Author Topic: Trump's First 100 Days  (Read 35085 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dave_Manchester

  • Posts: 418
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #105 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.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2017, 02:40:35 PM by Dave_Manchester »

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9112
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #106 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).   


Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9112
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #107 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?

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9112
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #108 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.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15662
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #109 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  I'm no stock market guy so just sharing the news and if you guys want to discuss, I am ears (well eyes).

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18693
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #110 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).
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18693
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #111 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.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4399
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #112 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.

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4399
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #113 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.

Offline jsbru

  • Posts: 956
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #114 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.
“The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.”

― Hunter S. Thompson

Offline chknptpie

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2943
  • Gender: Female
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #115 on: January 26, 2017, 07:19:51 PM »

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.

Offline jsbru

  • Posts: 956
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #116 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?
“The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.”

― Hunter S. Thompson

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2254
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #117 on: January 26, 2017, 07:40:25 PM »
How many people think that statement was hyperbolic now?
*raises hand*
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Online eric42434224

  • Posts: 3246
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #118 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.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2017, 08:04:20 PM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9112
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #119 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.>


Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9112
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #120 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.   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9112
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #121 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).  ??
« Last Edit: January 27, 2017, 06:36:26 AM by Stadler »

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9112
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #122 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. 

Offline chknptpie

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2943
  • Gender: Female
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #123 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.

Offline Cyclopssss

  • Vocal Dinosaur pre-heat combustable
  • Posts: 2675
  • Gender: Male
  • Connoseur of love
    • my coverband
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #124 on: January 27, 2017, 06:53:25 AM »
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.


From the ocean comes the notion that the realise lies in rhythm. The rhythm of vision is dancer, and when you dance you´re always on the one. From the looking comes to see, wondrous realise real eyes....

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15662
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #125 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.

Offline mikeyd23

  • Posts: 3875
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #126 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?

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9112
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #127 on: January 27, 2017, 07:07:13 AM »

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? 

Offline ?

  • Apparently the best username
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11132
  • Gender: Male
  • Less=Moore, Even Less=Wilson
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #128 on: January 27, 2017, 07:18:20 AM »
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

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9112
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #129 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).

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9112
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #130 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?

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15662
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #131 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.

Offline mikeyd23

  • Posts: 3875
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #132 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.

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18693
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #133 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.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18693
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #134 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.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18693
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #135 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?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Sir GuitarCozmo

  • Official Forum Sous Chef and broler5
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13773
  • Gender: Male
  • whahibrido pickingant in action...
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #136 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.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9112
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #137 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.

Offline mikeyd23

  • Posts: 3875
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #138 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.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9112
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #139 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.