for Israel?

Ummm, parts of it may be centered on Israel. A lot of it is the fact that we're there, kind of acting like we own the place. Keep in mind, in America we hear about a drone strike taking out a terrorist cell, but to them? It's buildings blowing up because reasons. I mean, imagine where you live, Canadian troops regularly blowing stuff up. They don't tell you they're going to do  it, they don't tell you why usually, and they don't care too much about all of the chaos, destruction and terror inflicted, then in Canada, a headline reaches "major terrorist cell eliminated". You might grow up hating those god damn canadians. We often forget that they are actually experiencing the war that most of us are sitting back here discussing calmly. The truth behind it, the reasons behind it, the motives behind it, none of those things matter when all you know is that your local hospital was just blown up, you only care that some foreign force just blew up your hospital. No amount of "well we did it for XYZ reasons" will matter in the slightest bit.
Stuff like what's going on in Yemen right now, which the U.S. is directly facilitating, doesn't help either. Heavy civilian casualties, cluster munitions being used, etc. Not good. Somehow U.S. media have largely remained silent on our involvement, but I suspect people in the Middle East are well aware.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on February 07, 2017, 07:26:13 AM
So not to scream TERRIFYING!!! FASCISM!! or any of the other things folks like Stadler often accuse people of doing...

...but isn't it, like, not cool that our president is mentally fucked up enough to genuinely believe that any and all negative polls—which almost all of them are at this point—are fake. Like, that is just a recipe not just for authoritarianism but totalitarianism. I have confidence in American institutions to keep stable while this wing-nut is president for four years (probably won't be eight) but that doesn't mean he isn't mentally unhinged, which is—yes—scary.

Assuming of course that he ACTUALLY BELIEVES them to be fake.   This is twitter for god's sake; why we're having political discourse in 140-characters or less is beyond me.  The problem here isn't what is being said, it's how it being said.   I don't for a second believe that he ACTUALLY BELIEVES them to be fake.

Ok, then perhaps he is just cold and calculating and is attempting get mindless idiots on his side. Let's postulate that he doesn't actually believe that any and all negative polls are manipulated by a cabal of journalists out to get him. Why say it? Why go on twitter and proclaim for the world to see that all negative press is fake and your ideas are actually nearly universally loved? I'm not exactly sure that is better than some mentally-ill belief that he can do no wrong and the world is out to fuck him.

Well, to Bosk's point, "poor judgment" isn't necessarily "mental illness", but beyond that, here's the thing:   HE'S NOT SAYING IT TO YOU.    I think ultimately that is the one thing that is riling up people even if they don't tangibly think of it that way.   For the first time in years, you have a candidate, a President, that isn't pandering to the elite and entitled.    Trump psychologically probably cares very much what Hollywood has to say, but POLITICALLY, not two fucks.  It's that Obama Republican that is tired of the media, tired of being told they're stupid, tired of being told they're deplorable, just plain tired.


And I find it particularly interesting in light of what I just wrote in one of the other threads here.  We bend over backwards to pretend to understand what the "gay experience" is, making sure we all have access to wedding cakes that say whatever it is we want on them, but when it comes time to try to understand the experience of those that don't live like we do, AND think differently than we do, somehow they're deplorable, or mentally ill.

If liberals gave as much of a shit about the people in Detroit as they do people who want a cake that says "Adam, I love you! Steve", and fought as hard to make them feel heard, we wouldn't have Trump, I promise you that.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on February 07, 2017, 07:28:02 AM
When will anybody in some sort of position of power have a modicum of brain functioning and realize that you can't have a president just say dumbass shit with no evidence whatsoever?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/02/06/president-trump-is-now-speculating-that-the-media-is-covering-up-terrorist-attacks/?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.4b2f673a1a93

WORD!   It's high time we stopped Bernie from claiming that he can pay for his nonsense by just "taxing the rich!" or Hillary screaming that "I didn't delete any emails!"

;) 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on February 07, 2017, 08:18:26 AM
I know, I was a little over the top there. We are certainly no angels, and I am all for getting everyone , troops included, the hell out of there. But what are these numerous "horrible things" we are doing? Is it all largely centered around our support for Israel?
Adami certainly hit on some specifics, and the fact that we're all over Iraq, Afghanistan, living in Saudi Arabia and Turkey and blowing people up in Yemen and Pakistan makes it a pretty huge footprint for people to ignore. Then you've got Syria, which we certainly helped to create (and help is being generous to our side), where we're pretty much leaving people out to hang. Trust goes a long ways. But in the more general sense, as I've suggested all along, there's a balancing act between winning hearts and minds and, as Westmoreland put it, getting them by the balls. You've got to maintain the right ratio, which is very heavily to the non-scrotular side, and you have to make sure that only the bad guys get their nuts squeezed. Obama might have been too deliberate, but in this kind of situation being too deliberate is still beneficial and being too aggressive is catastrophic. The problem is that "taking the fight to them" is a wonderful slogan for a populist campaign and quite appealing to the less thoughtful, reactionary types.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: 73109 on February 07, 2017, 08:30:17 AM
Stadler,

I'm genuinely confused as to how you managed to side step everything I said.

Like, I'm not denying that "liberals" (which I'm not) totally fucked themselves over this election by caring more about virtue signalling to minority groups than trying to win the votes of the poor or middle class white voting block, which would have given them the election easy.

But as to your other points...what the fuck are you talking about? Exactly to whom Trump is tweeting should have no bearing on the necessity of his tweets being at least marginally true. I don't think he is being deplorable because he wants to close the boarders, or overturn Roe v. Wade, or "Make America Great Again" or some such whatever, I think he is being deplorable because he is lying—straight up lying with no proof or evidence for any of it. And not only is he lying, he is lying to his constituents, many of whom will eat up whatever he has to say. I don't think you understand just how bad it is for our highest authority figure to tell his people "My administration is the only group of people you can trust. Everyone else, they're a bunch of liars who are concocting fake news and it can be disregarded immediately because it is negative and all my negative press just has to be fake." That is totalitarianism 101 dude and I don't know what else to tell you.

Like I seriously have no idea how you could read what I said and somehow boil it down to a strawman and then tell that strawman that I and people like me need to start caring less about the elites and the gays? I'm genuinely confused as to how that one happened.

And as for Sanders talking about free colleges or Clinton and her emails, telling a group of people that the international press is choosing to ignore widespread terror attacks is not that. This is not "I'm gonna build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" (which, unsurprisingly, is bogus). This is "I'm the leader of your country right now and am going to spew garbage without any care in the world for how true what I'm saying is." This is the definition of "post-truth," which is also totalitarianism 101.

You seem to think I'm just some mindless drone who doesn't deviate from the hivemind of your average early 20s something with very little political knowledge and an annoying propensity for making everything about marginalized groups. I'm not.

You are obviously intelligent yet I have no fucking clue why you feel the need to act as DJT's personal online defense squad. It just makes you look silly when you bend over backwards to twist people's points and defend the undefendable.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter that Trump is lying to me it matters that he is lying to the country, without any shred of evidence that he knows he's doing it, which is troublesome. I don't know how else to put it, but I'm quite sure of myself that you aren't going to address my points or address them in a defensively tangential way, because when one is so dedicated to defending Trump in whatever he does, that's how one has to operate.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on February 07, 2017, 09:21:54 AM
So not to scream TERRIFYING!!! FASCISM!! or any of the other things folks like Stadler often accuse people of doing...

...but isn't it, like, not cool that our president is mentally fucked up enough to genuinely believe that any and all negative polls—which almost all of them are at this point—are fake. Like, that is just a recipe not just for authoritarianism but totalitarianism. I have confidence in American institutions to keep stable while this wing-nut is president for four years (probably won't be eight) but that doesn't mean he isn't mentally unhinged, which is—yes—scary.

Assuming of course that he ACTUALLY BELIEVES them to be fake.   This is twitter for god's sake; why we're having political discourse in 140-characters or less is beyond me.  The problem here isn't what is being said, it's how it being said.   I don't for a second believe that he ACTUALLY BELIEVES them to be fake.

I don't believe you actually think this. You constantly remind us words matter. Words matter. We shouldn't be saying things are terrifying. But, the POTUS tweeting to millions of followers that the media is fake and rigged against him - knowing full well that millions of his followers will believe it and eat it up - is ok, because hey, he probably doesn't BELIEVE it?! Why the double standard FOR Trump? I do think you're going beyond yourself to defend the man at this point.

No double standard; I have been clear that I hate Trump's tweeting, I dislike how imprecise he is with his language, and how he is dumbing down the dialogue.  I think it is reckless what he's doing.    But that's not the argument.  The argument is not only taking him at his word, but then extrapolating it out to a meaning that is so far removed from what the LIKELY meaning is, as to be almost unrelated.   We have to see the world as it IS, not the way we want to see it, or the way we fear it might be.   

Same as when he said he was going to "lock up Hillary"; he was dead wrong to say that.  It was impulsive, brash, arrogant and likely unfounded (though I'm not sure about the last one) but to have someone like a poster here who ran with that all the way to "he's HITLER, trying to lock up political dissidents!" is ludicrous in the extreme.

I don't want a "double standard" for Trump.  I just want some semblance of fairness without mountains of hyperbole and extrapolation.   We KNOW he's sloppy with his language; why then hold him to the letter on only the things that back up our most prejudiced, dark world view?  THAT'S the double standard.  Call him out on the language.  Call him irresponsible.   But don't insert your own demons/pet causes into that. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on February 07, 2017, 10:01:35 AM
But as to your other points...what the fuck are you talking about? Exactly to whom Trump is tweeting should have no bearing on the necessity of his tweets being at least marginally true. I don't think he is being deplorable because he wants to close the boarders, or overturn Roe v. Wade, or "Make America Great Again" or some such whatever, I think he is being deplorable because he is lying—straight up lying with no proof or evidence for any of it. And not only is he lying, he is lying to his constituents, many of whom will eat up whatever he has to say. I don't think you understand just how bad it is for our highest authority figure to tell his people "My administration is the only group of people you can trust. Everyone else, they're a bunch of liars who are concocting fake news and it can be disregarded immediately because it is negative and all my negative press just has to be fake." That is totalitarianism 101 dude and I don't know what else to tell you.

You don't have to condescend to me; I understand very well how bad it is to tell people what he's telling people.  It leads to...  presidents like Trump.   My point is in your last sentence.  It's NOT "totalitarianism 101" if it's bad when Trump does it, and not so bad when Bernie does it, "because I like his message" (or, conversely, don't like Trump's message).    Is it bad when Tom Brady says to his teammates, "We are going to KILL THOSE FUCKERS tonight! Take the Falcon and RIP IT'S WINGS OFF!".  Hell, that's pet abuse 101, but one who is reasonable knows the context.  We know we don't LITERALLY mean to "kill those fuckers", or "rip any birds wings off".    But when a player DOES go too far, like Suh from the Dolphins, or Burfict from the Bengals, or the coaches from New Orleans, we crack down.   Reasonable people understand that we are speaking in euphemism.   Why then do you assume those people are so fucking stupid they don't get the difference?   Why is it that only YOU somehow see this as "totalitarianism 101" (the "101", I presume denoting an entry level class that even a dummy can understand) while arguing that anywhere from a quarter to a third of the population won't?    Don't you see that's the point of this?  Not a defense of Trump.   He's irresponsible and reckless in what he says.   But that doesn't make EVERY argument against him, no matter how specious, "right".

Quote
Like I seriously have no idea how you could read what I said and somehow boil it down to a strawman and then tell that strawman that I and people like me need to start caring less about the elites and the gays? I'm genuinely confused as to how that one happened.

You don't know how, because it didn't happen.  I am not giving you a strawman argument, I'm actually responding to what you said, albeit a different point.   I got there because rather than contemplate for a second what's happening here, you just assume the people that read that tweet are either a) enlightened like you to see the clear lesson plan for "totalitarianism 101" or b) are too stupid to know better and either need your help, or will actually believe that ONLY Donald Trump is telling the truth. 

I know a fair number of people that voted for Trump - though not me - and almost to a person the response is, Yeah, I see through the bullshit, no, I'm not a racist or homophobe, but I'm STRUGGLING, and if you want to see a different result, you have to actually DO something different.   It's not about being "stupid" or "racist" or "bigoted", which is the talking point from the left, but I'm positing that it is perhaps simply a different prioritization (and by that I mean, not having a few select issues being "silver bullets" that trump all others). 

Quote
And as for Sanders talking about free colleges or Clinton and her emails, telling a group of people that the international press is choosing to ignore widespread terror attacks is not that. This is not "I'm gonna build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" (which, unsurprisingly, is bogus). This is "I'm the leader of your country right now and am going to spew garbage without any care in the world for how true what I'm saying is." This is the definition of "post-truth," which is also totalitarianism 101.

I disagree.  I don't at all see it as that cut and dry.  If he spews nonsense, fact check it and prove it wrong.  Plain and simple.   But don't run off half-cocked with suppositions about the coming totalitarian regime.   

Quote
You seem to think I'm just some mindless drone who doesn't deviate from the hivemind of your average early 20s something with very little political knowledge and an annoying propensity for making everything about marginalized groups. I'm not.

You are obviously intelligent yet I have no fucking clue why you feel the need to act as DJT's personal online defense squad. It just makes you look silly when you bend over backwards to twist people's points and defend the undefendable.

Well, your first paragraph belies your second, somewhat.  If you're not those things, you would understand that I'm not at all "DJT's personal online defense squad".   It's not about any one person, and I'm not at all worried about whether you find me "silly" or not.  I've heard a shit ton worse in my day.   It's not about Trump at all, it's about the recklessness of ALL the discourse.  You're all up in arms about Trump's blatant disregard for the truth; where were you when the press was calling the travel ban a "MUSLIM BAN" even when literally 90% of the world's Muslims are not subject to it?   Where were you when the gay community were screaming bloody murder about how Trump "hates" them, and yet they can't produce ONE  example of Trump discriminating against them?    Just be FAIR.  If Trump is so bad, why resort to such tactics?  Presumably, the facts are on your side and you don't have to.

Quote
Ultimately, it doesn't matter that Trump is lying to me it matters that he is lying to the country, without any shred of evidence that he knows he's doing it, which is troublesome. I don't know how else to put it, but I'm quite sure of myself that you aren't going to address my points or address them in a defensively tangential way, because when one is so dedicated to defending Trump in whatever he does, that's how one has to operate.

Of course it's troublesome;  if we see a clear example of it, call him on THOSE FACTS.   You are really misunderstanding what I'm arguing here.  I'm not defending his right to lie, and I'm CERTAINLY not defending him "in whatever he does" (clearly you didn't see my response to Chckptpie a couple weeks ago, where I laid out easily 15 things that I think he's REALLY getting wrong).   I'm saying MAKE SURE IT'S A LIE, THEN CALL HIM ON IT.   But don't make up your own lies in response (not saying you are lying), and fear-monger with stuff like "Totalitarianism 101" (which you did do). 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: DragonAttack on February 07, 2017, 10:58:59 AM
DeVos !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DeVos??????????????

Zero qualifications.  Zero.  Nadda.  Sorry, I could see the vote 75-25 against, but......seriously?

So much for trusting any male GOP rep to have any stones.  Or common sense.  Or good judgment.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Elite on February 07, 2017, 11:05:57 AM
Haha, your school system is properly fucked now.

Seriously, what the hell? People all over the world are supposed to show up well-prepared and qualified for a job interview, and you give this high-ranking job to a complete nitwit? Does the US Congress have no dignity whatsoever?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Adami on February 07, 2017, 11:07:22 AM
I know nothing about this other than people be pissed yo. Can someone give me some quick points why this is bad?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: 73109 on February 07, 2017, 11:14:04 AM
Stadler,

What you fail to understand is the fact that Trump is actively attempting to foreclose the very possibility of believing the fact checkers. These fact checkers who will print articles whose gist boils down to "Trump is lying, here's why..." are being rebuffed as fake from the outset. What Trump is trying to do is establish himself as the only locus of verifiable Truth, which is what I mean when I say totalitarianism 101. Not that it is so obvious it should be recognized as such by anyone but that any leader who attempts to wrest power from everyone but himself and his personal cadre of close followers needs to delegitimize previous legitimate sources of information. Trump's logic is running around in circles here: If it is negative, it is fake; it is fake because it is negative. Fact checking does absolute nothing for no one when you deny the legitimacy of fact checking in the first place.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: jsbru on February 07, 2017, 11:14:41 AM
I think what is getting lost in the weeds of this argument on the immigration order is that the "national security" justification for this is extremely weak.  There have been no deadly attacks from any of these countries since 9/11.  The actual sources of jihadist attacks in this country are discussed here:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/29/jerrold-nadler/have-there-been-terrorist-attacks-post-911-countri/

That's 94 people killed by jihadists in this country since 9/11.

And:

Quote
"It's certainly the case that none of the major, deadly attacks carried out in the United States were carried out by people from these countries," said Erin Miller, who manages the Global Terrorism Database for the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism at the University of Maryland.

94 deaths is of course 94 too many, but since 9/11, there's been 32,000-43,000 traffic fatalities every year in the US, there's been a couple hundred people accidentally killed by children playing around with guns, and there's about 50 people killed by getting struck by lightning each year.

In response, we don't have a ban on driving.  And we can't even agree that gun buyers should universally have background checks.

The bottom line is that jihadist attacks within the United States are simply not a significant threat to anyone's life.  And we're constantly being told to fear them.

National origin is most certainly a suspect class under the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution.  Therefore, there must be a compelling interest justifying any law singling these people out.  Although "national security" is always a convenient excuse in theory, and it's easy to scaremonger based on such, it doesn't appear that, realistically speaking, immigrants from any of these countries are much of a threat to us at all.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: RuRoRul on February 07, 2017, 11:25:21 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38875924

A fairly concise round-up from BBC of the criticisms she has faced.

My read is basically just a wealthy donor from a family of other super-wealthy donors, with literally no experience with public education, no qualifications in education to speak of, only a history of using her influence to push her agenda of for profit charter schools and creationism in education. Now it seems she has bought her way to Secretary of Education.

Basically the GOP confirms their spinelessness by showing that there is literally no floor on how qualified you have to be for a cabinet position, and that there is nothing that they won't sell out for a big enough donor.

At least it's not my country's schools :lol. I'll go back to just being concerned about the issues with fallout that will affect us over here like the environment, global stability, and anything with an impact on our economy. I do feel sorry for those of you over in the US who did not vote for this though.

Edit: And I don't think DeVos as Secretary of Education is one that you can blame as one of Donald's crazy ideas that the Republicans just go along wth  (other than he didn't really care about who got the position). This is a GOP pick through and through imo.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Adami on February 07, 2017, 11:32:14 AM
Ooph. Got a long way to go before becoming the (possibly) demon-spawn Naftalie Bennet, but she seems an awful pick.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: antigoon on February 07, 2017, 11:34:35 AM
First time a VP has ever tie-broken a cabinet secretary vote.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Chino on February 07, 2017, 11:36:00 AM
I wish I could buy my way through job interviews.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: jsbru on February 07, 2017, 11:36:31 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38875924

A fairly concise round-up from BBC of the criticisms she has faced.

My read is basically just a wealthy donor from a family of other super-wealthy donors, with literally no experience with public education, no qualifications in education to speak of, only a history of using her influence to push her agenda of for profit charter schools and creationism in education. Now it seems she has bought her way to Secretary of Education.

Basically the GOP confirms their spinelessness by showing that there is literally no floor on how qualified you have to be for a cabinet position, and that there is nothing that they won't sell out for a big enough donor.

At least it's not my country's schools :lol. I'll go back to just being concerned about the issues with fallout that will affect us over here like the environment, global stability, and the impact on our economy. I do feel sorry for those of you over in the US who did not vote for this though.

It's just part and parcel with our country's growing anger at anyone with actual experience or expertise.  There's a strain of anti-elitism in our politics these days, whereby people trust candidates that come off as dudes you could sit at a bar with and have an interesting conversation over a beer.

Anyone with any actual expertise and knowledge is an egghead who doesn't actually know how to get anything done in the "real world."

A lot of people think that you can get stuff done more effectively if you just get some strongman with no experience to bark orders at a bunch of people.  That kind of leadership style might work managing a construction site, but it doesn't work very well if you're the US president.  Things move slowly in government for a reason, and there's a lot of attention to detail and specialized expertise needed.

The ironic thing is that all these "strongmen" that come out of the woodwork and pretend like they're people you can have a beer with seem to have been born and raised in a life bathed in elitism: George W. Bush, Donald Trump, etc.  Betsy DeVos is from the same mantle.  Stunning financial and political elitism, zero actual experience to qualify her for the job.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: mikeyd23 on February 07, 2017, 11:43:23 AM
Ooph. Got a long way to go before becoming the (possibly) demon-spawn Naftalie Bennet, but she seems an awful pick.

She's "unqualified" for the position in a similar manner that Trump is "unqualified" to be President. Neither have the typical career path that usually leads to either of those positions. How good of a job she will do is completely unknown, once again similar to Trump, because neither have political records to cite.

I think she was massively unprepared for her confirmation hearing and came off much worse than a lot of Trumps other outsider picks. That being said, school unions simply don't like her. She's for choice in education, meaning promoting other avenues beyond public education such as charter schools. That is something I agree with her on, my wife and I plan to send our daughter to a charter school in a few years when she is of age because it consistently outperforms the public school district we live in.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Scorpion on February 07, 2017, 11:50:55 AM
If you're unprepared for your job interview, then shouldn't that raise some red flags?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on February 07, 2017, 11:51:48 AM
I'm nowhere near as troubled about a person buying their way into a cabinet gig as I should be, simply because I figured it's SOP by now. What troubles me, as usual with this regime, is that she seems woefully incompetent, and even ignorant of what the job actually is.

I've changed my stance on vouchers somewhat, so her and trump's position doesn't bug me much, but it'd be nice to have somebody with some modicum of understanding implement it. My support is predicated on it being administered fairly, and I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe it even could be in the current climate.


edit: mikeyD, at least down here charter schools have fared pretty poorly. I suppose it'll vary by the district (and more importantly the population), but suffice it to say, education isn't really a system best served by government funded privatization.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: mikeyd23 on February 07, 2017, 12:03:31 PM
edit: mikeyD, at least down here charter schools have fared pretty poorly. I suppose it'll vary by the district (and more importantly the population), but suffice it to say, education isn't really a system best served by government funded privatization.

I'd guess the level of success of charter schools is pretty situational. From my small bubble of the world, I have a positive outlook on them, but I fully understand and respect results probably vary a great deal from one to the next. For us, our public school district is continuing to decline in a number of measurable and immeasurable ways. A charter school opened it's doors in the last 6 or 7 years and has done extremely well. Get's more applications than it can take at the beginning of each semester, and has developed an excellent reputation in the community.

Like I said, I am admittedly shaping that opinion from my narrow scope.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: mikeyd23 on February 07, 2017, 12:05:27 PM
If you're unprepared for your job interview, then shouldn't that raise some red flags?

It absolutely should, I don't think she's good for the job. I was just mentioning one specific topic her and I seem to agree on. Overall, I don't think she was a great pick for the job, while I also don't see her presenting any ideas that will harm the educational system in America in any way.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Podaar on February 07, 2017, 12:15:16 PM
One way you can look at it, at least the appointment will bar her from spending her own money to sway state level educational initiatives. This may effectively sideline her from the conversation.

As I understand it, education at the federal level is pretty much a clearing house for tax dollars going to the States. I don't think DOE really has much ability to dictate policy to the individual States. It should still be up to Congress to say how DOE dollars are used and distributed. Her roll should be more about enacting policy handed to her by Congress.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on February 07, 2017, 12:32:35 PM
edit: mikeyD, at least down here charter schools have fared pretty poorly. I suppose it'll vary by the district (and more importantly the population), but suffice it to say, education isn't really a system best served by government funded privatization.

I'd guess the level of success of charter schools is pretty situational. From my small bubble of the world, I have a positive outlook on them, but I fully understand and respect results probably vary a great deal from one to the next. For us, our public school district is continuing to decline in a number of measurable and immeasurable ways. A charter school opened it's doors in the last 6 or 7 years and has done extremely well. Get's more applications than it can take at the beginning of each semester, and has developed an excellent reputation in the community.

Like I said, I am admittedly shaping that opinion from my narrow scope.
Well, much of it is going to be how crappy your public schools are. But in the end it just seems like a bad model to me. "Here's what we pay to educate each student as a ratio of total funding we get. If you can do it for cheaper, then have at." As I understand it's actually the same model used for privatized prisons (perversely ironic), and those aren't doing very well, either. The cheaper you can scrape by the minimum standards the more profitable you are. And since it's the government paying the tab there's no real incentive to do better. Private schools have to remain profitable, as well, but they have to compete to get enrollment. A charter school merely needs to open its doors.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: mikeyd23 on February 07, 2017, 12:45:45 PM
Well, much of it is going to be how crappy your public schools are. But in the end it just seems like a bad model to me. "Here's what we pay to educate each student as a ratio of total funding we get. If you can do it for cheaper, then have at." As I understand it's actually the same model used for privatized prisons (perversely ironic), and those aren't doing very well, either. The cheaper you can scrape by the minimum standards the more profitable you are. And since it's the government paying the tab there's no real incentive to do better. Private schools have to remain profitable, as well, but they have to compete to get enrollment. A charter school merely needs to open its doors.

Good post.

Up here public schools vary greatly from one district to the next. Some good, some terrible just depends on the district. In terms of the charter school in my area, they were and still are driven by providing an excellent service. By default, all the kids in the area will go to the public school, so their (the charter school) mentality is that they need to provide excellent education by doing things in a particular manner, hiring the right people, keeping overhead low (to play into that per-head cost ) in order to actually get any parents to choose to send their kids to the school. Most of that mentality is driven by the school's CEO, so like any other company, a lot of the performance of the organization is based on the quality of the leadership. This school is doing it right, many probably aren't.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on February 07, 2017, 12:57:20 PM
I know that one of the things they were doing down here was admitting kids that were likely to help their cause rather than hurt it. If you get to handpick who your students are it's pretty easy to rate very highly among other schools. Dallas is an oddball, though. The demographics are such that the people who really care about education all live in the Northern suburbs. In Dallas proper you've got people who treat schools as daycare, and people who send their kids to expensive private schools. Suffice it to say, I've got a pretty low opinion of Dallas schools, based largely on those demographics. Hence my support for (a fairly run) voucher system.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: cramx3 on February 07, 2017, 12:58:56 PM
Trump was pretty big against common core and I also am.  Not sure where Devos is on that, I'd expect her to be aligned with Trump, but I haven't followed her.  She does seem like a bad choice with no experience.  If she can get rid of common core, I'd like that.  Otherwise, I am not a big fan of charter schools since from my understanding, they don't really work and like EB stated, they are similar to the privatized prisons which I also am against. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: mikeyd23 on February 07, 2017, 01:01:08 PM
I know that one of the things they were doing down here was admitting kids that were likely to help their cause rather than hurt it. If you get to handpick who your students are it's pretty easy to rate very highly among other schools.

I believe it's done the same way up here.

Hence my support for (a fairly run) voucher system.

Have you heard DeVos' position on vouchers?

http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/02/07/education-secretary-betsy-devos-on-school-choice-vouchers-and-religion.html

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: bosk1 on February 07, 2017, 01:15:08 PM
My experience is similar to Mikey's in that there are literally TONS of fantastic charter schools in Northern California that are doing some great things.  You'd never know it if you only listen to the press though.  There are some very active and very vocal opposition groups that make it sound like charter schools are evil incarnate and are actively working to put our children in danger and dumb them down while lining the pockets of faceless administrators.  But virtually nothing I have heard about charter schools in the news has actually proven to be true, and most of it is provably false.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: jsbru on February 07, 2017, 01:17:44 PM
I think the thing with charter schools is that if they're the first one or two to open up in the area, they're going to attract all the parents in the area that are actually invested in their children's education.  Therefore, they're going to have a student body that's already more predisposed to succeed compared to the general public.

That's still means it's probably a good reason to try and send your kid there if there's a successful one in your area.  But I think their success, where they have been successful, is probably more due to selection bias rather than the teachers' unions at the public schools providing crappy education.

Nevertheless, that also means that if rolled out in a more widespread manner, they won't be able to rely on selection bias any longer.  And then they ultimately won't be a solution in and of themselves.  I don't know if there's any (inverse) correlation between how widespread charter schools are in a given area and their effectiveness.  But that would be an interesting thing to study.

This, of course, means we have to also blame the individuals (parents and their children) at least somewhat for how well they succeed in school.  Instead of just blaming the schools and teachers' unions.  I thought that personal responsibility used to be a thing in this country.  But maybe only when it's politically convenient.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: hefdaddy42 on February 07, 2017, 01:31:49 PM
I am also a huge proponent of charter schools, and both of my daughters went through charter schools.

But there is no way in fuck that Devos should be Secretary of Education.  That seat was bought with her massive campaign donations to Trump and to various Senators.  Just terrible.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: mikeyd23 on February 07, 2017, 01:31:59 PM
I think the thing with charter schools is that if they're the first one or two to open up in the area, they're going to attract all the parents in the area that are actually invested in their children's education.  Therefore, they're going to have a student body that's already more predisposed to succeed compared to the general public.

I'm cool with that.

That's still means it's probably a good reason to try and send your kid there if there's a successful one in your area.  But I think their success, where they have been successful, is probably more due to selection bias rather than the teachers' unions at the public schools providing crappy education.

Once again, I'm cool with that and for the record, in my case I don't place the blame for the downhill decline of my school district at the feet of the teachers. There are a lot of reasons why it's trending that way. Some teachers are part of the problem, some aren't.

This, of course, means we have to also blame the individuals (parents and their children) at least somewhat for how well they succeed in school.  Instead of just blaming the schools and teachers' unions.  I thought that personal responsibility used to be a thing in this country.  But maybe only when it's politically convenient.

Personal responsibility is a big part of a child's education, IMO. Once again, I personally am not looking to blame the public school system, I recognize that it's a mixed bag in my area from district to district.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Podaar on February 07, 2017, 01:50:44 PM
Yeah, our three youngest kids went to a charter school as well. The Academy for Math Engineering and Science (AMES). They all did really well and the school had a very high rate of students going to college--many on scholarships.

I don't know if our experience is universal but I will say, the level of required parent participation in the charter school (both time and money wise) was significantly more than with our two older kids who went to a local public high-school. That was no problem for us, but I can see how it could be a burden to parents who maybe have income and transportation issues. I'd hate for a kid to not get a good education simply because his parents weren't willing or able to be more involved. That's why I support charters but I'd like all our local public schools to be just as high in quality.

For what it's worth, AMES wouldn't have been possible solely with public education dollars and parent fees. They had to solicit private donations. The Gates Foundation was a huge supporter and other tech companies threw money to the school too.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: jsbru on February 07, 2017, 01:57:02 PM
Also, FWIW, Obama as President and Rahm Emanuel as COS and also Mayor of Chicago were generally pro-charter school.

A large part of rebuilding cities like Chicago is getting somewhat wealthy or at least middle-class people to move back.  Giving them a palatable education option is a key factor in this.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on February 07, 2017, 02:30:13 PM
Yeah, the selection bias makes it hard to tell. The reality is that dumb kids deserve an education just the same as smart ones, and schools that get to pick and choose their enrollies aren't likely to take the dullards. The public schools have to, and are probably better equipped anyway. There's also the fact that uninvolved parents aren't likely to go through the hassle. While I agree that's the parent's fault and not the folks at Edison or Harmony, it does skew the results further in favor of the charter schools.

If memory serves, what Dallas did when it was exploring charter schools was hand over 10 or 12 existing public schools to a couple of charter companies, where they would have to keep the same students. Only the management would change. The results weren't particularly favorable. Some left town voluntarily and some weren't invited back when they were all deemed generally ineffective.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: DarkLord_Lalinc on February 07, 2017, 02:52:30 PM
He does not give a lick about institutions.
Or anything except his public image, for that matter.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Podaar on February 07, 2017, 02:57:35 PM
If memory serves, what Dallas did when it was exploring charter schools was hand over 10 or 12 existing public schools to a couple of charter companies, where they would have to keep the same students. Only the management would change. The results weren't particularly favorable. Some left town voluntarily and some weren't invited back when they were all deemed generally ineffective.

What our charter school did was basically have a lottery from the applicants to choose which students got to go. If you already had one student in the program, then they gave extra weight in the lottery to your next kids application. There were no academic requirements to apply. There were several students with profound learning disabilities that got in and the school made accommodations for them.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on February 07, 2017, 03:03:48 PM
If memory serves, what Dallas did when it was exploring charter schools was hand over 10 or 12 existing public schools to a couple of charter companies, where they would have to keep the same students. Only the management would change. The results weren't particularly favorable. Some left town voluntarily and some weren't invited back when they were all deemed generally ineffective.

What our charter school did was basically have a lottery from the applicants to choose which students got to go. If you already had one student in the program, then they gave extra weight in the lottery to your next kids application. There were no academic requirements to apply. There were several students with profound learning disabilities that got in and the school made accommodations for them.
That's certainly reasonable. It's definitely more fair than getting to pick and choose. At the same time there's still some bias there. Only people who are actively seeking a better education are considered. I'm not arguing against them here, genuine curiosity on my part, but if every student in your district were entered into the lottery do you think the results would have been as good?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: hefdaddy42 on February 07, 2017, 03:12:41 PM
Here in North Carolina, admission to charter schools is done by lottery.  There are no academic requirements, they are public schools so every student in the state is eligible to attend.  If a charter school has, say 25 openings for kindergarten, and there are only 24 applicants, they all get in.  If they have 75 applicants, they will randomly draw 25 out of the pool to get in (unless any of the 75 already have siblings at the school - they get in automatically, if memory serves).
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: jsbru on February 07, 2017, 03:19:58 PM
The flip-side to concentrating all the good students and/or students whose parents are actively involved in seeing that they get a better education is that only the bad apples are left, and are further consolidated in public schools.  It sort of creates a two-tiered education system when people should be getting equal education.

I can see why parents don't want their kids to get involved with the wrong crowds, of course.  But it's also easy to see how a two-tiered system further encourages poverty.  Kids also learn from their peers as well as teachers.  If you let all the good students opt out, the poorer students grow up with even less good examples in their lives.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: bosk1 on February 07, 2017, 03:30:31 PM
Because CLEARLY what is going on in your average public school is that the worst students are marching into the Principal's office to demand that they be paired with an honors student mentor so they can learn from them.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Podaar on February 07, 2017, 03:44:38 PM
If memory serves, what Dallas did when it was exploring charter schools was hand over 10 or 12 existing public schools to a couple of charter companies, where they would have to keep the same students. Only the management would change. The results weren't particularly favorable. Some left town voluntarily and some weren't invited back when they were all deemed generally ineffective.

What our charter school did was basically have a lottery from the applicants to choose which students got to go. If you already had one student in the program, then they gave extra weight in the lottery to your next kids application. There were no academic requirements to apply. There were several students with profound learning disabilities that got in and the school made accommodations for them.
That's certainly reasonable. It's definitely more fair than getting to pick and choose. At the same time there's still some bias there. Only people who are actively seeking a better education are considered. I'm not arguing against them here, genuine curiosity on my part, but if every student in your district were entered into the lottery do you think the results would have been as good?

The bolded part is a very important distinction. As they say, you've gotta want it. Parents that are not particularly interested in education (or just don't have time from working long hours) automatically put their kids at a disadvantage educationally. I'd prefer if the system compensated for that.

To answer your question, maybe. It's hard to say, because the charter school staff and teachers were way more committed, the results with graduation and college placement would almost certainly be better. Good enough to make up for parents who were actively seeking a better options? Probably not.

Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: eric42434224 on February 07, 2017, 04:22:50 PM
Listening to the appeal live on CNN is fucking fascinating.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: gmillerdrake on February 07, 2017, 04:26:32 PM
Listening to the appeal live on CNN is fucking fascinating.

Not nearly as fascinating as lurking in this thread every day.  :lol
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on February 07, 2017, 04:59:20 PM
If memory serves, what Dallas did when it was exploring charter schools was hand over 10 or 12 existing public schools to a couple of charter companies, where they would have to keep the same students. Only the management would change. The results weren't particularly favorable. Some left town voluntarily and some weren't invited back when they were all deemed generally ineffective.

What our charter school did was basically have a lottery from the applicants to choose which students got to go. If you already had one student in the program, then they gave extra weight in the lottery to your next kids application. There were no academic requirements to apply. There were several students with profound learning disabilities that got in and the school made accommodations for them.
That's certainly reasonable. It's definitely more fair than getting to pick and choose. At the same time there's still some bias there. Only people who are actively seeking a better education are considered. I'm not arguing against them here, genuine curiosity on my part, but if every student in your district were entered into the lottery do you think the results would have been as good?

The bolded part is a very important distinction. As they say, you've gotta want it. Parents that are not particularly interested in education (or just don't have time from working long hours) automatically put their kids at a disadvantage educationally. I'd prefer if the system compensated for that.

To answer your question, maybe. It's hard to say, because the charter school staff and teachers were way more committed, the results with graduation and college placement would almost certainly be better. Good enough to make up for parents who were actively seeking a better options? Probably not.
I'm simply looking at this as a way of evaluating their efficacy. As I suggested, it seems like a bad model to me, and anecdotal successes may or may not accurately show their effectiveness. I'd be curious to see how the charter schools held up when a real-world ratio of education-minded students and justdon'tgiveashits are introduced. That's what Dallas was trying to do. What would it do to the level of commitment of the staff, for example.

In the end, it all comes down to environments, I think. Schools in good neighborhoods are more likely to do well, and schools in bad neighborhoods are more likely to suck. How they're paid for probably won't change all that much, though concerns about the business model remain for me. That's why I'm leaning towards vouchers. When everybody is choosing the school their kid goes to I think you're going to find better environments all the way around. Including the schools in bad neighborhoods where they can better tailor their programs to the people there.


And out of curiosity, what to charter schools do with troublemakers? Do they get to kick them back to public schools if they "don't work out," or are they stuck with them?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Cool Chris on February 07, 2017, 05:04:14 PM
My wife is a teacher and even she has no idea what the secretary of education does, other than oversee the Dept of Education. Which she has no knowledge of what it really does either. The two things I learned from wikipedia is that 1) the department was recently established, in 1979, and 2) that secretary is fifteenth in the presidential line of succession.

Parents that are not particularly interested in education (or just don't have time from working long hours) automatically put their kids at a disadvantage educationally. I'd prefer if the system compensated for that.

To answer your question, maybe. It's hard to say, because the charter school staff and teachers were way more committed...

How do we compensate for that then? I don't want a nation of idiots growing up in this country due to lack of parental involvement. But I don't want to pay for parents' inability or unwillingness to be involved in their kids' education either.

Charter/Private school teachers are not going to be more committed, necessarily any better, and not even compensated more than public school teachers. This was years ago, but the teachers at my private schools were paid based on public school teacher contracts, and were thus always a year or two behind.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Adami on February 07, 2017, 05:06:47 PM
that secretary is fifteenth in the presidential line of succession.

You never know when there will be a massive nuclear assault by Cylons.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: bosk1 on February 07, 2017, 05:20:32 PM
This has all happened before, and it will all happen again.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: TAC on February 07, 2017, 05:21:58 PM
that secretary is fifteenth in the presidential line of succession.

You never know when there will be a massive nuclear assault by Cylons.

That'd be Cylonic..

..dontcha think?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: bosk1 on February 07, 2017, 05:23:17 PM
So say we all.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on February 07, 2017, 05:29:26 PM
How do we compensate for that then? I don't want a nation of idiots growing up in this country due to lack of parental involvement. But I don't want to pay for parents' inability or unwillingness to be involved in their kids' education either.

Well, for one thing you already are paying for it. You're just getting a shit deal like the rest of us. As for the how to fix it part, well, that's the $64k?, is it not? I think that choice might well help to mitigate it. As a wise man once said even if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice. In this case a choice to dump your kid with the other children of similarly indifferent parents, and I think that's a more educatable group than a group mixed between the entire spectrum of interest. When I was a lad the general attitude in the schools I went to was to just focus on the people who wanted to learn and let the rest kill themselves off. I think part of our problem is trying to teach entire schools the same way when they're made up of vastly different types of students.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on February 07, 2017, 06:42:14 PM
I'd really like to know if this guy is a deliberate liar or just a dumbass.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/07/513952870/in-meeting-with-sheriffs-trump-repeats-false-murder-rate-statistic
Maybe tweaking some numbers, or using a different stat or something I could understand.

Quote
"... the murder rate in our country is the highest it's been in 47 years, right? Did you know that? Forty-seven years. I used to use that — I'd say that in a speech and everybody was surprised, because the press doesn't tell it like it is. It wasn't to their advantage to say that. But the murder rate is the highest it's been in, I guess, from 45 to 47 years."
We are in fact pretty close to a 45 year low. Murder rate has gone down quite a bit since 2010, and even with a spike last year it's still quite low. As for Grabby, he surely knows that he can say anything he wants and the half that don't eat it up will be dismissed, but I'm still curious if something like this is a result of stupidity or dishonesty.

And also during that meeting he jokingly offered to destroy a state senator who had the audacity to suggest that a conviction should be required before taking somebody's belongings. Cops are pretty protective of their cash cow.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Adami on February 07, 2017, 06:48:50 PM
45 year high....45 year low.....meh.

Don't worry about what he says, just pay attention to what's in his heart.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on February 07, 2017, 07:09:11 PM
Stadler,

What you fail to understand is the fact that Trump is actively attempting to foreclose the very possibility of believing the fact checkers. These fact checkers who will print articles whose gist boils down to "Trump is lying, here's why..." are being rebuffed as fake from the outset. What Trump is trying to do is establish himself as the only locus of verifiable Truth, which is what I mean when I say totalitarianism 101. Not that it is so obvious it should be recognized as such by anyone but that any leader who attempts to wrest power from everyone but himself and his personal cadre of close followers needs to delegitimize previous legitimate sources of information. Trump's logic is running around in circles here: If it is negative, it is fake; it is fake because it is negative. Fact checking does absolute nothing for no one when you deny the legitimacy of fact checking in the first place.

For your supposition to be accurate, you have to have assumed that literally 60 million people are just too flipping stupid to know better.  Coincidentially, 60 million people that you don't agree with.   I refuse to make that leap.  You keep calling me a "Trump defender"; well, I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth.  I read the Executive Orders, I read the documents (not his tweets; I could care less about his tweets) and take nothing for granted. I visit fact check sites regularly.   At some point his credibility will diminish to the point that it will impact his effectiveness (there is an election right around the corner, ALWAYS) and he will learn that what he says impacts other people that are relying on him to work with veracity. 

The media has to keep calling out the points that are lies, and has to be fair and call out those points that are truthful.  Their job is not to "judge" or like Scott Pelley did recently, add commentary, but to report the facts.   People are smarter than you give them credit for. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on February 07, 2017, 07:15:47 PM
I think the thing with charter schools is that if they're the first one or two to open up in the area, they're going to attract all the parents in the area that are actually invested in their children's education.  Therefore, they're going to have a student body that's already more predisposed to succeed compared to the general public.

That's still means it's probably a good reason to try and send your kid there if there's a successful one in your area.  But I think their success, where they have been successful, is probably more due to selection bias rather than the teachers' unions at the public schools providing crappy education.

Nevertheless, that also means that if rolled out in a more widespread manner, they won't be able to rely on selection bias any longer.  And then they ultimately won't be a solution in and of themselves.  I don't know if there's any (inverse) correlation between how widespread charter schools are in a given area and their effectiveness.  But that would be an interesting thing to study.

This, of course, means we have to also blame the individuals (parents and their children) at least somewhat for how well they succeed in school.  Instead of just blaming the schools and teachers' unions.  I thought that personal responsibility used to be a thing in this country.  But maybe only when it's politically convenient.

Interesting that you're arguing for "personal responsibility" when it's used to prop up teacher's unions, but when we had the conversation about fidelity and cheating, "personal responsibility" was nowhere to be found in your argument.

I'm sorry; what were you saying about "politically convenient"?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on February 07, 2017, 07:19:12 PM
Yeah, the selection bias makes it hard to tell. The reality is that dumb kids deserve an education just the same as smart ones, and schools that get to pick and choose their enrollies aren't likely to take the dullards. The public schools have to, and are probably better equipped anyway. There's also the fact that uninvolved parents aren't likely to go through the hassle. While I agree that's the parent's fault and not the folks at Edison or Harmony, it does skew the results further in favor of the charter schools.

If memory serves, what Dallas did when it was exploring charter schools was hand over 10 or 12 existing public schools to a couple of charter companies, where they would have to keep the same students. Only the management would change. The results weren't particularly favorable. Some left town voluntarily and some weren't invited back when they were all deemed generally ineffective.

One option, though is to move away from standardized testing, the sort of test that won't really do anything but emphasize that sort of selection bias, and develop a metric that also measures both "delta" - the difference in score between entering the school and leaving it - and (and this is much harder to do) a metric that shows capacity.   You may not be the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, but if you're burning as brightly as you can, that's half the battle right there.    (As compared with the really smart kids that sort of coast their way through). 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: 73109 on February 07, 2017, 07:26:18 PM
Stadler,

What you fail to understand is the fact that Trump is actively attempting to foreclose the very possibility of believing the fact checkers. These fact checkers who will print articles whose gist boils down to "Trump is lying, here's why..." are being rebuffed as fake from the outset. What Trump is trying to do is establish himself as the only locus of verifiable Truth, which is what I mean when I say totalitarianism 101. Not that it is so obvious it should be recognized as such by anyone but that any leader who attempts to wrest power from everyone but himself and his personal cadre of close followers needs to delegitimize previous legitimate sources of information. Trump's logic is running around in circles here: If it is negative, it is fake; it is fake because it is negative. Fact checking does absolute nothing for no one when you deny the legitimacy of fact checking in the first place.

For your supposition to be accurate, you have to have assumed that literally 60 million people are just too flipping stupid to know better.  Coincidentially, 60 million people that you don't agree with.   I refuse to make that leap.  You keep calling me a "Trump defender"; well, I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth.  I read the Executive Orders, I read the documents (not his tweets; I could care less about his tweets) and take nothing for granted. I visit fact check sites regularly.   At some point his credibility will diminish to the point that it will impact his effectiveness (there is an election right around the corner, ALWAYS) and he will learn that what he says impacts other people that are relying on him to work with veracity. 

The media has to keep calling out the points that are lies, and has to be fair and call out those points that are truthful.  Their job is not to "judge" or like Scott Pelley did recently, add commentary, but to report the facts.   People are smarter than you give them credit for. 

I mean, when over 40% of Americans can't name the vice presidential candidates, you have to assume that informed voters are few and far between and voter ignorance is high as hell. Let's assume that Trump got half of that 40+ percent, that still converts into millions of ignorant people, those who, by the way, will eat up whatever he has to say. If they are too ignorant (this is not meant to degrade; I'm merely using the definition of the word) to know that Mike Pence will be VP if Trump gets elected, they won't be looking too hard on NYT or Politico or Politfact or wherever.

Look at what Barto posted for a great example. Trump has continued to spout that our murder rate is at a 47 year high. He has been doing this for months, yet he refuses to stop. Why do you think that is? In my view, he is either a narcissist who believes everything out of his mouth is the truth or he is just lying because it gets him what he wants. Both are terrible options.

But to go back to my point, he has been saying the same false thing for months—as are his supporters, no doubt—yet he hasn't stopped despite the fact checking. My hunch is that if you asked either him or a supporter of his to look at the NPR report citing the correct stats, either would say that NPR is a subset of liberal media that cannot be trusted and therefore Trump is right.

Now you're right. He'll lose credibility amongst people like you. But he has 4 years in office and a GOP Congress willing to deal with his shit and not press too hard against him as long as they get what they want, e.g. Betsy Devos.

As of right now, I have no idea how Trump plans to get reelected, but that doesn't mean he won't try as hard as he can to center himself and his administration as the only locus of Truth in the world, while the Republicans look away as long as they are getting the shit they want in return.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: 73109 on February 07, 2017, 07:35:39 PM
You also didn't respond to my point about the dangers of establishing oneself as a locus of truth via the circularity of denying the validity of any and all negative press. That's what is "dangerous" about Trump, whether it is calculated, reckless, or the result of his being fucked up in the head.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on February 07, 2017, 09:10:45 PM
You also didn't respond to my point about the dangers of establishing oneself as a locus of truth via the circularity of denying the validity of any and all negative press. That's what is "dangerous" about Trump, whether it is calculated, reckless, or the result of his being fucked up in the head.
Damn, son! How long did it take you to come up with that?  :lol
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: El Barto on February 07, 2017, 09:27:42 PM
Yeah, the selection bias makes it hard to tell. The reality is that dumb kids deserve an education just the same as smart ones, and schools that get to pick and choose their enrollies aren't likely to take the dullards. The public schools have to, and are probably better equipped anyway. There's also the fact that uninvolved parents aren't likely to go through the hassle. While I agree that's the parent's fault and not the folks at Edison or Harmony, it does skew the results further in favor of the charter schools.

If memory serves, what Dallas did when it was exploring charter schools was hand over 10 or 12 existing public schools to a couple of charter companies, where they would have to keep the same students. Only the management would change. The results weren't particularly favorable. Some left town voluntarily and some weren't invited back when they were all deemed generally ineffective.

One option, though is to move away from standardized testing, the sort of test that won't really do anything but emphasize that sort of selection bias, and develop a metric that also measures both "delta" - the difference in score between entering the school and leaving it - and (and this is much harder to do) a metric that shows capacity.   You may not be the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, but if you're burning as brightly as you can, that's half the battle right there.    (As compared with the really smart kids that sort of coast their way through).
I don't put much stock in standardized testing, myself. I was the world's worst student and quite frankly a real dumbass when I was in middle school and I used to knock the ITBS and its associates into the middle of next week. Probably the only thing that kept me from one of Dallas's "special" schools. However, I think they have a place even if they shouldn't be the gold standard. I'm honestly not sure what the solution to evaluating schools and students is.

Years ago there was a thread here about common core and what I took away from it was that different people think and learn in different ways. The CC approach to math was essentially how I was doing math 35 years ago, and consequently failing because it wasn't how it was "supposed" to be done. Yet the people who learned "proper" math thought the CC method was ridiculous. This realization was another impetus for me deciding vouchers are probably a good idea. But when you accept that people are wired differently, with different strengths, weaknesses, and methods of doing things, finding a fair way to evaluate them becomes a real bitch.

And you also come up with the problem that a system that suddenly fails half of the population isn't immediately helpful and won't go over particularly well. We complain about lowering the standards so that more people will pass and schools will keep their accreditation, but how do you remedy that after it's gone on for however many years?

And what does any of this have to do with the efficacy of charter schools.  :lol
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: jsbru on February 07, 2017, 10:09:12 PM
Because CLEARLY what is going on in your average public school is that the worst students are marching into the Principal's office to demand that they be paired with an honors student mentor so they can learn from them.

Probably not generally.

I'm just saying that effectively cordoning off the worst students from any sort of positive influence is not going to help them.  That raises an honest question...to what extent should our education system try to help the worst students as opposed to our best students.

I don't know the answer.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: jsbru on February 07, 2017, 10:15:10 PM
As a wise man once said even if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.

/thread
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: jsbru on February 07, 2017, 10:26:38 PM
Interesting that you're arguing for "personal responsibility" when it's used to prop up teacher's unions, but when we had the conversation about fidelity and cheating, "personal responsibility" was nowhere to be found in your argument.

I'm sorry; what were you saying about "politically convenient"?

I really like you, Stadler.

My argument about personal responsibility regarding infidelity was right there in the open.  The person who cheats is obviously irresponsible.  The person with whom that person cheats is also irresponsible, depending on whether he or she knew they were engaging with someone who was committed with another.

Inducing someone else to commit a crime or even a civil tort is usually a crime in and of itself (conspiracy, solicitation, aiding and abetting after the fact).  I don't think that makes the original wrongdoer less responsible.  It just means that someone else was also in the wrong, too.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Cool Chris on February 07, 2017, 11:06:00 PM
That raises an honest question...to what extent should our education system try to help the worst students as opposed to our best students.

My wife teaches special ed, and while I know that isn't what you meant by the "worst" students, they are the ones who require more resources, and are being prepped to live on their own someday, not head off to Harvard. She complains that her para-eds get paid beans, but understands that's the deal if she expects to have three in her classroom full time. Point being, she struggles with the district trying to meet their needs while understanding they can't suck up an inordinate amount of money and resources.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Chino on February 08, 2017, 05:58:33 AM
Because CLEARLY what is going on in your average public school is that the worst students are marching into the Principal's office to demand that they be paired with an honors student mentor so they can learn from them.

I'm just saying that effectively cordoning off the worst students from any sort of positive influence is not going to help them.  That raises an honest question...to what extent should our education system try to help the worst students as opposed to our best students.


We've seen time and time again that the education system itself is not the fix. The problem is the homelife. You could build the most advanced schools with the greatest instructors in the shittiest sections of this country, and as long as the children are going home everyday, it won't make a lick of difference. Maybe a few will manage to crawl out, but they are not enough to justify the cost.

Washington DC spends more money per pupil than any other district in the nation, over $30K per student per year. By the time those kids reach high school, 81% of them are not proficient in math, and 83% are not proficient in reading. What more can they do? Would spending an additional $5K per student per year make a difference at that point? My father was up my ass my entire life throughout school. I wasn't the best student in a classroom setting, and he'd spend anywhere from 5-10 hours a week with me after school helping me to understand stuff. I was lucky. If I didn't have that resource at home, I'd have been be 100% fucked in life.

We need to fix the homelife in the areas with the worst performing students. How we do that short of massive government intervention and ignoring all forms of rights and ethics is beyond me.
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: TAC on February 08, 2017, 06:11:49 AM
That's all true Chino. My father taught high school, and the attitude he met from some of the parents was horrific.


 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on February 08, 2017, 06:50:45 AM
I mean, when over 40% of Americans can't name the vice presidential candidates, you have to assume that informed voters are few and far between and voter ignorance is high as hell. Let's assume that Trump got half of that 40+ percent, that still converts into millions of ignorant people, those who, by the way, will eat up whatever he has to say. If they are too ignorant (this is not meant to degrade; I'm merely using the definition of the word) to know that Mike Pence will be VP if Trump gets elected, they won't be looking too hard on NYT or Politico or Politfact or wherever.

Look at what Barto posted for a great example. Trump has continued to spout that our murder rate is at a 47 year high. He has been doing this for months, yet he refuses to stop. Why do you think that is? In my view, he is either a narcissist who believes everything out of his mouth is the truth or he is just lying because it gets him what he wants. Both are terrible options.

There's ignorant people on ANY side; how about that woman on Neil Cavuto's show that, when confronted with the fact that the top 10% would have to be taxed 100% - every penny of their earnings - and it STILL wouldn't be enough to cover the programs she was calling for, doubled down and said "um, well, yeah, we should because, um, yeah!"    Does that make Bernie "totalitarian"?   Of course not.   

So the choices are 'narcissist', or 'petulant child'?  What about "honest mistake"?   What about "specific fact that is being misapplied (i.e. the "47%" is for a specific crime, or a specific jurisdiction, etc.)".    The point is, HAVE THE DEBATE.  I didn't see it (though I usually watch his pressers) but I understand CNN fact-checked Spicer in real time yesterday.  GOOD!    Have the debate in real time. 

Quote
But to go back to my point, he has been saying the same false thing for months—as are his supporters, no doubt—yet he hasn't stopped despite the fact checking. My hunch is that if you asked either him or a supporter of his to look at the NPR report citing the correct stats, either would say that NPR is a subset of liberal media that cannot be trusted and therefore Trump is right.

Now you're right. He'll lose credibility amongst people like you. But he has 4 years in office and a GOP Congress willing to deal with his shit and not press too hard against him as long as they get what they want, e.g. Betsy Devos.

As of right now, I have no idea how Trump plans to get reelected, but that doesn't mean he won't try as hard as he can to center himself and his administration as the only locus of Truth in the world, while the Republicans look away as long as they are getting the shit they want in return.

Your "hunch", your "guess", all of which are just suppositions that fit nicely with your premise.   Remember the backlash from moderates and Republicans that gave Obama the 'chance' - you know, "Change You Can Believe In" - but soon after had the hangover and regretted their decision?  You have to give it time.  It's only been, what, 20 days?   Not even!   Look, I know you want it to be YOUR WAY, and it seems pretty clear that to you, the GOP way is akin to the evil Imperial Empire in Star Wars, but right now, they don't HAVE to call out these facts to their detriment.  YET.   They will.   Despite what some of you think, Republicans are not evil alien lizards waiting to take over the planet.  They're humans, they have children, and they have families. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on February 08, 2017, 06:55:04 AM
You also didn't respond to my point about the dangers of establishing oneself as a locus of truth via the circularity of denying the validity of any and all negative press. That's what is "dangerous" about Trump, whether it is calculated, reckless, or the result of his being fucked up in the head.

I'm with el Barto; I didn't answer because I had to send it to translation first.  Haha, I'm kidding; I know what you're asking.   I don't know what to tell you; I don't see it as being "dangerous".   It's part of the process.   He can say what he wants, but at the end of the day, the things he's asking for - if I see one more person call his "Executive Orders", the ones that call for Congress to take action, "Laws", I'm going to scream, but to your point, those are typically the people BITCHING about them, not supporting them, ergo, the Left - have to make it through the system.    There are dissenting voices in Congress, there are checks and balances in the courts, and there is the ultimate hammer, the next election.   

This is EXACTLY what was happening in '09 when Obama was ramming through Obamacare.  How is it any different?
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on February 08, 2017, 06:59:29 AM
Because CLEARLY what is going on in your average public school is that the worst students are marching into the Principal's office to demand that they be paired with an honors student mentor so they can learn from them.

Probably not generally.

I'm just saying that effectively cordoning off the worst students from any sort of positive influence is not going to help them.  That raises an honest question...to what extent should our education system try to help the worst students as opposed to our best students.

I don't know the answer.

I think the schools have an obligation to help both equally; the trick is what does "equally" mean in this context.  For me, I don't at all believe that all kids come into school with the potential to be the next Einstein.  I just don't.   But that's not to say that each kid doesn't come in with an actual "intellect", and a potential "intellect", and that school has an obligation to get every kid as close to their potential as they can.  I don't know how to do it either; I'm not a fan of "one test" deciding a kid's future, even if that is how the world works as adults.   I think it should be an evaluation of the full body of work, over some period of time.  How you do that is for better minds to decide, but at least between the ages of 5 and, say, 13 or 14, you can give these kids multiple chances to show their aptitudes. 
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on February 08, 2017, 07:04:26 AM
That raises an honest question...to what extent should our education system try to help the worst students as opposed to our best students.

My wife teaches special ed, and while I know that isn't what you meant by the "worst" students, they are the ones who require more resources, and are being prepped to live on their own someday, not head off to Harvard. She complains that her para-eds get paid beans, but understands that's the deal if she expects to have three in her classroom full time. Point being, she struggles with the district trying to meet their needs while understanding they can't suck up an inordinate amount of money and resources.

But while I get the educational aspect of having all kids in "gen pop" (I think the term is "gen ed", but it's more amusing to say "gen pop"), what's the harm of having like kids in like classes, as long as there is some competition (of the health sort)?   My son is in a special segregated class for children with behavioral issues, and it works for him.   They move him in to gen pop for certain assemblies, events, and learning modules, but he doesn't belong in that environment.  For example, he has sensory issues to deal with (the cafeteria is simply too loud for him, and causes actual physical discomfort).   I'm sort of of the belief that my older daughter (she's now 18 and in community college) had a similar thing that wasn't diagnosed properly.  She is REALLY smart, but primarily because of attendance issues, barely scraped through high school.   
Title: Re: Trump's First 100 Days
Post by: Stadler on February 08, 2017, 07:11:59 AM
Because CLEARLY what is going on in your average public school is that the worst students are marching into the Principal's office to demand that they be paired with an honors student mentor so they can learn from them.

I'm just saying that effectively cordoning off the worst students from any sort of positive influence is not going to help them.  That raises an honest question...to what extent should our education system