Author Topic: Trump's First 100 Days  (Read 25939 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14124
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #140 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. 

Offline mikeyd23

  • Posts: 3256
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #141 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.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7507
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #142 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.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14124
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #143 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.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2017, 09:23:43 AM by cramx3 »

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 18412
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #144 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.

Offline Sir GuitarCozmo

  • Official Forum Sous Chef and broler5
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13433
  • Gender: Male
  • whahibrido pickingant in action...
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #145 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?

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14124
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #146 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. 

Offline chknptpie

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2885
  • Gender: Female
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #147 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.

Offline Sir GuitarCozmo

  • Official Forum Sous Chef and broler5
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13433
  • Gender: Male
  • whahibrido pickingant in action...
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #148 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.


Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23968
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #149 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?
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 14124
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #150 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.



 :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.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1371
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #151 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.
"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."

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7507
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #152 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.

Offline mikeyd23

  • Posts: 3256
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #153 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.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 18412
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #154 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.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7507
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #155 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.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17877
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #156 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.
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 El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17877
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #157 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.
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 hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 39954
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #158 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?

Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline jsbru

  • Posts: 956
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #159 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.
“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 jsbru

  • Posts: 956
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #160 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.
“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 Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7507
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #161 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.   

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4358
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #162 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?

Online TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21430
  • Gender: Male
  • Just a decent, normal metal-head fellow
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #163 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.


would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums................or WTF.  ;D

Offline pogoowner

  • Pancake Bunny
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2670
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #164 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?

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17877
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #165 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?
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 TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21430
  • Gender: Male
  • Just a decent, normal metal-head fellow
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #166 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.
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums................or WTF.  ;D

Offline pogoowner

  • Pancake Bunny
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2670
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #167 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.

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4489
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #168 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.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline jsbru

  • Posts: 956
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #169 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.
“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 TL

  • Posts: 2730
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #170 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. 

Offline TL

  • Posts: 2730
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #171 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.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2017, 12:12:16 AM by TL »

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23968
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #172 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.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline TL

  • Posts: 2730
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #173 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.

Offline antigoon

  • Not Elvis
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 10060
  • Gender: Male
  • This was a triumph.
Re: Trump's First 100 Days
« Reply #174 on: January 28, 2017, 10:37:38 AM »


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?