The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Lord Dave on December 01, 2016, 08:24:05 PM

Title: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 01, 2016, 08:24:05 PM
Yes, we need a new thread, I think so anyway.  The election is over (except the recounts).

Anyway:
Donald Trump and his VP (the governor of Indiana) have successfully kept 800 jobs in the state of Indiana by giving a company $7 Million worth of tax cuts over 10 years to said company.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/indiana-gives-7-million-in-tax-breaks-to-keep-carrier-jobs-1480608461
Quote
Indiana officials agreed to give United Technologies Corp. $7 million worth of tax breaks over 10 years to encourage the company’s Carrier Corp. unit to keep about 1,000 jobs in the state, according to people familiar with the matter.
The heating and air conditioning company will invest about $16 million to keep its operations in the state, including a furnace plant in Indianapolis that it had previously planned to close and shift the work to Mexico, the people said.
Carrier has previously said it expected to save about $65 million a year by shutting the plant and moving its operations to Monterrey.
President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence were expected to announced the deal with Carrier in Indiana on Thursday.
The deal would cover 800 Carrier workers from the Indianapolis furnace plant and an additional 300 research and headquarters positions that weren’t slated to go to Mexico, according to another person briefed on the deal.
The company still plans to move 600 jobs from the Carrier plant to Mexico. It also will proceed with plans to close a second plant in Huntington, Ind., that makes electronic controls, moving 700 other jobs to Mexico.
Mr. Trump has played up the partial rescue as a sign he can deliver on campaign promises. Through the presidential primary and general election, the Republican businessman had made an example of Carrier, at one point threatening to put a 35% tariff on Carrier imports unless it reversed its decision to move the jobs to Mexico.
“This is a big win for the incoming administration but an even bigger win for the people of Indiana,” transition spokesman Jason Miller said Thursday. The transition team has declined to provide details about the cost of keeping those jobs in the state.
Mr. Trump also will host an evening rally at U.S. Bank Arena in Cincinnati, a Republican stronghold. Ohio was one of six states the Republican captured after being won twice by Democratic President Barack Obama. That is the start of a broader “thank you” tour that is expected to include stops in Florida and across the Midwest.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, who during his presidential campaign had also attacked Carrier and other firms shifting work abroad, criticized the deal on Thursday, saying Mr. Trump failed to make good on his campaign pledge to save all of the jobs from moving to Mexico.
The deal also creates a bad precedent, Mr. Sanders contended, writing that Mr. Trump “has signaled to every corporation in America that they can threaten to offshore jobs in exchange for business-friendly tax benefits and incentives.”
The deal that emerged from weeks of negotiations between United Technologies brass and officials in the Trump camp led by Mr. Pence, the Indiana governor, is a relatively standard package of state incentives, according to people familiar with the agreement.
On Wednesday, Carrier said “incentives offered by the state were an important consideration,” without providing further details.
“This agreement in no way diminishes our belief in the benefits of free trade and that the forces of globalization will continue to require solutions for the long-term competitiveness of the U.S. and of American workers moving forward,” the company said.
In addition to Carrier, United Technologies makes Pratt & Whitney jet engines and Otis elevators. It employs about 200,000 people, about one third of them in the U.S.
Representatives of the incoming administration also discussed the Farmington, Conn., company’s wishes regarding federal regulations and their desires for an overhaul of corporate tax laws, according to one of the people.
For Mr. Trump, the trips to Indiana and Ohio meant there were no announced meetings on Thursday with prospective cabinet members. Those meetings will resume on Friday in New York, where Mr. Trump is scheduled to visit with Sen. David Perdue (R., Ga.), retired Adm. Jay Cohen, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton, and Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D., N.D.).

What does this mean?
The company is getting $700,000 a year in tax savings to instead of $65 Million a year in cost savings.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 02, 2016, 12:52:59 AM
It means that we need to lower taxes to encourage companies to stay in the US.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: beardo on December 02, 2016, 02:20:24 AM
Trump won, haha.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on December 02, 2016, 09:13:00 AM
I'm less worried about Trump than the complete cavalcade of credulous cretins completing his calamitous cabinet.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on December 05, 2016, 07:14:27 PM
lol Ben Carson for Housing and Urban Development.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 05, 2016, 07:41:10 PM
lol Ben Carson for Housing and Urban Development.
I saw that too and I'm like...

"WTF?"
I get that he wants to drain the swamp but ... this is like putting a private school supporter as his secretary of educa-

Nevermind.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on December 05, 2016, 07:49:12 PM
lol Ben Carson for Housing and Urban Development.
I saw that too and I'm like...

"WTF?"
I get that he wants to drain the swamp but ... this is like putting a private school supporter as his secretary of educa-

Nevermind.

Are you saying private schools don't universally outperform public schools?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 05, 2016, 08:17:44 PM
lol Ben Carson for Housing and Urban Development.
I saw that too and I'm like...

"WTF?"
I get that he wants to drain the swamp but ... this is like putting a private school supporter as his secretary of educa-

Nevermind.

Are you saying private schools don't universally outperform public schools?
Well, let me put it this way:

Take all the bad apples out of an orchard and it'll only have the best apples.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on December 06, 2016, 04:05:47 PM
Are you saying private schools don't universally outperform public schools?

The performance level of public and private schools is irrelevant; the Secretary of Education is responsible for the betterment of public schools. Hiring someone who's pro-private schools to be in charge of public schools is like hiring a vegan to run a slaughterhouse. Aside from that, the threat to the separation of Church and State is also troubling.

Note: I attended both private and public schools in my childhood, and by criticizing Trump and DeVos I don't intend to show a preference for one or the other.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: George on December 06, 2016, 04:34:42 PM
It's kind of like appointing someone opposed to the existence of the EPA to head the EPA, or someone opposed to business regulations to being in charge of regulating businesses.  Very Orwellian.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on December 07, 2016, 01:14:52 PM
And he also thinks poor is a mindset. Good luck, Ben.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: junker on December 07, 2016, 04:26:01 PM
http://time.com/time-person-of-the-year-2016-donald-trump-choice/
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: George on December 07, 2016, 04:45:48 PM
They typically go with the winner in a presidential election year, so that's no surprise.  It's also neither an award nor an endorsement, despite the number of people on the Internet (both pro and anti-Trump) declaring it such.
Title: Trump
Post by: junker on December 07, 2016, 07:38:23 PM
They typically go with the winner in a presidential election year, so that's no surprise.

They don't "typically" go with the winner in an election year. Since it's inception to 2012 it's literally been 50/50 of winners/others in election years. This year's "award" now gives the winners the lead. If you want to suggest in more recent history, then yes.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 07, 2016, 10:38:44 PM
http://time.com/time-person-of-the-year-2016-donald-trump-choice/
Egads, yet another similarity between Trump and Hitler! Will these "coincidences" never end?!
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 07, 2016, 10:55:27 PM
http://time.com/time-person-of-the-year-2016-donald-trump-choice/
Egads, yet another similarity between Trump and Hitler! Will these "coincidences" never end?!

I hope they finally find a solution to this question.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: George on December 07, 2016, 11:00:33 PM
They typically go with the winner in a presidential election year, so that's no surprise.

They don't "typically" go with the winner in an election year. Since it's inception to 2012 it's literally been 50/50 of winners/others in election years. This year's "award" now gives the winners the lead. If you want to suggest in more recent history, then yes.

Yes, in more recent history.  Although it dates back further if we only include non-incumbents, or newly-elected presidents.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 07, 2016, 11:03:35 PM
I hope they finally find a solution to this question.
But Trump would never know about it and/or it would never happen.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 09, 2016, 03:59:27 PM
God Emporer Trump has banned protests at his inauguration.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/09/politics/trump-protestors-permit/index.html (http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/09/politics/trump-protestors-permit/index.html)
http://time.com/4595399/women-march-washington-barred-lincoln-memorial/?xid=fbshare (http://time.com/4595399/women-march-washington-barred-lincoln-memorial/?xid=fbshare)

The way I'm reading it is:

The inauguration committee, knowing there would be massive protests, had the park service label all those areas "construction zones" to ensure that anyone found protesting there could be escorted off the grounds or arrested.  Unless they had a permit.
Which no one did cause you need one a year in advance.

So really, only trump supporters will be allowed at the Inauguration.  We'll see how this goes.
Next thing you know, the Media will be purely pro-trump to avoid getting him angry with them.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 09, 2016, 04:03:27 PM
https://youtu.be/kRX37ysqvpo

i agree.  dude, act like a president.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 10, 2016, 02:49:22 AM
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/309576-what-trumps-cabinet-picks-reveal

Quote
Trump, however, has gone further in rewarding his biggest donors.

Former Goldman Sachs partner Steven Mnuchin, the president-elect’s choice for Treasury secretary, served as Trump’s top fundraiser and personally contributed $430,000 to Trump and to the Republican National Committee’s joint fundraising account.

Pro wrestling magnate Linda McMahon, Trump’s pick to head the Small Business Administration, gave $6 million to Rebuilding America Now, a super PAC that backed Trump. She also gave $153,000 to Trump’s joint fundraising account and more than $400,000 to the RNC.

Billionaire investor Wilbur Ross, Trump’s choice for Commerce secretary, had a senior role on Trump’s fundraising team. He gave $200,000 to Trump’s joint fundraising account and $117,000 to the RNC.

Andy Puzder, the fast-food CEO chosen for Labor secretary, raised campaign cash for Trump and personally contributed $388,000 to the RNC and $150,000 to Trump’s joint fundraiser. He also gave $10,000 to Rebuilding America Now.

Another Trump Cabinet selection, Betsy DeVos, belongs to one of the top Republican donor families in the country. The Education secretary pick, however, was no booster of Trump’s. She gave $50,000 to a super PAC supporting Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Trump’s rival in the GOP primaries. She also wired the maximum amount to another of Trump’s primary rivals, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

Trump is taking a political gamble by choosing major donors for such lofty posts.

hahahahahahaha hey quick someone tell me more about draining the swamp.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 11, 2016, 07:49:56 AM
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/09/505041927/trump-transition-asks-energy-dept-which-employees-work-on-climate-change

Oh look, the purging has begun.

By 2020, Trump will have only Trump supporters working for the federal government. 

At least he'll have kept his promise to give them jobs, right?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2016, 02:58:29 PM
hahahahahahaha hey quick someone tell me more about draining the swamp.

There is nothing wrong with being successful. What is wrong is being a slimy politician who sells out the country and trades bribes for favors.

Also, anyone who truly wanted to change the country for the better would have heavily promoted and backed Donald Trump, who built his campaign around ending corruption in American politics and getting jobs back to the country. It makes sense that someone that emotionally invested to contribute would be the bet for the job, not some random schmuck who didn't support Trump's campaign.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: George on December 11, 2016, 03:58:25 PM
hahahahahahaha hey quick someone tell me more about draining the swamp.

There is nothing wrong with being successful. What is wrong is being a slimy politician who sell out the country and trade bribes for favors.

Also, anyone who truly wanted to change the country for the better would have heavily promoted and backed Donald Trump, who built his campaign around ending corruption in American politics and getting jobs back to the country. It makes sense that someone that emotionally invested to contribute would be the bet for the job, not some random schmuck who didn't support Trump's campaign.

Rich people are better than poor people.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 11, 2016, 04:15:10 PM
There is nothing wrong with being successful. What is wrong is being a slimy politician who sell out the country and trade bribes for favors.

so...you mean like filling out your cabinet nominations with your biggest donors?  that sort of exchange of money for favors?

it sounds to me like you're saying that you don't have any problem with pay-to-play politics so long as the people who do it share your politics.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2016, 05:17:02 PM
There is nothing wrong with being successful. What is wrong is being a slimy politician who sell out the country and trade bribes for favors.

so...you mean like filling out your cabinet nominations with your biggest donors?  that sort of exchange of money for favors?

it sounds to me like you're saying that you don't have any problem with pay-to-play politics so long as the people who do it share your politics.

The people who believed very strongly in the principles of the movement would have donated what they felt was appropriate for them. I donated to him. Am I ineligible to go into government now to help put those ideas into action?

The people who did NOT donate to his campaign probably did not feel strongly about the movement and are actually the worst to select from!
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 11, 2016, 06:34:33 PM
The problem Tom is that Trump complained loudly and often about Clinton giving political favor to Wall Street bankers, donaters and lobbyists. Then the first thing he does is exactly what he campaigned against. Hypocrisy and supporting the establishment is exactly what many Trump supporters were voting against and within months he betrays them.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2016, 07:05:28 PM
The problem Tom is that Trump complained loudly and often about Clinton giving political favor to Wall Street bankers, donaters and lobbyists. Then the first thing he does is exactly what he campaigned against. Hypocrisy and supporting the establishment is exactly what many Trump supporters were voting against and within months he betrays them.

Your criticism is frankly stupid. Hillary Clinton wasn't giving Corporate Executives and Wall Street Bankers low wage government jobs. She was selling out the United States Government and enacting policies that benefited their businesses.

Trump definitely is not selling out his government. Those people donated to him and campaigned for him because they felt strongly about his movement of ending corruption in government. If they wanted quid pro duo they would have backed Hillary.

Why would Trump pick someone to work under him who didn't back him? Of course the best people for the job would have backed him and advocated for him in the campaign. It would be stupid to pick someone who did not strongly believe in his movement.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 11, 2016, 07:40:05 PM
Your criticism is frankly stupid. Hillary Clinton wasn't giving Corporate Executives and Wall Street Bankers low wage government jobs. She was selling out the United States Government and enacting policies that benefited their businesses.

"low wage government jobs" lol.  dude no one gives a shit what salary the secretary of state makes.  this isn't about wages.  but you knew that already.

if bernie sanders had been elected and nominated a bunch of goldman sachs bankers, corporate executives, and million-dollar donors for cabinet positions, i would feel pretty fucking cheated.

i'm not even saying that these people are awful.  maybe they'll do a great job.  i dunno.  i'll try to reserve my judgement of them until they draft policy.  but to deny that that trump predicated most of his campaign on decrying exactly what he's doing now is absurdly selective memory.  his entire platform was based on the innuendo that because hillary deleted emails, she must be hiding something.  because she met with a foundation donor, she must be doing them favors.  because she got paid to speak at goldman sach's, she must be doing them favors.  because her husband is a creep, she must be a creep. 

you can pretend that that didn't happen all you want, but it did.  i don't really see why you and many other trump supporters suddenly refuse to believe that this particular human couldn't possibly be capable of the same thing.  like, you believe that literally just because he told you so.

i've been saying this since he won the primary: all that happened here is that trump said whatever you wanted to hear without ever offering you anything to believe other than his word.  and y'all took it for some reason.  idgi.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2016, 07:59:36 PM
Trump is big on pulling people from the private sector, and not hiring career politicians. Most of these people held high positions in companies, yes. Should he have hired the janitor instead?

It is pretty clear that the best people for the job in the private sector are leaders who probably held high positions at some point.

It is also pretty clear that the best people to enact Trump's policies also supported Trump strongly during the campaign.

This is a GOOD thing. Those people Trump picked aren't going to backstab the United States Government for a company they aren't even working for. These people are going to lower taxes and enact policies that make it easier for all businesses to operate, not just the one they once worked for. They know first hand the problems with regulations and taxes. That's GREAT.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on December 11, 2016, 08:05:13 PM
Trump is big on pulling people from the private sector, and not hiring career politicians. Most of these people held high positions in companies, yes. Should we have hired the janitor instead?

I'd be ok with a head of the Environmental Protection Agency that, you know, had some experience working with the environment. Or at least didn't want to shut down the very organization he'll be heading.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: George on December 11, 2016, 08:12:50 PM
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-intelligence-briefings-skip-2016-12

More quality trolling from Trump.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2016, 08:29:51 PM
Trump is big on pulling people from the private sector, and not hiring career politicians. Most of these people held high positions in companies, yes. Should we have hired the janitor instead?

I'd be ok with a head of the Environmental Protection Agency that, you know, had some experience working with the environment. Or at least didn't want to shut down the very organization he'll be heading.

Slashing bad democratic environmental policies was part of the plan since Trump started his campaign. And the guy trump picked does have environmental policy experience.

Forbs praises the pick: http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkrancer/2016/12/09/trumps-epa-pick-is-just-what-this-country-needs/#16050f763f27
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 11, 2016, 08:49:36 PM
Trump is big on pulling people from the private sector, and not hiring career politicians. Most of these people held high positions in companies, yes. Should he have hired the janitor instead?

It is pretty clear that the best people for the job in the private sector are leaders who probably held high positions at some point.

It is also pretty clear that the best people to enact Trump's policies also supported Trump strongly during the campaign.

This is a GOOD thing. Those people Trump picked aren't going to backstab the United States Government for a company they aren't even working for. These people are going to lower taxes and enact policies that make it easier for all businesses to operate, not just the one they once worked for. They know first hand the problems with regulations and taxes. That's GREAT.

Except being able to visit the Russian President and negotiate oil prices and drilling for your company when you leave your cabinet position is really, really great.

Forbs praises the pick: http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkrancer/2016/12/09/trumps-epa-pick-is-just-what-this-country-needs/#16050f763f27 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkrancer/2016/12/09/trumps-epa-pick-is-just-what-this-country-needs/#16050f763f27)
Linking to an opinion piece that very clearly states "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." makes your statement that Forbs praises it, misleading at best.


He picked a secretary of education that does not believe in public education.  This is contradictory to her job.  You can't work to improve public education if you don't believe in public education.  And if you believe that private education is superior then you're missing WHY private is superior.  It's not about competition, it's about being able to pick only those you want.  Your bell curve looks great when all you have are honor students.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: George on December 11, 2016, 08:55:01 PM
That's not the editorial position of Forbes; it's just a blog that happens to be hosted by the website.  The contributors express a great variety of political and economic opinions.

(what Dave said)
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2016, 09:22:19 PM
Linking to an opinion piece that very clearly states "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." makes your statement that Forbs praises it, misleading at best

I don't see any "Write for Forbs, Click Here" buttons on their website. There is some level of exclusivity. That makes it a Forbs piece.

If I let a man shout racial slurs on my front laws for 8 hours and put a disclaimer on a sign that these are his opinions and not the homeowner's, does that mean that I am in the clear?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on December 11, 2016, 10:00:39 PM
Linking to an opinion piece that very clearly states "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." makes your statement that Forbs praises it, misleading at best

I don't see any "Write for Forbs, Click Here" buttons on their website. There is some level of exclusivity. That makes it a Forbs piece.

If I let a man shout racial slurs on my front laws for 8 hours and put a disclaimer on a sign that these are his opinions and not the homeowner's, does that mean that I am in the clear?

Well we sure as hell wouldn't be able to say "Tom Bishop expresses racial slurs," in the same way you said Forbes praises Trump's EPA pick.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 11, 2016, 10:04:08 PM
If I let a man shout racial slurs on my front laws for 8 hours and put a disclaimer on a sign that these are his opinions and not the homeowner's, does that mean that I am in the clear?
Yes.  Yes it does, actually. 
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 11, 2016, 10:11:13 PM
Linking to an opinion piece that very clearly states "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." makes your statement that Forbs praises it, misleading at best

I don't see any "Write for Forbs, Click Here" buttons on their website. There is some level of exclusivity. That makes it a Forbs piece.

If I let a man shout racial slurs on my front laws for 8 hours and put a disclaimer on a sign that these are his opinions and not the homeowner's, does that mean that I am in the clear?

Well we sure as hell wouldn't be able to say "Tom Bishop expresses racial slurs," in the same way you said Forbes praises Trump's EPA pick.

Why not? I'm the one putting that content on my front lawn.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on December 11, 2016, 10:11:41 PM
lol Ben Carson for Housing and Urban Development.

But he's black!!!!
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: George on December 11, 2016, 10:12:57 PM
I don't see any "Write for Forbs, Click Here" buttons on their website. There is some level of exclusivity. That makes it a Forbs piece.

It is a Forbes piece insofar as it's on their website.  It's not the official position of Forbes in an editorial sense.

Quote
If I let a man shout racial slurs on my front laws for 8 hours and put a disclaimer on a sign that these are his opinions and not the homeowner's, does that mean that I am in the clear?

No, but if you let a few dozen people shout a variety of different things on your front lawn, I'd be very skeptical of an attempt to point to one of them and say, "This one here represents the view of the homeowner."
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 12, 2016, 01:22:58 AM
Trump is big on pulling people from the private sector, and not hiring career politicians. Most of these people held high positions in companies, yes. Should he have hired the janitor instead?

It is pretty clear that the best people for the job in the private sector are leaders who probably held high positions at some point.

It is also pretty clear that the best people to enact Trump's policies also supported Trump strongly during the campaign.

This is a GOOD thing. Those people Trump picked aren't going to backstab the United States Government for a company they aren't even working for. These people are going to lower taxes and enact policies that make it easier for all businesses to operate, not just the one they once worked for. They know first hand the problems with regulations and taxes. That's GREAT.

we're back to square one.  you don't mind pay-to-play cronyism so long as your cronies are the ones who get to play. 

the problem for me is that trump's campaign was based largely on lambasting clinton for cronyism and pay-to-play politics.  he started his campaign on the pledge that he would spend only his own money and be beholden to no one.  that's what happened.  now he's giving influential political positions to top donors, and for some reason you're willing to simply take the man at his word that everything is above board.

"goldman sachs has total control over hillary clinton."  y'all got all fired up about hillary clinton getting paid to give a speech, but nominating a goldman sachs donor for treasury secretary doesn't do anything for you?

how many of trump's emails do you think you're gonna get to read?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on December 12, 2016, 07:44:16 PM
Trump can't win one way or the other. Same way Obama couldn't.

Either he is "not draining the swamp" when he appoints career politicians or executives, or he is appointing incompetent people who don't have enough experience.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 12, 2016, 08:06:50 PM
Trump can't win one way or the other. Same way Obama couldn't.

Either he is "not draining the swamp" when he appoints career politicians or executives, or he is appointing incompetent people who don't have enough experience.
I don't think you understand what "drain the swamp" means.  The swamp covers more than "career politicians" and in fact does not include ALL career politicians.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 12, 2016, 09:18:00 PM
how many of trump's emails do you think you're gonna get to read?
Probably not many (he seems to be more of a Twitter kind of guy), but here's hoping that in case of a law enforcement investigation they won't find it quite so difficult (read: largely impossible) to access crucial data.

I don't think you understand what "drain the swamp" means.
Funny, that's how many Trump supporters feel about the displeased liberals who keep trying to go "ha gotcha!!! where's the swamp draining now bucko????"

Suffice to say that it will not be Trump's strongest opponents who will dictate his policy, or the execution thereof.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 13, 2016, 12:05:30 AM
Suffice to say that it will not be Trump's strongest opponents who will dictate his policy, or the execution thereof.

Considering how populist he has been, this may not be strictly true.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 13, 2016, 11:31:25 AM
Considering how populist he has been, this may not be strictly true.
He's a populist, absolutely, but he still has a target audience. I strongly doubt he has much to gain from pandering to the stereotypical American liberal. So far, he seems to understand this. Here's hoping that won't change.

If he tried, he'd find himself stuck in the same position as many other politicians who try to appease the left: nothing he did would ever be enough, any attempts would be described as more privilege-fed bigotry from a white man, and he'd always be met with new demands. It's a never-ending war for "justice", one that brings no rewards to those fighting it. Right now, in America, being a populist will only really work on right-wingers.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on December 13, 2016, 12:16:07 PM
lol Carly Fiorina might become National Intelligence director. (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-fiorina-idUSKBN14122B)
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 13, 2016, 12:30:32 PM
Heh...

Wouldn't it be funny if Trump bribes his rivals with positions of power if they ended their campaign and supported him afterwards?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 13, 2016, 12:52:15 PM
Funny, that's how many Trump supporters feel about the displeased liberals who keep trying to go "ha gotcha!!! where's the swamp draining now bucko ??? ?"


What IS draining the swamp then?  Does anyone have an actual answer or is it just "Remove people I don't like" kind of thing?  I always assumed it was "remove politicians and people whose primary interests are themselves and their job and not the US citizens."

Quote
Suffice to say that it will not be Trump's strongest opponents who will dictate his policy, or the execution thereof.
I disagree.  Everything we've seen so far has shown that his strongest opponents do dictate his policy, just not in the way they want.  He is quick to attack any criticism and that attacking is part of his policy and execution.  For example, when Mainstream Media attacked him and what he says, he was quick to attack back, threatening to implement laws restricting what the media can say/print moreso than already exists.

When the head of Boeing criticized him, Trump spoke of canceling a $4 Billion deal.  And if the head of Boeing were to continue speaking out against Trump, Donald would most certainly cancel any deals he could with the company.

He is a populist, but he's also a reactionist.  He will make knee-jerk reactions to punish those he feels are wronging him, even if it's just words. 
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on December 13, 2016, 02:47:57 PM
Quote
He is a populist, but he's also a reactionist.  He will make knee-jerk reactions to punish those he feels are wronging him, even if it's just heresy to the God-Emperor. 

Fixed.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 13, 2016, 02:55:56 PM
What IS draining the swamp then?  Does anyone have an actual answer or is it just "Remove people I don't like" kind of thing?
Honestly, that's pretty much it. To my understanding, Trump supporters are fed up with career politicians who don't listen to them. Due to inherent biases, they identify themselves as "the people", and so these politicians "don't listen to the people".

Ultimately, everyone knows that politicians are gonna be politicians. They're desperate for an alternative, but that doesn't mean overthrowing the modern model of a republic.

I always assumed it was "remove politicians and people whose primary interests are themselves and their job and not the US citizens."
That's the polite way of putting it, yeah.

I disagree.  Everything we've seen so far has shown that his strongest opponents do dictate his policy, just not in the way they want.  He is quick to attack any criticism and that attacking is part of his policy and execution.  For example, when Mainstream Media attacked him and what he says, he was quick to attack back, threatening to implement laws restricting what the media can say/print moreso than already exists.

When the head of Boeing criticized him, Trump spoke of canceling a $4 Billion deal.  And if the head of Boeing were to continue speaking out against Trump, Donald would most certainly cancel any deals he could with the company.

He is a populist, but he's also a reactionist.  He will make knee-jerk reactions to punish those he feels are wronging him, even if it's just words.
That's fair enough. All I meant was that liberals crying about whether or not the swamp is currently being drained are unlikely to alter the direction of said swamp-draining. If his voter base started complaining, fair enough, but he's already doing what they wanted.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 13, 2016, 03:15:22 PM
Considering how populist he has been, this may not be strictly true.
He's a populist, absolutely, but he still has a target audience. I strongly doubt he has much to gain from pandering to the stereotypical American liberal. So far, he seems to understand this. Here's hoping that won't change.

It seems he has made some overtures to at least a more centre-leaning left position like backing off on repealing Obamacare and looking to see what can be salvaged.

Quote
If he tried, he'd find himself stuck in the same position as many other politicians who try to appease the left: nothing he did would ever be enough, any attempts would be described as more privilege-fed bigotry from a white man, and he'd always be met with new demands. It's a never-ending war for "justice", one that brings no rewards to those fighting it. Right now, in America, being a populist will only really work on right-wingers.

lol  :'(
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 13, 2016, 03:22:20 PM
It seems he has made some overtures to at least a more centre-leaning left position like backing off on repealing Obamacare and looking to see what can be salvaged.
Point taken.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 14, 2016, 04:19:32 PM
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-12-14/trump-s-threat-damps-companies-plans-to-move-u-s-jobs-abroad

Let's hope this helps.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 16, 2016, 09:49:18 PM
Trump details how full of shit his campaign was:

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/i9tog6/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-trump-lets-the-truth-come-out-post-election?xrs=synd_FBPAGE_20161215_729898039_The%20Daily%20Show_Video%20with%20Link&linkId=32425738
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 16, 2016, 09:58:52 PM
Trump details how full of shit his campaign was:

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/i9tog6/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-trump-lets-the-truth-come-out-post-election?xrs=synd_FBPAGE_20161215_729898039_The%20Daily%20Show_Video%20with%20Link&linkId=32425738 (http://www.cc.com/video-clips/i9tog6/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-trump-lets-the-truth-come-out-post-election?xrs=synd_FBPAGE_20161215_729898039_The%20Daily%20Show_Video%20with%20Link&linkId=32425738)


You should see people defending him.


"He was being sarcastic"
"He can't anyway, he'll appoint a special persecutor."
"Lets wait and see."



Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 18, 2016, 02:57:35 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/china-said-it-would-return-a-seized-us-naval-drone-trump-told-them-tokeep-it/2016/12/18/9e3f6f82-c4d3-11e6-9a51-cd56ea1c2bb7_story.html?utm_term=.974ac4f985c2
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: George on December 18, 2016, 04:01:37 PM
I'm not even mad anymore.  This level of trolling is hilarious.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 18, 2016, 04:52:02 PM
I'm not even mad anymore.  This level of trolling is hilarious.
I think it might be a move to show that what they did doesn't even bother us.  Like "Whatever, keep it.  It's an old model anyway." kind of thing.  A show of dominance and power.

Of course, making these kind of decisions BEFORE he's in office is really bad.  Mixed messages and all that.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 20, 2016, 01:40:32 AM
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/12/inside-the-hacked-u-s-election/

easily the most reasonable thing i've read about the russian hacking shit.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: George on December 20, 2016, 01:42:55 AM
No, no, FES has already decided that all this Russian hacking news is a hoax dreamed up by the Washington Post and willingly abetted by the rest of the media aimed at delegitimizing Trump's victory.  Keep up.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Hollocron on December 20, 2016, 08:06:07 AM
No, no, FES has already decided that all this Russian hacking news is a hoax dreamed up by the Washington Post and willingly abetted by the rest of the media aimed at delegitimizing Trump's victory.  Keep up.

It's real, but "hacking" is a bit of a stretch. Podesta (and Hillary's IT team) was just a big dumbhead and fell for a phishing email. It appears to be a simple case of Darwinism.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 20, 2016, 12:31:39 PM
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/311118-kuwait-embassy-cancels-major-event-at-four-seasons-to-switch-to-trumps-dc-hotel

It's from The Hill so take it with a grain of salt but...

If this is true, it's pretty damn obvious why Trump ran for president: To promote his business.  This makes him, quite possibly, the smartest or dumbest business man ever.  And I really don't know which one.  I mean, on the plus side, he can (pressure) to get laws changed in almost any country to favor his businesses, hotels, and golf courses.  On the downside, any slip ups or insults he throws hurts his business overall.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on December 20, 2016, 01:05:11 PM
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/311118-kuwait-embassy-cancels-major-event-at-four-seasons-to-switch-to-trumps-dc-hotel

It's from The Hill so take it with a grain of salt but...

If this is true, it's pretty damn obvious why Trump ran for president: To promote his business.  This makes him, quite possibly, the smartest or dumbest business man ever.  And I really don't know which one.  I mean, on the plus side, he can (pressure) to get laws changed in almost any country to favor his businesses, hotels, and golf courses.  On the downside, any slip ups or insults he throws hurts his business overall.
Um yeah, that's why most news sites have been talking about all the conflict of interests and how he stupid it is that he won't turn over his businesses to a blind trust.
I mean, even if it's his kids running the show - they're still the president's kids and will have sway just with that.

I foresee him being impeached over something like this honestly.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 20, 2016, 01:36:33 PM
The laws concerning conflict of interest do not prohibit this sort of behavior for the president unless they can be linked to favoritism and so considered a bribe.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 20, 2016, 02:43:10 PM
No, no, FES has already decided that all this Russian hacking news is a hoax dreamed up by the Washington Post and willingly abetted by the rest of the media aimed at delegitimizing Trump's victory.  Keep up.

fwiw i think skepticism of these hacking claims is very reasonable (i'm guessing you do as well), i just don't get how such a large segment of the pop gets to adamant denial from healthy skepticism.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 20, 2016, 04:12:44 PM
fwiw i think skepticism of these hacking claims is very reasonable (i'm guessing you do as well), i just don't get how such a large segment of the pop gets to adamant denial from healthy skepticism.
As far as I'm concerned, no evidence has been presented to date. I'm not immediately dismissing CIA's and FBI's accounts, but I do it suspicious that so little detail has been presented for these accusations.

I'm happy to admit that I might be missing something obvious, but if the evidence is as sparse as I think it is, why would we assume that the claim is true?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on December 20, 2016, 05:02:28 PM
No, no, FES has already decided that all this Russian hacking news is a hoax dreamed up by the Washington Post and willingly abetted by the rest of the media aimed at delegitimizing Trump's victory.  Keep up.

fwiw i think skepticism of these hacking claims is very reasonable (i'm guessing you do as well), i just don't get how such a large segment of the pop gets to adamant denial from healthy skepticism.

How do you get adamant denial from healthy skepticism?

I don't believe there is any evidence that Russia directed this particular hack. I haven't seen it. It's not like I'm denying evidence that is obviously there. There just hasn't been any. Just a general, "Trust us, we're the CIA!" I wonder how many people have fell for that in the past 60 years lol.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 20, 2016, 05:44:28 PM
I'm happy to admit that I might be missing something obvious, but if the evidence is as sparse as I think it is, why would we assume that the claim is true?

i would agree that it's inappropriate to assume that the claims are true.  skepticism is always good policy.  but i also don't think it's appropriate to dismiss them out of hand.  the cia and fbi both have enough credibility for me to believe that their assessments aren't manufactured.  i know you yourself aren't saying that it is, i'm just referring to the ever-growing meme that the cia is too incompetent, or too political, to get this right. 

to my last check, basically everything we know about these reports comes from an anonymous source who hadn't him/herself seen the document, so i definitely think skepticism is warranted.

As far as I'm concerned, no evidence has been presented to date. I'm not immediately dismissing CIA's and FBI's accounts, but I do it suspicious that so little detail has been presented for these accusations.

personally i find it frustrating, but not suspicious or even surprising.  i think the cia in particular just doesn't see that as its job.

How do you get adamant denial from healthy skepticism?

i'm speaking in generalities.  my twitter feed is blowing up daily with "lol cia just lies to you don't believe this shit."
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on December 20, 2016, 08:08:34 PM
I'm just saying there is nothing for me to deny. If there was evidence I could ignore, I'd like the opportunity. But as of right now I'm just in the skeptical phase.

And I'm not the only one.

https://m.facebook.com/justinamash/photos/a.173968155975932.31945.173604349345646/1265234083515995/?type=3&permPage=1

Representatives Justin Amash and Walter Jones just sent this letter to the president.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on December 20, 2016, 11:26:36 PM
It's too bad that same skepticism isn't extended to Pizzagate. :|
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Blanko on December 21, 2016, 12:27:47 PM
It's too bad that same skepticism isn't extended to Pizzagate. :|

Isn't it?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on December 21, 2016, 04:26:51 PM
It's too bad that same skepticism isn't extended to Pizzagate. :|

Isn't it?

Considering a vast majority of leaks in the past 10 years have confirmed my suspicions that the American public is often manipulated, misled, and misinformed to support the agenda of a select few, I believe my being incredulous is justified. So when I'm told something is fake news and a non-story by these very same people, I reserve my right to be skeptical.

I don't know how anyone could look at the mainstream media objectively and not come to the conclusion that it is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the US Government and by extension, the political and corporate elite that constitute the government.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 21, 2016, 04:56:27 PM
It's too bad that same skepticism isn't extended to Pizzagate. :|

Isn't it?

Considering a vast majority of leaks in the past 10 years have confirmed my suspicions that the American public is often manipulated, misled, and misinformed to support the agenda of a select few, I believe my being incredulous is justified. So when I'm told something is fake news and a non-story by these very same people, I reserve my right to be skeptical.

I don't know how anyone could look at the mainstream media objectively and not come to the conclusion that it is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the US Government and by extension, the political and corporate elite that constitute the government.

Just because you don't believe the mainstream doesn't mean you have to believe "alternative media".  Especially when the story is as badly constituted as pizzagate.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 21, 2016, 05:59:11 PM
all you really need to know about pizzagate is that comet pizza is on connecticut avenue.  it's like claiming that podesta was running a child slavery ring out of the sbarros on times square.  it's literally unbelievable without direct evidence of the crime.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on December 21, 2016, 06:09:38 PM
all you really need to know about pizzagate is that comet pizza is on connecticut avenue.  it's like claiming that podesta was running a child slavery ring out of the sbarros on times square.  it's literally unbelievable without direct evidence of the crime.

Well, as much as I'd like to have faith in humanity, as a human, I won't allow my desire for something to be untrue to completely dismiss the possibility. Because something is implausible, or just so sick you don't want to believe it, doesn't mean it's impossible.

I like to believe I approached the story with the same amount of skepticism I would approach any story, though I can't deny that I already believe these people to be lying, corrupt sociopaths possible of anything. There is good reason for me to feel that way, mind you.

When it comes to how much I'd like this story investigated, it's definitely somewhere between outright dismissal and witch hunt.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 21, 2016, 07:07:41 PM
all you really need to know about pizzagate is that comet pizza is on connecticut avenue.  it's like claiming that podesta was running a child slavery ring out of the sbarros on times square.  it's literally unbelievable without direct evidence of the crime.

Well, as much as I'd like to have faith in humanity, as a human, I won't allow my desire for something to be untrue to completely dismiss the possibility. Because something is implausible, or just so sick you don't want to believe it, doesn't mean it's impossible.

I like to believe I approached the story with the same amount of skepticism I would approach any story, though I can't deny that I already believe these people to be lying, corrupt sociopaths possible of anything. There is good reason for me to feel that way, mind you.

When it comes to how much I'd like this story investigated, it's definitely somewhere between outright dismissal and witch hunt.
I think he means it's unbelievable that such a public and busy place would never have anyone noticing something going on.  It's not like it's a private home, it's a public location where everyone from small children to teenagers to grumpy adults, cops, politicians, generals, FBI, CIA, etc... all probably visit at some point.  Not to mention the tourists.  Add to it the droves of employees that come and go and unless you only operate at 2am with no lights anywhere near the place, not being seen going in would be very very difficult.  Plus, all the employees would be a massive security risk.

I mean, it's one of the worst place to have a child sex ring.  Especially since it doesn't have a basement.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on December 21, 2016, 07:58:01 PM
I don't for one second think that comet pizza is the center of the entire operation. In fact, I think the absurdity of it being labeled as such works in the favor of those who would perpetrate it. As in any conspiratorial operation, this would just be one part of it. 

And it just happens to be the owner is involved in it in a tangible way. The connections exist, and the weirdness of posting a photo with an infant boy, tethered in beads to a grown man with the caption of #chickenlovers doesn't exactly calm the suspicions.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on December 21, 2016, 09:20:55 PM
I don't for one second think that comet pizza is the center of the entire operation. In fact, I think the absurdity of it being labeled as such works in the favor of those who would perpetrate it. As in any conspiratorial operation, this would just be one part of it. 

And it just happens to be the owner is involved in it in a tangible way. The connections exist, and the weirdness of posting a photo with an infant boy, tethered in beads to a grown man with the caption of #chickenlovers doesn't exactly calm the suspicions.

"Tethered"

(http://i1.wp.com/vigilantcitizen.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016-11-12-13_58_47-Films-TV.png?resize=640%2C411)
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 21, 2016, 09:34:28 PM
I don't for one second think that comet pizza is the center of the entire operation. In fact, I think the absurdity of it being labeled as such works in the favor of those who would perpetrate it. As in any conspiratorial operation, this would just be one part of it. 

And it just happens to be the owner is involved in it in a tangible way. The connections exist, and the weirdness of posting a photo with an infant boy, tethered in beads to a grown man with the caption of #chickenlovers doesn't exactly calm the suspicions.

After seeing the pic...

Ok, so this is the kind of stuff I'd have pictures taken with my son.  Cause it's cute as hell.

Sorry but... yeah, your super biased and seeing things that aren't there.  As a father, my son does things you'd probably think is super weird and pervy like he sticks his hand down my shirt alot.  Know why?  Skin to skin contact.  It's pretty normal but oh my lord, you'd have a heart attack if you saw that, right?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on December 21, 2016, 09:49:46 PM
I don't for one second think that comet pizza is the center of the entire operation. In fact, I think the absurdity of it being labeled as such works in the favor of those who would perpetrate it. As in any conspiratorial operation, this would just be one part of it. 

And it just happens to be the owner is involved in it in a tangible way. The connections exist, and the weirdness of posting a photo with an infant boy, tethered in beads to a grown man with the caption of #chickenlovers doesn't exactly calm the suspicions.

After seeing the pic...

Ok, so this is the kind of stuff I'd have pictures taken with my son.  Cause it's cute as hell.

Sorry but... yeah, your super biased and seeing things that aren't there.  As a father, my son does things you'd probably think is super weird and pervy like he sticks his hand down my shirt alot.  Know why?  Skin to skin contact.  It's pretty normal but oh my lord, you'd have a heart attack if you saw that, right?

Ok, that's not his kid. Would you tag the photo #chickenlovers ??

http://www.definition-of.com/chicken%20lover (http://www.definition-of.com/chicken%20lover)


*edit*
AND the fact you just now are finally seeing this pic means you don't belong having this discussion to begin with. So either learn the facts or keep your fucking two cents out of it.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on December 21, 2016, 10:56:02 PM
Or, you know, they like chicken. Or are we to assume this is a gay pedo site? (http://www.chicken-lovers.com/)

What am I saying, that's crazy talk. Obviously that man in that picture is going to rape that child right there in the storage room with the coffee maker and reams of paper. In the pizza place with no basement, accessible to the general public during normal business hours.

EDIT: And here is the use of the hashtag #chickenlovers before the whole Pizzagate shit took off. (https://twitter.com/search?q=%23chickenlovers%20until%3A2016-10-01&src=typd&lang=en) There is a distinct lack of pedo stuff. There's a lot of stuff having to do with chickens, though.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 21, 2016, 11:42:37 PM
I don't for one second think that comet pizza is the center of the entire operation. In fact, I think the absurdity of it being labeled as such works in the favor of those who would perpetrate it. As in any conspiratorial operation, this would just be one part of it. 

And it just happens to be the owner is involved in it in a tangible way. The connections exist, and the weirdness of posting a photo with an infant boy, tethered in beads to a grown man with the caption of #chickenlovers doesn't exactly calm the suspicions.

After seeing the pic...

Ok, so this is the kind of stuff I'd have pictures taken with my son.  Cause it's cute as hell.

Sorry but... yeah, your super biased and seeing things that aren't there.  As a father, my son does things you'd probably think is super weird and pervy like he sticks his hand down my shirt alot.  Know why?  Skin to skin contact.  It's pretty normal but oh my lord, you'd have a heart attack if you saw that, right?

Ok, that's not his kid. Would you tag the photo #chickenlovers ??

http://www.definition-of.com/chicken%20lover (http://www.definition-of.com/chicken%20lover)


*edit*
AND the fact you just now are finally seeing this pic means you don't belong having this discussion to begin with. So either learn the facts or keep your fucking two cents out of it.
Wow... Mr. "I don't know if they investigated but they should totally investigate" is schooling me....

Also, what area is that slang from?  And why in god's name are you using a community dictionary?

I've actually written a definition in it, just to see if it pops up.


PS:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=chicken%20lover
SO which one is right?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 22, 2016, 04:20:58 AM
Well, as much as I'd like to have faith in humanity, as a human, I won't allow my desire for something to be untrue to completely dismiss the possibility. Because something is implausible, or just so sick you don't want to believe it, doesn't mean it's impossible.

i don't want it to be true in the sense that i don't want children to be hurt, but it really wouldn't ruffle my worldview feathers if it were.  if john podesta is running a child slavery ring, then fuck him, i hope he gets caught, and i hope he goes to prison forever.  execute him for all i give a shit.

what dave said.  i think it strains credulity from a practical standpoint.  i just don't think national politicians could run a child slavery ring out of a business on connecticut avenue and get away with it for longer than ~1 day.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on December 23, 2016, 01:09:03 AM
Isn't there already a Pizzagate thread?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 23, 2016, 01:59:25 PM
Anyone follow Trump's twitter?

I'm reading some of the latest entries and I'm like...

O.O

He wants to expand our nuclear arsenal?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: George on December 23, 2016, 05:04:59 PM
He's just trolling.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 23, 2016, 05:44:45 PM
He's just trolling.
Of course, cause world leaders don't monitor his twitter account..

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on December 23, 2016, 05:54:32 PM
His tweets are ridiculous and inflammatory on purpose. He uses his twitter to distract us all from whatever else he has going on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkvvAQxxo_0
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: George on December 23, 2016, 06:04:41 PM
He's just trolling.
Of course, cause world leaders don't monitor his twitter account..

If they do, then they're going to get trololed!
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 23, 2016, 06:43:05 PM
He's just trolling.
Of course, cause world leaders don't monitor his twitter account..

If they do, then they're going to get trololed!


Yeah but unlike most tolls, everyone knows where this one lives AND those world leaders actually can punish him for trolling.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: George on December 24, 2016, 04:46:03 AM
World leaders are going to punish the President for shitposting on Twitter?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 24, 2016, 06:41:34 AM
World leaders are going to punish the President for shitposting on Twitter?
Yep.
They take his shit seriously.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: George on December 27, 2016, 08:51:23 PM
Pfff, those world leaders are easily trolled.  Also, this is pretty funny:

http://www.snopes.com/2016/12/26/rnc-new-king-christmas-message/

Trump is the new king!
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 28, 2016, 07:00:13 AM
Pfff, those world leaders are easily trolled.
They are.
Some even have nukes.  So the term flame war may use real nuclear fire.


Quote
Also, this is pretty funny:

http://www.snopes.com/2016/12/26/rnc-new-king-christmas-message/ (http://www.snopes.com/2016/12/26/rnc-new-king-christmas-message/)

Trump is the new king!


Lol.  Yeah it is.  Its clear the intent, as poorly worded as it is, was about jesus.  But hey, people nitpick everything so... *Shrug* welcome to humanity.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 28, 2016, 08:45:47 AM
World leaders are going to punish the President for shitposting on Twitter?
Of course. The medium and tone he's using will never matter, and thus consequences will never be the same.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: George on December 28, 2016, 03:31:20 PM
Pfff, those world leaders are easily trolled.
They are.
Some even have nukes.  So the term flame war may use real nuclear fire.

No country in the world would try to nuke us in response to a shitpost on Twitter.

World leaders are going to punish the President for shitposting on Twitter?
Of course. The medium and tone he's using will never matter, and thus consequences will never be the same.

No, you were right about this.  I was using pre-Trump reasoning, thinking in terms of a political landscape that no longer exists.  Other world leaders may not like Trump and what he has to say, but Twitter is hardly a platform for serious diplomacy or negotiation.  Every crazy or controversial thing he's posted there has just been to provoke a reaction.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 28, 2016, 04:16:21 PM
Pfff, those world leaders are easily trolled.
They are.
Some even have nukes.  So the term flame war may use real nuclear fire.

No country in the world would try to nuke us in response to a shitpost on Twitter.
North Korea.  But they probably wanna nuke us anyway.


But it also depends on what he tweets.  Like if he were to tweet "Iran is run by violent people.  Should nuke, same the world." I'm pretty sure someone who hates us is gonna consider it."[/quote][/quote]
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on December 28, 2016, 04:36:16 PM
i don't think the problem is that world leaders are gonna take all his tweets super literally all the time.  the problem is that it introduces a measure of unpredictability to our foreign policy.  that world leaders can't be sure whether he's signaling or not is one of the things that makes him so amateurish.  unpredictability and instability are typically bad for foreign affairs.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 28, 2016, 05:14:02 PM
i don't think the problem is that world leaders are gonna take all his tweets super literally all the time.  the problem is that it introduces a measure of unpredictability to our foreign policy.  that world leaders can't be sure whether he's signaling or not is one of the things that makes him so amateurish.  unpredictability and instability are typically bad for foreign affairs.

He'll do more saber rattling via twitter than any other world leader in history.  Knocking North Korea off it's stop spot.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on December 29, 2016, 05:18:51 AM
i don't think the problem is that world leaders are gonna take all his tweets super literally all the time.  the problem is that it introduces a measure of unpredictability to our foreign policy.  that world leaders can't be sure whether he's signaling or not is one of the things that makes him so amateurish.  unpredictability and instability are typically bad for foreign affairs.

He'll do more saber rattling via twitter than any other world leader in history.  Knocking North Korea off it's stop spot.

Wasn't it was Hillary who said that the nuclear option isn't off the table? And saying we need more nukes isn't necessarily saber rattling against anyone. If I said that I feel that the pocket knife in my, well, pocket wasn't enough for my personal protection am I'm making a threat against you?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 29, 2016, 08:51:56 AM
i don't think the problem is that world leaders are gonna take all his tweets super literally all the time.  the problem is that it introduces a measure of unpredictability to our foreign policy.  that world leaders can't be sure whether he's signaling or not is one of the things that makes him so amateurish.  unpredictability and instability are typically bad for foreign affairs.

He'll do more saber rattling via twitter than any other world leader in history.  Knocking North Korea off it's stop spot.

Wasn't it was Hillary who said that the nuclear option isn't off the table? And saying we need more nukes isn't necessarily saber rattling against anyone. If I said that I feel that the pocket knife in my, well, pocket wasn't enough for my personal protection am I'm making a threat against you?
She said presidents should never take it off the table as a deterrant, back when she campaigned in 2007.
Trump was more threatening.


Also, I'm not talking strictly about nukes for sabber rattling.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 29, 2016, 10:41:20 AM
http://www.npr.org/2016/12/28/507305600/trump-speaks-briefly-to-reporters-reversing-obama-criticism-and-touting-new-jobs

He is a master Troll.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on December 29, 2016, 01:50:18 PM
i don't think the problem is that world leaders are gonna take all his tweets super literally all the time.  the problem is that it introduces a measure of unpredictability to our foreign policy.  that world leaders can't be sure whether he's signaling or not is one of the things that makes him so amateurish.  unpredictability and instability are typically bad for foreign affairs.

He'll do more saber rattling via twitter than any other world leader in history.  Knocking North Korea off it's stop spot.

Wasn't it was Hillary who said that the nuclear option isn't off the table? And saying we need more nukes isn't necessarily saber rattling against anyone. If I said that I feel that the pocket knife in my, well, pocket wasn't enough for my personal protection am I'm making a threat against you?

If your announcing your purchase publicly to your enemies, then sure it is threatening.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on December 30, 2016, 03:32:44 AM
i don't think the problem is that world leaders are gonna take all his tweets super literally all the time.  the problem is that it introduces a measure of unpredictability to our foreign policy.  that world leaders can't be sure whether he's signaling or not is one of the things that makes him so amateurish.  unpredictability and instability are typically bad for foreign affairs.

He'll do more saber rattling via twitter than any other world leader in history.  Knocking North Korea off it's stop spot.

Wasn't it was Hillary who said that the nuclear option isn't off the table? And saying we need more nukes isn't necessarily saber rattling against anyone. If I said that I feel that the pocket knife in my, well, pocket wasn't enough for my personal protection am I'm making a threat against you?
She said presidents should never take it off the table as a deterrant, back when she campaigned in 2007.
Trump was more threatening.

Saying that we need to strengthen our nuclear power is more threatening than saying that we shouldn't take it off the table as a deterrent? To me it sounds more or the same. Not only that but even if she didn't said that this election other have in the Obama administration. You should've heard the generals saying how we would beat Russia (while not directly saying) and all that nonsense.

Quote
Also, I'm not talking strictly about nukes for sabber rattling.

Then what are you talking about?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on December 30, 2016, 03:35:16 AM
i don't think the problem is that world leaders are gonna take all his tweets super literally all the time.  the problem is that it introduces a measure of unpredictability to our foreign policy.  that world leaders can't be sure whether he's signaling or not is one of the things that makes him so amateurish.  unpredictability and instability are typically bad for foreign affairs.

He'll do more saber rattling via twitter than any other world leader in history.  Knocking North Korea off it's stop spot.

Wasn't it was Hillary who said that the nuclear option isn't off the table? And saying we need more nukes isn't necessarily saber rattling against anyone. If I said that I feel that the pocket knife in my, well, pocket wasn't enough for my personal protection am I'm making a threat against you?

If your announcing your purchase publicly to your enemies, then sure it is threatening.
President Trump also said that to Britain and anyone with a twitter account or newsfeed. Your point? Suppose I said that I'm looking to by a gun for my protection on the Internet. At the same time my worse enemy saw that. By me making that statement am I purposely threatening my enemy?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 30, 2016, 06:16:30 AM
Saying that we need to strengthen our nuclear power is more threatening than saying that we shouldn't take it off the table as a deterrent? To me it sounds more or the same. Not only that but even if she didn't said that this election other have in the Obama administration. You should've heard the generals saying how we would beat Russia (while not directly saying) and all that nonsense.
Which do you think sounds more threatening:
I'm not going to take any options off the table, even the most dangerous I have.
or
I'm going to make myself even MORE dangerous now.

One is the status quo.  The other is escalation.  Which, as we all know from history, results in more escalation. 

Quote
Quote
Also, I'm not talking strictly about nukes for sabber rattling.

Then what are you talking about?
I'm simply saying that, given his track record, he'll likely make a lot of military threats.  Far more than North Korea makes.



President Trump also said that to Britain and anyone with a twitter account or newsfeed. Your point? Suppose I said that I'm looking to by a gun for my protection on the Internet. At the same time my worse enemy saw that. By me making that statement am I purposely threatening my enemy?
Yes.
You are taking one of two stances:
1. You don't have any guns and now you're gonna get one and it's likely because of your enemy.
2. You have a gun and you want MORE guns, also likely because of your enemy and anyone else who crosses you.  I mean, if you think you need MORE guns then clearly you have more than just self defense in mind, which has worked so well so far.  Especially if your enemy has not increased their armament.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on December 31, 2016, 05:34:44 AM
Saying that we need to strengthen our nuclear power is more threatening than saying that we shouldn't take it off the table as a deterrent? To me it sounds more or the same. Not only that but even if she didn't said that this election other have in the Obama administration. You should've heard the generals saying how we would beat Russia (while not directly saying) and all that nonsense.
Which do you think sounds more threatening:
I'm not going to take any options off the table, even the most dangerous I have.
or
I'm going to make myself even MORE dangerous now.

One is the status quo.  The other is escalation.  Which, as we all know from history, results in more escalation. 

Which as history shows it actually did us good. We aren't glowing because of MAD.
Quote
Quote
Quote
Also, I'm not talking strictly about nukes for sabber rattling.

Then what are you talking about?
I'm simply saying that, given his track record, he'll likely make a lot of military threats.  Far more than North Korea makes.

He really hasn't made any threats (militarily) so far.


Quote
President Trump also said that to Britain and anyone with a twitter account or newsfeed. Your point? Suppose I said that I'm looking to by a gun for my protection on the Internet. At the same time my worse enemy saw that. By me making that statement am I purposely threatening my enemy?
Yes.
You are taking one of two stances:
1. You don't have any guns and now you're gonna get one and it's likely because of your enemy.
2. You have a gun and you want MORE guns, also likely because of your enemy and anyone else who crosses you.  I mean, if you think you need MORE guns then clearly you have more than just self defense in mind, which has worked so well so far.  Especially if your enemy has not increased their armament.
And that's the problem, Russia did increase their armament. Besides, I could want a gun or more guns without ever considering my worse enemy.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on December 31, 2016, 06:40:35 AM
Which as history shows it actually did us good. We aren't glowing because of MAD.
Escalation has not done us good.  MAD isn't good either.  But it also means that escalation is pointless if all you're gonna do is not blow up someone anyway.  And we have more than enough nuclear weapons already.  Why would you need more?


Quote
He really hasn't made any threats (militarily) so far.
If you don't count "bomb the shit out of them" and "Go after their families" then sure.  But his track record of knee jerk, reactive statements tells me that he will.  He just hasn't had the need to yet.

Quote
And that's the problem, Russia did increase their armament. Besides, I could want a gun or more guns without ever considering my worse enemy.
True, doesn't mean we need to do the same.
Of course, I think Obama started it back in 2015.

Also:
The reasons you would want more guns are:
1. Because they're cool/I want to collect them.
2. Because I like shooting them.
3. Because I think I need them.

Lets apply that to Nuclear Weapons:
1. Because they're cool.  Not a great viewpoint nor any reason to have more than several thousand.
2. Because I like shooting them.  Kinda scary if the president likes to use nukes.
3. Because I think I need them.  Well... that's a problem, isn't it?


Of course, modernizing the system isn't a bad idea.  Mostly.  But why should we be trying to get MORE weapons of mass destruction?  Shouldn't we be trying to decrease them?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 01, 2017, 05:14:18 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/31/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-hacking.html?_r=0

Quote
“And I know a lot about hacking. And hacking is a very hard thing to prove. So it could be somebody else. And I also know things that other people don’t know, and so they cannot be sure of the situation.”
lol.

Quote
“It’s very important, if you have something really important, write it out and have it delivered by courier, the old-fashioned way, because I’ll tell you what, no computer is safe,” Hank Hill Mr. Trump said.
our next president.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 01, 2017, 05:22:18 PM
It's true.
A courier can't be hacked, taken over, or intercepted like a computer can.  It's the safest way to transmit data.  Trump is wise.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Parsifal on January 01, 2017, 05:38:43 PM
Trump is actually correct. This is why IT professionals working with cryptography will only ever use keys exchanged in person to encrypt messages. If you're sending an important message to someone you haven't already exchanged keys with, the safest way to deliver it is to avoid the use of computers at any point.

The reason is simple. The Internet, and even a single computer, is an immensely complex system that requires deep technical knowledge (to an extent that even the majority of computer scientists would not have it all) to understand entirely. On the other hand, a human courier carrying a handwritten note is a simple system that our brains have been used to coping with for millennia.

Regardless of what the chances are of the message being intercepted, it's far easier to know that it got intercepted with a courier. Knowing when your system has failed you is just as important as ensuring it doesn't.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 01, 2017, 06:46:55 PM
i definitely can't speak to the technical aspects, but i do think his statement makes some naive assumptions about the security of analog communication.  humans have been espionage-ing analog communication for way longer than we have digital, and we're good at it.

for another thing, though, neither the intelligence community, nor any other organization as large as the dnc, can anymore operate using analog communication.  there's just too much data, and a significant amount of that data can't very easily be communicated in writing.

if we're just talking about using analog messages to send the very most important messages, like cipher keys in your example, then what you're saying makes a ton of sense to me; but, my understanding is that the dnc hacks were allegedly done through phishing links/social engineering/whatever, and i dunno that couriers would solve that (except to the extent that a single courier isn't going to carry 30,000 emails, but then we're back to the practicality of it).  i feel like the solution is better training for the humans using the computers, not getting rid of the computers, so to speak.

i'm also mildly skeptical that detecting a compromised courier network is easier than detecting as compromised digital network.  not saying you're wrong, just that intuitively it's easy for me to imagine ways of compromising a person without leaving an identifiable trace or physical clue; i would think it's comparatively difficult to compromise a digital network without leaving a clue.  the computer side of that is literally just speculation on my part, but i think you're underestimating how good people are at spying on people.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on January 02, 2017, 02:20:23 AM
Which as history shows it actually did us good. We aren't glowing because of MAD.
Escalation has not done us good.  MAD isn't good either.  But it also means that escalation is pointless if all you're gonna do is not blow up someone anyway.  And we have more than enough nuclear weapons already.  Why would you need more?

We don't have enough nukes. Russia can not only neutralize our entire arsenal using conventional (in nuclear terms) methods but they have enough to counter strike.

Quote
Quote
He really hasn't made any threats (militarily) so far.
If you don't count "bomb the shit out of them" and "Go after their families" then sure.  But his track record of knee jerk, reactive statements tells me that he will.  He just hasn't had the need to yet.

I forgot about those but good thing us and Russia have a common enemy

Quote
Quote
And that's the problem, Russia did increase their armament. Besides, I could want a gun or more guns without ever considering my worse enemy.
True, doesn't mean we need to do the same.
Of course, I think Obama started it back in 2015.

Also:
The reasons you would want more guns are:
1. Because they're cool/I want to collect them.
2. Because I like shooting them.
3. Because I think I need them.

Lets apply that to Nuclear Weapons:
1. Because they're cool.  Not a great viewpoint nor any reason to have more than several thousand.
2. Because I like shooting them.  Kinda scary if the president likes to use nukes.
3. Because I think I need them.  Well... that's a problem, isn't it?

It depends on what you need them for. If its just for deterrence then I see no harm in getting more nukes. However if its for offensive use then I see a problem.

Quote
Of course, modernizing the system isn't a bad idea.  Mostly.  But why should we be trying to get MORE weapons of mass destruction?  Shouldn't we be trying to decrease them?

We should if they become obsolete to the new weapon on the horizon like a Death Star.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 04, 2017, 10:00:41 AM
We don't have enough nukes. Russia can not only neutralize our entire arsenal using conventional (in nuclear terms) methods but they have enough to counter strike.
An extra 700 warheads is really going to make that kind of difference?  We've got 7,300 warheads.  They have 8,000.  Why do we need more?  If both countries fired all their weapons at once, everyone would die.  It really wouldn't matter if Russia can neutralize and counter strike.  They wouldn't be able to neutralize our bases before WE counter strike, and thus M.A.D.

Quote
I forgot about those but good thing us and Russia have a common enemy
Russia's enemy is not the same as ours.... Crimea isn't our enemy but it is Russia's.


Quote
Quote
Of course, modernizing the system isn't a bad idea.  Mostly.  But why should we be trying to get MORE weapons of mass destruction?  Shouldn't we be trying to decrease them?

We should if they become obsolete to the new weapon on the horizon like a Death Star.
Sure but doesn't mean you need MORE, just an upgrade.  You can modernize without increasing your supply.  And if they're obsolete anyway, you should just decommission them, right?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 04, 2017, 10:11:12 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/03/us/politics/trump-russian-hacking.html?partner=msft_msn&_r=0

So... Trump said he's not revealing anything because the intelligence agency is delaying on briefing him about the hacking.

Said intelligence agency is politely asking WTF he's talking about as there was no meeting scheduled until Friday.


Oh and China's telling Trump to stop trolling N.Korea with tweets. 

Hey, how's that "No one takes tweets seriously" argument coming?  Cause it sure as hell looks like world leaders are taking shit tweeting as honest to god serious messages.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 04, 2017, 08:35:10 PM
Hey, how's that "No one takes tweets seriously" argument coming? 
Pretty well. Empty words in response to empty words is pretty much precisely the right response. What were you expecting?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 05, 2017, 06:46:59 AM
Hey, how's that "No one takes tweets seriously" argument coming? 
Pretty well. Empty words in response to empty words is pretty much precisely the right response. What were you expecting?


Why wouod you say China's official response is just empty words?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: DuckDodgers on January 05, 2017, 02:22:22 PM
http://www.newsweek.com/south-korea-appoints-twitter-officer-monitor-donald-trumps-tweets-538748
Looks like at least one country is taking his tweets seriously. 
"His 140-character posts are currented the most effective insight into policies of the incoming administration."
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Parsifal on January 05, 2017, 08:41:00 PM
i definitely can't speak to the technical aspects, but i do think his statement makes some naive assumptions about the security of analog communication.  humans have been espionage-ing analog communication for way longer than we have digital, and we're good at it.

"Analog communication" covers things like radio transmissions, which are indeed no better than the Internet for the transmission of sensitive information. But with a written message carried by a trusted, experienced courier, it's not that difficult to determine if it might have been intercepted. For instance, the message could be kept in a briefcase with tamper-evident locks.

for another thing, though, neither the intelligence community, nor any other organization as large as the dnc, can anymore operate using analog communication.  there's just too much data, and a significant amount of that data can't very easily be communicated in writing.

if we're just talking about using analog messages to send the very most important messages, like cipher keys in your example, then what you're saying makes a ton of sense to me; but, my understanding is that the dnc hacks were allegedly done through phishing links/social engineering/whatever, and i dunno that couriers would solve that (except to the extent that a single courier isn't going to carry 30,000 emails, but then we're back to the practicality of it).  i feel like the solution is better training for the humans using the computers, not getting rid of the computers, so to speak.

I'm going to assume that by "analog communication" you mean "written messages", which can't easily be classified as analog or digital (you could argue it either way, using the pattern of ink or individual letters as your base unit).

No, couriers would not solve social engineering directly, but that doesn't negate the fact that they do have security advantages over computer networks. Whether or not those advantages would have prevented the DNC hacks is of no consequence to the validity of Trump's comment.

i'm also mildly skeptical that detecting a compromised courier network is easier than detecting as compromised digital network.  not saying you're wrong, just that intuitively it's easy for me to imagine ways of compromising a person without leaving an identifiable trace or physical clue; i would think it's comparatively difficult to compromise a digital network without leaving a clue.  the computer side of that is literally just speculation on my part, but i think you're underestimating how good people are at spying on people.

The problem is that the Internet is actually composed of many networks (that's what the word "Internet" means; it's an abbreviation of "inter-network"). When you send a message using the Internet, you are not only trusting your own network and your recipient's network (which you should have a strong guarantee of security for), but also every network in between, typically involving multiple ISPs and long-distance carriers.

Furthermore, the Internet was not designed to be secure. It was designed in an age when its only users were large academic, research and government institutions with the funding to purchase expensive mainframe hardware. There were no malicious actors, and everyone could be trusted to do the right thing. All security mechanisms on the Internet were built on top of it years later, once commodity hardware became commonplace, but the base infrastructure is fundamentally insecure to this day.

For example, occasionally routing misconfiguration (http://bgpmon.net/massive-route-leak-cause-internet-slowdown/) at an ISP causes network traffic to traverse a different path than it would have ordinarily. This means that you cannot even trust that the same networks between you and your recipient are used for each message, or even each packet within a message. You cannot even trust that using the same IP address will deliver your message to the same host.

To use an analogy for courier transport, imagine you give your message to a courier for secure delivery to the Russian government. He leaves your secure government building and stops at a street corner and asks which way the Kremlin is. He then blindly follows in the direction pointed until he reaches the next street corner and asks for directions again. Eventually, he will come across someone and ask them for directions to the Kremlin, and they will reply: "This is the Kremlin, please give me your message." He hands it over and that's the end of it. That's how Internet routing works.

By contrast, a real courier would be able to recognise whether he has actually reached the Kremlin, or even whether he is in the right country. He would also be able to verify identity documents of the person he hands the message to as necessary. Most importantly, he would be able to provide a reasonably firm guarantee that nobody intercepted his message en route.

While it is possible to use end-to-end encryption to securely send messages using the Internet, that still requires a known trusted key for your communication partner, which requires some other method of communication beforehand. (I'm ignoring the X509 infrastructure commonly used to issue SSL certificates here, because they require you to trust a number of corporations in order to establish a trust chain, which is undesirable for important government messages.)
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 10, 2017, 04:57:51 PM
So, Trump has already asked Congress to pay for the Mexican wall.
Officially, it's to speed it along using already in place processes.  He then says he'll get Mexico to reimburse the US later.  So remember folks, Trump will buy a wall first then figure out if Mexico will pay for it later.

Congress has also instituted several new(or old) rules including the Holman rule, which was from 1876.  It allows the federal government to (among other things) cut funding to individual people in the employee of the federal government.  And I'm not just saying "We eliminated your department's funding" I'm saying "We can literally have your pay be $0 if we want to while everyone else in your department has full pay."  People bitch about Obama overreaching well, what does this say?  The GOP is solidifying their ability to control the entire government and that means, right now, they can bypass federal employment laws and remove any employee they want at any time for any reason in any department just by making an amendment to an appropriations bill.  Just imagine that, The president gets a list of people who are politically or ideologically against him and he sends that list to the house who then ensures that said person no longer has a paycheck. 
https://fcw.com/articles/2017/01/04/congress-holman-rule-feds.aspx

They have tried to gut the Ethics investigation but Trump stopped them (Go Trump!).

The house expressly forbids the Congressional Budget Office from reporting or tracking ANY costs related to the repeal of the ACA.  Cause, you know, that's not important, right?

Oh and the REINS act is gonna go through the House.  What's the REINS act?  Well, any regulation that is more than $100 million in economic impact (pretty much everything really) needs to be approved by Congress and the president before it can be enacted.  If it isn't in 70 days, it's discarded. 
Let that sink in: Congress, who usually doesn't know shit and complains government gets in the way, is using government to get in the way of departments who know better.  Like the FDA.  If they were to ban certain hand soap chemicals due to no data that it actually does anything helpful nor any decent testing that it's safe for long term use, Congress can just ignore it and suddenly its unbanned after 70 days and the FDA can't do anything about it ever again.
But I'm sure Congress and the president know better than the people that are hired to figure these things out.  Lawyers are experts at bio-medical science, right?
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/01/06/house-passes-reins-act-to-curb-job-crushing-regulations/

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 10, 2017, 05:05:56 PM
Just imagine that, The president gets a list of people who are politically or ideologically against him and he sends that list to the house who then ensures that said person no longer has a paycheck. 
https://fcw.com/articles/2017/01/04/congress-holman-rule-feds.aspx

Quite the imagination you have there.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 10, 2017, 05:27:25 PM
Just imagine that, The president gets a list of people who are politically or ideologically against him and he sends that list to the house who then ensures that said person no longer has a paycheck. 
https://fcw.com/articles/2017/01/04/congress-holman-rule-feds.aspx (https://fcw.com/articles/2017/01/04/congress-holman-rule-feds.aspx)

Quite the imagination you have there.
I know, right?
I mean, it's not like Trump asked for a list of people who oppose his views on climate change or energy....
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 10, 2017, 07:50:00 PM
Just imagine that, The president gets a list of people who are politically or ideologically against him and he sends that list to the house who then ensures that said person no longer has a paycheck. 
https://fcw.com/articles/2017/01/04/congress-holman-rule-feds.aspx (https://fcw.com/articles/2017/01/04/congress-holman-rule-feds.aspx)

Quite the imagination you have there.
I know, right?
I mean, it's not like Trump asked for a list of people who oppose his views on climate change or energy....

Trump rounding up dissidents is the left equivalent to "They're gonna take our guns"
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 10, 2017, 08:17:52 PM
Just imagine that, The president gets a list of people who are politically or ideologically against him and he sends that list to the house who then ensures that said person no longer has a paycheck. 
https://fcw.com/articles/2017/01/04/congress-holman-rule-feds.aspx (https://fcw.com/articles/2017/01/04/congress-holman-rule-feds.aspx)

Quite the imagination you have there.
I know, right?
I mean, it's not like Trump asked for a list of people who oppose his views on climate change or energy....

Trump rounding up dissidents is the left equivalent to "They're gonna take our guns"
With one big exception.
The 2nd amendment lets you keep your guns.
There is no amendment that can save jobs from political targeting.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 10, 2017, 09:22:45 PM
So remember folks, Trump will buy a wall first then figure out if Mexico will pay for it later.
But he's made it clear ages ago how they're gonna pay for it - through trade tariffs. What, in your opinion, is left for him to figure out?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 10, 2017, 09:37:38 PM
So remember folks, Trump will buy a wall first then figure out if Mexico will pay for it later.
But he's made it clear ages ago how they're gonna pay for it - through trade tariffs. What, in your opinion, is left for him to figure out?

A tariff does not make Mexico pay for the wall. It just raises prices on Mexican goods for consumers. The entire point was to avoid the cost of the wall being offloaded onto Americans. Not to mention that at the rate he'd have to raise tariffs, American consumers will probably just look to other sources for goods, eliminating tariffs as a source of income for the wall.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 10, 2017, 10:07:03 PM
A tariff does not make Mexico pay for the wall. It just raises prices on Mexican goods for consumers. The entire point was to avoid the cost of the wall being offloaded onto Americans. Not to mention that at the rate he'd have to raise tariffs, American consumers will probably just look to other sources for goods, eliminating tariffs as a source of income for the wall.
I'm not trying to argue that Trump is right (I'm not at all keen on the whole wall idea), merely that he already presented his plan, and that the plan never suggested they'd pay upfront.

For what it's worth, here's the plan in its entirety (https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Pay_for_the_Wall.pdf) (and we can verify that it's been around for months (https://web.archive.org/web/20161105151917/https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Pay_for_the_Wall.pdf). It consists of making Mexican products uncompetitive on the US market, plus some interesting attempts at extortion.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 10, 2017, 10:17:26 PM
A tariff does not make Mexico pay for the wall. It just raises prices on Mexican goods for consumers. The entire point was to avoid the cost of the wall being offloaded onto Americans. Not to mention that at the rate he'd have to raise tariffs, American consumers will probably just look to other sources for goods, eliminating tariffs as a source of income for the wall.
I'm not trying to argue that Trump is right (I'm not at all keen on the whole wall idea), merely that he already presented his plan, and that the plan never suggested they'd pay upfront.

For what it's worth, here's the plan in its entirety (https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Pay_for_the_Wall.pdf) (and we can verify that it's been around for months (https://web.archive.org/web/20161105151917/https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Pay_for_the_Wall.pdf). It consists of making Mexican products uncompetitive on the US market, plus some interesting attempts at extortion.

Quote
On day 3 tell Mexico that if the Mexican government will contribute the funds needed to the United States to pay for the wall, the Trump Administration will
not promulgate the final rule, and the regulation will not go into effect.


It certainly sounds like his plan was for Mexico to pay upfront. He said he would seek for the funds for the wall from Mexico on day 3, not at some indeterminate time in the future through indirect means.

Mexico paying for the wall was a nice campaign promise, but it will never happen.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 10, 2017, 10:56:51 PM
It certainly sounds like his plan was for Mexico to pay upfront. He said he would seek for the funds for the wall from Mexico on day 3, not at some indeterminate time in the future through indirect means.
Hm, fair enough, I concede that it can be interpreted that way. That part was missing from his speeches on the subject.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 10, 2017, 11:29:05 PM
So remember folks, Trump will buy a wall first then figure out if Mexico will pay for it later.
But he's made it clear ages ago how they're gonna pay for it - through trade tariffs. What, in your opinion, is left for him to figure out?

I'm ok with that but he didn't make it clear.
Also, NAFTA kinda makes that impossible, doesn't it?  He'd have to remove NAFTA first.

It's kind of a "Mexico will pay for it indirectly and only if I do this other step which may cause Mexico to not be able to pay for it anyway if they stop trading with us."  It's self defeating.  Worse yet, by damaging Mexico's economy, he'll only make drugs and illegal immigration more common as people turn to drug running and border hopping for a better life.  In essence, he'll cause the very things his wall is meant to protect.

And much like The Wall of Life in Pacific Rim... it'll take years to build and not work.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 10, 2017, 11:38:08 PM
Also, NAFTA kinda makes that impossible, doesn't it?  He'd have to remove NAFTA first.
Also part of his promises. Again, not saying that it's a good idea or a viable idea, but yeah.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 10, 2017, 11:59:14 PM
Also, NAFTA kinda makes that impossible, doesn't it?  He'd have to remove NAFTA first.
Also part of his promises. Again, not saying that it's a good idea or a viable idea, but yeah.
Yeah, I know.  The worst trade deal ever, second only to the TTP, of course.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 11, 2017, 03:40:22 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-cites-kremlin-statement-to-deny-reports-of-russia-ties-asks-if-we-are-living-in-nazi-germany/2017/01/11/a710f2b4-d777-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html?utm_term=.276477d4ff44 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-cites-kremlin-statement-to-deny-reports-of-russia-ties-asks-if-we-are-living-in-nazi-germany/2017/01/11/a710f2b4-d777-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html?utm_term=.276477d4ff44)

Summary:
Trump's proof that Russia doesn't have blackmail(or any link) material is that Russia says they don't have blackmail material.

Time is agreed.
http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/ (http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/)

Also, he invokes goodwin's law.


edit - Oh and his Secretary of State pick calls Russia an adversary and agrees that Russia is run by someone close to a dictator.  So very different from what Trump says. 
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 11, 2017, 04:11:29 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-cites-kremlin-statement-to-deny-reports-of-russia-ties-asks-if-we-are-living-in-nazi-germany/2017/01/11/a710f2b4-d777-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html?utm_term=.276477d4ff44 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-cites-kremlin-statement-to-deny-reports-of-russia-ties-asks-if-we-are-living-in-nazi-germany/2017/01/11/a710f2b4-d777-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html?utm_term=.276477d4ff44)

Summary:
Trump's proof that Russia doesn't have blackmail(or any link) material is that Russia says they don't have blackmail material.

Time is agreed.
http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/

Also, he invokes goodwin's law.
Sorry, slow down for a moment. Let's examine the original report he's disputing.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia

You are looking at a document, which, even by the admission of the very people who brought it to the general public, is both unverified and unverifiable. A document produced by an individual paid by Democrats, which is known to contain multiple factual errors.

But suddenly it's Trump's job to prove that these allegations are false.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 11, 2017, 04:34:50 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-cites-kremlin-statement-to-deny-reports-of-russia-ties-asks-if-we-are-living-in-nazi-germany/2017/01/11/a710f2b4-d777-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html?utm_term=.276477d4ff44 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-cites-kremlin-statement-to-deny-reports-of-russia-ties-asks-if-we-are-living-in-nazi-germany/2017/01/11/a710f2b4-d777-11e6-b8b2-cb5164beba6b_story.html?utm_term=.276477d4ff44)

Summary:
Trump's proof that Russia doesn't have blackmail(or any link) material is that Russia says they don't have blackmail material.

Time is agreed.
http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/ (http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/)

Also, he invokes goodwin's law.
Sorry, slow down for a moment. Let's examine the original report he's disputing.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia (https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia)

You are looking at a document, which, even by the admission of the very people who brought it to the general public, is both unverified and unverifiable. A document produced by an individual paid by Democrats, which is known to contain multiple factual errors.

But suddenly it's Trump's job to prove that these allegations are false.
Oh no.
I'm fully aware that it's not substantiated.  I'm making the point that his defense is "Russia said so" instead of something more definitive.

I'm watching his press conference and 2 people condemned it and then Trump came on and condemned it all within the first 10 minutes.



But in fairness, Trump spent years demanding Obama prove he was a citizen, even after Obama did.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 11, 2017, 04:42:41 PM
I'm making the point that his defense is "Russia said so" instead of something more definitive.
Explain to me: How would he dismiss these unverifiable claims, then?

Let's say I told you that Blanko has Parsifal's nudes and is just twitching to post them on FES. Blanko comes here and says "wtf, that's not true". Parsifal comes here and says "wtf, that's not true". What other defence can they put up? Surely it's down to me to prove my allegation?

But in fairness, Trump spent years demanding Obama prove he was a citizen, even after Obama did.
Yes, that was hilarious. Especially when in 2012 he reaaaaaally wanted to donate money to charity but Obama stopped him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgOq9pBkY0I&t=6s
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 11, 2017, 04:42:54 PM
Sorry, slow down for a moment. Let's examine the original report he's disputing.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia

You are looking at a document, which, even by the admission of the very people who brought it to the general public, is both unverified and unverifiable. A document produced by an individual paid by Democrats, which is known to contain multiple factual errors.

But suddenly it's Trump's job to prove that these allegations are false.

Buzzfeed needs to stick to the hard hitting stories that people care about, like 13 Potatoes That Look Like Channing Tatum (https://www.buzzfeed.com/lyapalater/potatoes-that-look-like-channing-tatum?utm_term=.vvglNe0qz#.hp2N8k76D)
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 11, 2017, 04:53:06 PM
I'm making the point that his defense is "Russia said so" instead of something more definitive.
Explain to me: How would he dismiss these unverifiable claims, then?

Let's say I told you that Blanko has Parsifal's nudes and is just twitching to post them on FES. Blanko comes here and says "wtf, that's not true". Parsifal comes here and says "wtf, that's not true". What other defence can they put up? Surely it's down to me to prove my allegation?
I'm not saying there IS a defense nor that it's his to defend, but in your example, if Parsifal said "That's not True!  Just trust Blanko, whose is very untrustworthy." it just sounds weird.  I mean, you can't point to the person who is accused of having the compromising material and say "Trust what they say."
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 11, 2017, 04:54:42 PM
I'm making the point that his defense is "Russia said so" instead of something more definitive.
Explain to me: How would he dismiss these unverifiable claims, then?

Let's say I told you that Blanko has Parsifal's nudes and is just twitching to post them on FES. Blanko comes here and says "wtf, that's not true". Parsifal comes here and says "wtf, that's not true". What other defence can they put up? Surely it's down to me to prove my allegation?
I'm not saying there IS a defense nor that it's his to defend, but in your example, if Parsifal said "That's not True!  Just trust Blanko, whose is very untrustworthy." it just sounds weird.  I mean, you can't point to the person who is accused of having the compromising material and say "Trust what they say."

Just give up. Stop. Please. Please make it stop.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 11, 2017, 04:55:08 PM
I guess, but because fake news rules America right now, he has to go up there and say something. It's probably difficult to come up with a good answer to a question which cannot be answered, especially under pressure.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 11, 2017, 05:08:06 PM
I guess, but because fake news rules America right now, he has to go up there and say something. It's probably difficult to come up with a good answer to a question which cannot be answered, especially under pressure.

Agreed.  But I think a simple "It's not true" is really kinda sufficient.  He really doesn't need to throw up poor arguments as defense.

But I'm watching his press conference and he has answered no questions.  He's doing his campaign stuff: talking about the topic but not answering the question.  His tax lawyer was the most informative part thus far. 
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 11, 2017, 05:16:19 PM
Plus side:
Trump has confirmed, Russia hacked the DNC.  Which is what Wikileaks said is false.
Title: Trump
Post by: junker on January 11, 2017, 05:20:05 PM
Let's say I told you that Blanko has Parsifal's nudes and is just twitching to post them on FES. Blanko comes here and says "wtf, that's not true". Parsifal comes here and says "wtf, that's not true". What other defence can they put up? Surely it's down to me to prove my allegation?


We both know it's a well-known fact that Blanko has Parsifal nudes...
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 11, 2017, 05:59:02 PM
Anyone else watch his press conference?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 11, 2017, 08:33:55 PM
It seems kind of ridiculous for Trump to claim that he has "NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA - NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!" (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/819159806489591809)

Like, what, are we expected to believe the Trump Organization had no dealings in Russia? No deals or loans that exist currently? This wasn't the case in 2008 at least:

Quote
Most notably, Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. made that very claim at a real estate conference in New York in 2008, saying “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.” Donald Trump Jr. added, “we see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”

and I very much doubt that in 8 years Russia went from a disproportionate source of money for the Trump organization to completely disassociated from it. It's not only a source of possible ethics violations, which could be avoided, but also further discredits his Tweets as being a good source of information, which isn't great when that's the primary way he talks to the American people.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 11, 2017, 09:20:52 PM
jesus christ what is it with people taking twitter seriously

It's fucking Twitter.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 11, 2017, 09:44:25 PM
jesus christ what is it with people taking twitter seriously

It's fucking Twitter.
Why does the medium matter?
Angry Ranting version:
Yes, it's fucking twitter.  But so what?  The god damn president elect of the USA thinks its the best god damn way to deliver his message without the media fucking it up.

Plus, plenty of god damn serious officials tweet.  Get your head out of your biased ass and realize that it's not the fucking medium of communication that sucks, it's the shit posting you read.

Wow, that's angry ranting right there.


Here's the more polite version:
Twitter is a viable and well established means of communication on a global scale.  Despite it's early usage of spamming and shitposting, many high ranking officials, celebrities, and organizations use twitter to spread competent, important, and informative messages, data, or articles.  While it is more often used by the common masses to post things of little to no social value, one can not discredit all messages in a medium simply because of the majority that use it.  Especially when that medium is reasonably unbiased in the content it allows to be posted by users.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 11, 2017, 09:52:14 PM
Angry Ranting version
bro join me: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5658.0

Twitter is a viable and well established means of communication on a global scale.  Despite it's early usage of spamming and shitposting, many high ranking officials, celebrities, and organizations use twitter to spread competent, important, and informative messages, data, or articles.
Taking Trump's Twitter ramblings as official statements from the campaign is nuts. He's trolling the shit out of everyone, and people giving it legitimacy means he can use it as a distraction tactic.

Especially when that medium is reasonably unbiased in the content it allows to be posted by users.
Oh Lord no, Twitter will ban you if you look at @jack funny. They're anything but unbiased.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 11, 2017, 09:54:43 PM
jesus christ what is it with people taking twitter seriously

It's fucking Twitter.

I mean he said the same thing during his press conference today,

Quote
I have no deals that could happen in Russia, because we’ve stayed away. And I have no loans with Russia.
and Twitter is the main way Trump communicates to the American people. He says it's a "modern form of communication" and that he can "get it out much faster than a press release." "I get it out much more honestly than dealing with dishonest reporters because so many reporters are dishonest."

And it's not unprecedented for the president to have an official twitter, either. I don't see why we have to ignore his tweets by virtue of them being tweets. They exist, and they should be assumed to reflect his views unless he says otherwise, despite them being embarrassing at times.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 11, 2017, 10:00:03 PM
I mean he said the same thing during his press conference today
That's not what I'm criticising you for. I'm attacking you over "[it] further discredits his Tweets as being a good source of information". His tweets never were, are not, and never will be a good source of information. Some idiots (probably CNN) decided to pretend that it is, and we're all paying the price.

and Twitter is the main way Trump communicates to the American people. He says it's a "modern form of communication" and that he can "get it out much faster than a press release." "I get it out much more honestly than dealing with dishonest reporters because so many reporters are dishonest."
Breaking news: professional troll wants readers to get trolled. We'll bring more of this story to you as it develops here at No Shit Sherlock.

And it's not unprecedented for the president to have an official twitter, either.
That's great.

I don't see why we have to ignore his tweets by virtue of them being tweets.
We don't, but taking Twitter seriously by default means you're deliberately misinforming yourself. Kind of like taking infowars.com seriously. In the 21st century, you really need to develop an ability to tell apart good sources of information from bad. Trump's shitposts fall into the latter category.

They exist, and they should be assumed to reflect his views unless he says otherwise, despite them being embarrassing at times.
Why? Many people who post here (or on Twitter, the same concept applies) don't believe half the shit they say. Why would you assume that they do?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 11, 2017, 10:30:38 PM
Why would I assume that the president-elect of the United States means what he says he means on his main platform of communication? A legitimate platform of communication, despite this weird insistence that it's nothing but trolls?

But whatever, I don't want to get caught up on Twitter. The point is Trump is denying having anything to do with Russia currently.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 11, 2017, 10:55:12 PM
Angry Ranting version
bro join me: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5658.0 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5658.0)

Twitter is a viable and well established means of communication on a global scale.  Despite it's early usage of spamming and shitposting, many high ranking officials, celebrities, and organizations use twitter to spread competent, important, and informative messages, data, or articles.
Taking Trump's Twitter ramblings as official statements from the campaign is nuts. He's trolling the shit out of everyone, and people giving it legitimacy means he can use it as a distraction tactic.
It's nuts until you realize he's telling people that they are official statements.
Maybe he is trolling us all but if he is, then how can you take anything he says seriously?  And if you can't take what the president of the USA says seriously, then how can anyone react to his messages?  We MUST assume everything he says is purely serious and not trolling, because otherwise we risk ignoring something he says he'll do, then does. 

Look, if you can't trust what the President of the United States says as being his accurate views, then what's the point of having him?  And from what we've seen, ignoring him just pisses him off.  Just like any other troll.  And again, a pissed off president can do shit a normal internet troll can't, like crash the stock market, have people killed, and go to war.

Quote
Especially when that medium is reasonably unbiased in the content it allows to be posted by users.
Oh Lord no, Twitter will ban you if you look at @jack funny. They're anything but unbiased.
Reasonably unbaised.  I know not what @jack funny is but generally speaking they let you type out any viewpoint you want without deleting tweets cause it's against the viewpoint of someone.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 11, 2017, 11:29:54 PM
SexWarrior, even if one were to perceive Trump's twitter as pure shitposting with zero basis in truth, isn't it kind of bad that the President-Elect regularly shitposts, especially about political issues? I don't want a shitposter for president. If, once in office, he got an official POTUS twitter and tweeted serious stuff from there and continued to shitpost on his own account, I wouldn't be that worried. But right now, yeah, they're at least a little bit worrisome.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 12, 2017, 01:20:00 AM
SexWarrior's argument of "lol it's Twitter, don't take it seriously" fails on several points.

1. Twitter, like any sort of medium, can be used both for shitposting and for serious communication. The White House uses Twitter seriously, and Trump can too.

2. Say some of what Trump posts is shitposting nonsense, which yea, it probably is. But by his own admission, he also uses Twitter for serious communication to supporters and the public alike, so it is best to assume what he says there is serious unless shown otherwise precisely because he is the president. If he says something serious, and we assume its shitposting, he has power other trolls do not to enact his intentions on a global scale.

3. Say everything on Trump's twitter feed is shitposting nonsense. Even if everything there is 100% bullcrap, he is still posting it for a reason, yes? I can't believe SexWarrior would be naïve enough to think Trump is posting "for the lulz". It is pretty obvious that he tweets to control media narratives or misdirect attention away from other things, and as such it is important to pay attention to his tweets even when they are shitposts.

4. And finally, let's say everything Trump posts is inane shitposts for literally no reason. You still shouldn't ignore it, because he's the goddamn president, and his words have consequences on the global stage. Trump tweets about Boeing building Air Force One, and Boeing's stock falls $2 per share. And that's not even the most effective thing he could do. Trump's twitter feed literally has the power to cause a diplomatic incident. Other trolls do not have this power. So it is still important to pay attention to what he tweets.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Parsifal on January 12, 2017, 02:27:07 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6RHIhn_T6w

Trump shuts down CNN at a press conference, and it is glorious.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 12, 2017, 02:46:26 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZI0Q3LQZmo

^^^ If anyone wants to see what happened without narration from a lunatic like Mark Dice.

3. Say everything on Trump's twitter feed is shitposting nonsense. Even if everything there is 100% bullcrap, he is still posting it for a reason, yes? I can't believe SexWarrior would be naïve enough to think Trump is posting "for the lulz". It is pretty obvious that he tweets to control media narratives or misdirect attention away from other things, and as such it is important to pay attention to his tweets even when they are shitposts.

4. And finally, let's say everything Trump posts is inane shitposts for literally no reason. You still shouldn't ignore it, because he's the goddamn president, and his words have consequences on the global stage. Trump tweets about Boeing building Air Force One, and Boeing's stock falls $2 per share. And that's not even the most effective thing he could do. Trump's twitter feed literally has the power to cause a diplomatic incident. Other trolls do not have this power. So it is still important to pay attention to what he tweets.

That sounds like all the more reason why Trump's shitposting on Twitter should be ignored.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 12, 2017, 02:52:32 AM
isn't it kind of bad that the President-Elect regularly shitposts, especially about political issues? I don't want a shitposter for president.
To be perfectly honest with you, I can't answer that question impartially. Personally, I hugely enjoy shitposting. I enjoy it so much that I've incorporated it in my professional life. Those who know me professionally know that I'm perfectly capable to start shit for the sake of starting shit. They tolerate me because my competence otherwise massively outweighs the inconvenience. As such, I have a clear bias for Trump. I find it amusing that Trump is trolling people.

Is it bad? Tbh from my perspective it's a personality trait like any other. Some people are always serious, others aren't. Nobody held it against Reagan when he made jokes about the Soviet Union. I think it's more an issue of some people failing to keep up with the times than an issue of Trump being a decent troll. But I'm completely ready to admit that personal bias might be blinding me in this case.

If, once in office, he got an official POTUS twitter and tweeted serious stuff from there and continued to shitpost on his own account, I wouldn't be that worried. But right now, yeah, they're at least a little bit worrisome.
I more or less agree. If he trolls people from an official account, that's bad. If he chooses to troll people from a personal account, honestly I'd be a hypocrite if I held it against him.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 12, 2017, 03:03:36 AM
3. Say everything on Trump's twitter feed is shitposting nonsense. Even if everything there is 100% bullcrap, he is still posting it for a reason, yes? I can't believe SexWarrior would be naïve enough to think Trump is posting "for the lulz". It is pretty obvious that he tweets to control media narratives or misdirect attention away from other things, and as such it is important to pay attention to his tweets even when they are shitposts.

4. And finally, let's say everything Trump posts is inane shitposts for literally no reason. You still shouldn't ignore it, because he's the goddamn president, and his words have consequences on the global stage. Trump tweets about Boeing building Air Force One, and Boeing's stock falls $2 per share. And that's not even the most effective thing he could do. Trump's twitter feed literally has the power to cause a diplomatic incident. Other trolls do not have this power. So it is still important to pay attention to what he tweets.

That sounds like all the more reason why Trump's shitposting on Twitter should be ignored.

That'd work if you could convince everyone to ignore his twitter, but you can't, so I'd rather know why Trump is shitposting and what effects it will have than try to ignore the most powerful person on the planet.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 12, 2017, 12:01:56 PM
I can't believe SexWarrior would be naïve enough to think Trump is posting "for the lulz". It is pretty obvious that he tweets to control media narratives or misdirect attention away from other things, and as such it is important to pay attention to his tweets even when they are shitposts.
Well, you'd be right, given that I explicitly stated this:

Taking Trump's Twitter ramblings as official statements from the campaign is nuts. He's trolling the shit out of everyone, and people giving it legitimacy means he can use it as a distraction tactic.

Trekky, you're not responding to what I'm saying. You've built a strawman around the idea of "people shouldn't take @realdonaldtrump seriously" and filled in the gaps in your understanding of my position with your own imagination. That's no way to reach a constructive dialogue. If you want to dismantle my position, you have to read it first, and if there are things I haven't sufficiently clarified, please ask.

Twitter, like any sort of medium, can be used both for shitposting and for serious communication. The White House uses Twitter seriously, and Trump can too.
He can, but he isn't. Breitbart and BuzzFeed can engage in ethical journalism, but they don't. Fox News can give due credibility to both sides of the political discourse, but they don't. How a medium can be used doesn't necessarily translate into how a medium is used.

Say some of what Trump posts is shitposting nonsense, which yea, it probably is. But by his own admission, he also uses Twitter for serious communication to supporters and the public alike, so it is best to assume what he says there is serious unless shown otherwise precisely because he is the president. If he says something serious, and we assume its shitposting, he has power other trolls do not to enact his intentions on a global scale.
Does he? Unless he pulls an Obama and starts issuing executive orders left and right, I don't see how he does. Trump is not Congress.

Also, you underestimate the power of a well-fed troll.

he's the goddamn president, and his words have consequences on the global stage.
Yeah, thanks, MSM. Here's hoping we can fix that mess, with or without you.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 12, 2017, 04:01:19 PM
Anyone else watch his press conference?

Yes, I love when he bashed Buzzfeed and called CNN fake news to uproarious applause
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 12, 2017, 04:24:22 PM
Anyone else watch his press conference?

Yes, I love when he bashed Buzzfeed and called CNN fake news to uproarious applause
I don't recall there being uproarious applause.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 12, 2017, 04:57:11 PM
Anyone else watch his press conference?

Yes, I love when he bashed Buzzfeed and called CNN fake news to uproarious applause
I don't recall there being uproarious applause.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHol4--tC3s

Your hatred for the man must have over ridden your sense of hearing

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 12, 2017, 05:10:40 PM
There was applause, from the Trump staffers in the back of the room (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-press-conference-paid-staffers-media-233496). You can see in the video that it's definitely not the other journalists cheering him on. I would say that Trump doesn't understand the difference between a rally and a press conference, but it's more likely that he just doesn't care.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 12, 2017, 05:17:08 PM
There was applause, from the Trump staffers in the back of the room (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-press-conference-paid-staffers-media-233496).  You can see in the video that it's definitely not the other journalists cheering him on.  I would say that Trump doesn't understand the difference between a rally and a press conference, but it's more likely that he just doesn't care.

Oh, you were there?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 12, 2017, 05:46:48 PM
Your hatred for the man must have over ridden your sense of hearing
Or, you know, I don't remember it. 
Dumbass.

But I would certainly not consider 3 seconds of clapping to be uproarious. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZI0Q3LQZmo

That clip, showing the reporter in question surrounded by other reporters, doesn't show any one in the audience clapping.  So it's likely that politico article (which you seem to be ignoring) is accurate.

But hey, you were there right?  So you saw it?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 12, 2017, 06:06:03 PM
(http://redpanels.com/comics/4chan-pol-comic.png) (http://redpanels.com/339/)
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Dionysios on January 12, 2017, 07:21:32 PM
a suggestion for the inauguration festivities:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmYIo7bcUw
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on January 13, 2017, 01:08:21 PM
SexWarrior, I think you're giving him too much credit in assuming he's shitposting. He doesn't talk to the press very much which makes it hard for the American people to really know what's going on. He relies on tweeting and if it's nothing but shitposting then what the fuck. He needs to talk to the press more in that case. But, what he does say to the press mirrors his attitude and words on his Twitter account.

You said you proved your competence which is why people are fine with your shitposting in a professional setting. Trump has not proven his competence and so I would argue doesn't have much ground to stand on for shitposting.

But, HYPOTHETICALLY (play along with me here) - if he were not shitposting, would you say his tweets inspire confidence?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Parsifal on January 13, 2017, 01:13:05 PM
Trump has not proven his competence

Really? You don't think saving thousands of American jobs before he's even inaugurated demonstrates competence?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 13, 2017, 01:30:17 PM
But, HYPOTHETICALLY (play along with me here) - if he were not shitposting, would you say his tweets inspire confidence?
I would still suggest that they should be in a different category from, say, press conferences. I think people should be allowed to say one thing on a personal profile and another thing officially in a political position. I don't think there's a single politician in the world whose policy platform wholly matches their personal views. As long as their actions are in line with the official promises, I reckon that's fine. There are multiple caveats and catches to be explored there, but I'll leave it at that for now for the sake of brevity.

Anyway, if he were not shitposting, and if we accepted that his statements should be taken as somewhat official, then no, they don't inspire confidence. They read like disjointed, unedited thoughts of a very emotional person, which is not what I'd like to see from a president.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 13, 2017, 01:36:07 PM
Trump has not proven his competence

Really? You don't think saving thousands of American jobs before he's even inaugurated demonstrates competence?

He only saved about 800 and why would that demonstrate competence to run a country of 300MM people?  Job creation/retention is only one portion of the job.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 13, 2017, 02:03:24 PM
Trump has not proven his competence

Really? You don't think saving thousands of American jobs before he's even inaugurated demonstrates competence?

He only saved about 800 and why would that demonstrate competence to run a country of 300MM people?  Job creation/retention is only one portion of the job.
Actually he saved 0.
Mike Pence saved those jobs via tax breaks to the company in question.  This, by the way, is something he could have done at any point in his governorship.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 13, 2017, 03:00:12 PM
Trump has not proven his competence

Really? You don't think saving thousands of American jobs before he's even inaugurated demonstrates competence?

He only saved about 800 and why would that demonstrate competence to run a country of 300MM people?  Job creation/retention is only one portion of the job.
Actually he saved 0.
Mike Pence saved those jobs via tax breaks to the company in question.  This, by the way, is something he could have done at any point in his governorship.

This is the reason to credit Trump. It was the policy and rhetoric of Trump that gave the deal traction.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on January 13, 2017, 03:42:07 PM
I wouldn't be so hasty to say he saved thousands of jobs (it was 800 like Rama said).

"Most of that money will be invested in automation said to Greg Hayes, CEO of United Technologies, Carrier's corporate parent. And that automation will replace some of the jobs that were just saved."

Even if jobs stay from being outsourced, automation is happening and will inevitably result in massive job loss across the country.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 13, 2017, 03:58:33 PM
Trump has not proven his competence

Really? You don't think saving thousands of American jobs before he's even inaugurated demonstrates competence?

He only saved about 800 and why would that demonstrate competence to run a country of 300MM people?  Job creation/retention is only one portion of the job.
Actually he saved 0.
Mike Pence saved those jobs via tax breaks to the company in question.  This, by the way, is something he could have done at any point in his governorship.

This is the reason to credit Trump. It was the policy and rhetoric of Trump that gave the deal traction.
No, it was Mike Pence telling his state assebly: do this.  Trump wanted it, sure, but he didn't even save all the jobs anyway.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 13, 2017, 06:06:20 PM
lol but didn't trump just say that there are 96 million people currently looking for work?  who gives a shit about 800 jobs?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 13, 2017, 07:17:07 PM
https://twitter.com/foxandfriends/status/819516602764791808

http://gizmodo.com/rudy-giuliani-is-forming-a-cybersecurity-team-for-trump-1791109633

http://gizmodo.com/the-website-of-donald-trumps-top-cyber-security-advisor-1791145791

The security company's website is currently down. 
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: junker on January 13, 2017, 08:56:44 PM
https://twitter.com/foxandfriends/status/819516602764791808

http://gizmodo.com/rudy-giuliani-is-forming-a-cybersecurity-team-for-trump-1791109633

http://gizmodo.com/the-website-of-donald-trumps-top-cyber-security-advisor-1791145791

The security company's website is currently down.

From what I've read the story is a bit misleading. It's allegedly more of a consolation for Giuliani since Trump didn't want him as a cabinet pick.

Also, at least as of earlier this morning, whoever runs DNS for that site's domain removed the A record and it was still accessible via IP. Not sure what they hoped to accomplish, but if they were going to try security through obscurity then that is quite laughable.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 14, 2017, 08:15:29 PM
https://twitter.com/foxandfriends/status/819516602764791808 (https://twitter.com/foxandfriends/status/819516602764791808)

http://gizmodo.com/rudy-giuliani-is-forming-a-cybersecurity-team-for-trump-1791109633 (http://gizmodo.com/rudy-giuliani-is-forming-a-cybersecurity-team-for-trump-1791109633)

http://gizmodo.com/the-website-of-donald-trumps-top-cyber-security-advisor-1791145791 (http://gizmodo.com/the-website-of-donald-trumps-top-cyber-security-advisor-1791145791)

The security company's website is currently down.

From what I've read the story is a bit misleading. It's allegedly more of a consolation for Giuliani since Trump didn't want him as a cabinet pick.

Also, at least as of earlier this morning, whoever runs DNS for that site's domain removed the A record and it was still accessible via IP. Not sure what they hoped to accomplish, but if they were going to try security through obscurity then that is quite laughable.
Still, it's obvious Trump is giving positions of power or government money to people who helped him in his campaign.  I mean, he appointed Ben Carson to Housing and Development.  There are people far better qualified for that post yet Trump picked someone who dropped out and supported him.

Coincidence?

Probably as much as this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/business/media/cspan-russia-today.html?_r=0
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 14, 2017, 08:19:23 PM
Meanwhile, the absolute champs at Occupy Democrats are as charming as ever.

(https://i.imgur.com/tDqpLQC.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/SY13oj2.jpg)
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 14, 2017, 09:04:40 PM
In other news, Occupy Democrats support Democrats and not Republicans; are hypocritical.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 14, 2017, 09:40:41 PM
https://twitter.com/foxandfriends/status/819516602764791808 (https://twitter.com/foxandfriends/status/819516602764791808)

http://gizmodo.com/rudy-giuliani-is-forming-a-cybersecurity-team-for-trump-1791109633 (http://gizmodo.com/rudy-giuliani-is-forming-a-cybersecurity-team-for-trump-1791109633)

http://gizmodo.com/the-website-of-donald-trumps-top-cyber-security-advisor-1791145791 (http://gizmodo.com/the-website-of-donald-trumps-top-cyber-security-advisor-1791145791)

The security company's website is currently down.

From what I've read the story is a bit misleading. It's allegedly more of a consolation for Giuliani since Trump didn't want him as a cabinet pick.

Also, at least as of earlier this morning, whoever runs DNS for that site's domain removed the A record and it was still accessible via IP. Not sure what they hoped to accomplish, but if they were going to try security through obscurity then that is quite laughable.
Still, it's obvious Trump is giving positions of power or government money to people who helped him in his campaign.  I mean, he appointed Ben Carson to Housing and Development.  There are people far better qualified for that post yet Trump picked someone who dropped out and supported him.

Coincidence?

Probably as much as this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/business/media/cspan-russia-today.html?_r=0

You make it sound like favoritism  is not common in cabinet appointments.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 14, 2017, 09:51:07 PM
In other news, Occupy Democrats support Democrats and not Republicans; are hypocritical.
It's not hypocrisy, since they most likely sincerely believe their 2015 statement; it's a complete lack of self-awareness.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 15, 2017, 06:00:49 AM
https://twitter.com/foxandfriends/status/819516602764791808 (https://twitter.com/foxandfriends/status/819516602764791808)

http://gizmodo.com/rudy-giuliani-is-forming-a-cybersecurity-team-for-trump-1791109633 (http://gizmodo.com/rudy-giuliani-is-forming-a-cybersecurity-team-for-trump-1791109633)

http://gizmodo.com/the-website-of-donald-trumps-top-cyber-security-advisor-1791145791 (http://gizmodo.com/the-website-of-donald-trumps-top-cyber-security-advisor-1791145791)

The security company's website is currently down.

From what I've read the story is a bit misleading. It's allegedly more of a consolation for Giuliani since Trump didn't want him as a cabinet pick.

Also, at least as of earlier this morning, whoever runs DNS for that site's domain removed the A record and it was still accessible via IP. Not sure what they hoped to accomplish, but if they were going to try security through obscurity then that is quite laughable.
Still, it's obvious Trump is giving positions of power or government money to people who helped him in his campaign.  I mean, he appointed Ben Carson to Housing and Development.  There are people far better qualified for that post yet Trump picked someone who dropped out and supported him.

Coincidence?

Probably as much as this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/business/media/cspan-russia-today.html?_r=0 (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/business/media/cspan-russia-today.html?_r=0)

You make it sound like favoritism  is not common in cabinet appointments.
No idea.  I'd have to look back at past administrations.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Hollocron on January 15, 2017, 06:47:50 PM
Memes aside, we're in for a shit show aren't we? I just wish the anti-establishment candidate could have been someone less narcissistic.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 15, 2017, 07:00:45 PM
Memes aside, we're in for a shit show aren't we? I just wish the anti-establishment candidate could have been someone less narcissistic.


Or at least politically savvy.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 15, 2017, 11:08:24 PM
Memes aside, we're in for a shit show aren't we?
pro-establishment shill detected!!!!!
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 16, 2017, 06:40:25 PM
http://deadstate.org/i-no-longer-have-to-be-politically-correct-gop-politician-arrested-after-grabbing-a-woman-in-her-genital-area/

wow looky golly gee it's almost like words have real-life impacts no matter how much you excuse them as being joking/non-serious

Trump is making creeps and bigots feel like it's okay to act on their creepiness and bigotry in public now. I mean, I guess that's not really news at this point, but it's still frustrating and disappointing as fuck.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 16, 2017, 07:21:43 PM
http://deadstate.org/i-no-longer-have-to-be-politically-correct-gop-politician-arrested-after-grabbing-a-woman-in-her-genital-area/ (http://deadstate.org/i-no-longer-have-to-be-politically-correct-gop-politician-arrested-after-grabbing-a-woman-in-her-genital-area/)

wow looky golly gee it's almost like words have real-life impacts no matter how much you excuse them as being joking/non-serious

Trump is making creeps and bigots feel like it's okay to act on their creepiness and bigotry in public now. I mean, I guess that's not really news at this point, but it's still frustrating and disappointing as fuck.

That made me laugh cause his lawyer was actually trying to play it off as a joke.

"Yeah, sure, he reached up and grabbed her by the pussy but it was just a joke."

Now, however, I want to cry since he's right: this is a new world and you don't have to be politically correct anymore.  You CAN grab them by the pussy and a near majority of people in America will support you.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 16, 2017, 08:51:10 PM
Grabbing someone by the pussy without consent is not "politically incorrect", it is sexual assault. To use political correctness to justify your criminal behavior is pathetic.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 16, 2017, 09:18:40 PM
Grabbing someone by the pussy without consent is not "politically incorrect", it is sexual assault. To use political correctness to justify your criminal behavior is pathetic.
Depends on who you ask.
To some, politically correct means having to restrain your words and actions to keep from offending/assaulting others who disagree with you.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on January 16, 2017, 10:24:44 PM
I still don't see how that would classify as political incorrect. It's against the law, it doesn't matter if you agree/disagree.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 16, 2017, 11:10:14 PM
Grabbing someone by the pussy without consent is not "politically incorrect", it is sexual assault. To use political correctness to justify your criminal behavior is pathetic.
Depends on who you ask.
To some, politically correct means having to restrain your words and actions to keep from offending/assaulting others who disagree with you.

Offending sure. Assault is illegal. Restraining yourself from assaulting people is being civil, not politically correct.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 17, 2017, 07:07:18 AM
I still don't see how that would classify as political incorrect. It's against the law, it doesn't matter if you agree/disagree.


Grabbing someone by the pussy without consent is not "politically incorrect", it is sexual assault. To use political correctness to justify your criminal behavior is pathetic.
Depends on who you ask.
To some, politically correct means having to restrain your words and actions to keep from offending/assaulting others who disagree with you.

Offending sure. Assault is illegal. Restraining yourself from assaulting people is being civil, not politically correct.




I'm not disagreeing with either of you, but clearly some people think that IS what politically correct means and what was done was not assault.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Parsifal on January 17, 2017, 08:50:11 AM
You CAN grab them by the pussy and a near majority of people in America will support you.

What makes you say that?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 17, 2017, 09:43:18 AM
wow looky golly gee it's almost like words have real-life impacts no matter how much you excuse them as being joking/non-serious
Fake news story aside (the article heavily messes with the chronology and causality of events compared to the actual allegations made against the guy), what makes you think that Trump can be blamed for the actions of a man who's both older than Trump and who was known to "misbehave" before?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 17, 2017, 12:03:29 PM
Fake news story aside (the article heavily messes with the chronology and causality of events compared to the actual allegations made against the guy)

The chronology and causality seems pretty clear to me.

Quote
In December of 2016, Keyserling engaged in a “political argument” with a woman and allegedly declared, “I love this new world. I no longer have to be politically correct.”

Quote
She told him that if he was "proud of that I can't help you," after which he called her a lazy, bloodsucking union employee, the warrant said.

She uttered "(expletive deleted) you" and walked into her office, the warrant said. She said he followed her into the office and said he wanted to talk with her co-worker, the warrant said.

When that co-worker walked in, she said she didn't have time to speak with him and left the office, the warrant said. The 57-year-old woman decided to leave with her co-worker because she didn't want to be alone with him, the warrant said.

Quote
As the woman turned to walk away, Keyserling reportedly reach from behind and placed his hand between her legs and pinched on or near her genital area.

Quote
Greenwich Representative Town Meeting board member Christopher von Keyserling was charged with fourth-degree sexual assault and was released on $2,500 bond. He’s due to appear in court on January 25.

And the kicker:

Quote
Police said video footage from a surveillance camera on the day of the incident is consistent with the sequence of events described by the complainant.

And here's the original local news story from Westport, Connecticut: http://westport.dailyvoice.com/police-fire/cops-greenwich-republican-insulted-town-worker-then-pinched-her-groin/696124/

Here's another one from Greenwich, Connecticut: http://www.greenwichtime.com/policereports/article/Von-Keyserling-RTM-member-arrested-on-criminal-10852811.php

Can you tell us why you jumped to the conclusion this was a fake news story? What issues do you have with the chronology or causality?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 17, 2017, 12:16:37 PM
You CAN grab them by the pussy and a near majority of people in America will support you.

What makes you say that?

Because Trump did grab women by the pussy (or at least claimed to in one setting) and a near majority of people in America does support him.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 17, 2017, 12:22:47 PM
Can you tell us why you jumped to the conclusion this was a fake news story? What issues do you have with the chronology or causality?
Yeah, the original version of the article clashes with all other reports, e.g.: http://www.snopes.com/2017/01/16/greenwich-town-council-member-arrested-after-political-argument/ so I "jumped to the conclusion" that local news sources are probably closer to the truth than "Dead State".

Even now that the Daily Voice quote was added, the paragraph just above it still illustrates the inconsistency.

And the kicker:

Quote
Police said video footage from a surveillance camera on the day of the incident is consistent with the sequence of events described by the complainant.
Yes, the complainant is almost certainly correct (I'll wait for the trial before dropping the "almost"). I'm not sure why you thought why that was "the kicker" in responding to me.

You've demonstrated no justification for spinning the story to be something else than what it is. An old pervy guy with a history of misdemeanour did a very shitty thing and got arrested for it. That's a good thing, and hardly breaking news until Occupy Democrats got on the case.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 17, 2017, 01:14:16 PM
Yeah, the original version of the article clashes with all other reports, e.g.: http://www.snopes.com/2017/01/16/greenwich-town-council-member-arrested-after-political-argument/ so I "jumped to the conclusion" that local news sources are probably closer to the truth than "Dead State".

Even now that the Daily Voice quote was added, the paragraph just above it still illustrates the inconsistency.

The quote has been there at least since Mollete posted the story here yesterday at 2 pm ET. (https://web.archive.org/web/20170116162212/http://deadstate.org/i-no-longer-have-to-be-politically-correct-gop-politician-arrested-after-grabbing-a-woman-in-her-genital-area/) (My mistake, 4:22 pm is the earliest Wayback Machine has it.) As far as I can tell, no quote was "added".

And I still can't tell what you are referring to that is inconsistent.

You've demonstrated no justification for spinning the story to be something else than what it is. An old pervy guy with a history of misdemeanour did a very shitty thing and got arrested for it.

Which is what Dead State reported as well. So I'm still confused as to which part is "fake news," like you said. It sounds like you're disagreeing with Mollete's post, not the article.

That's a good thing, and hardly breaking news until Occupy Democrats got on the case.

I honestly don't know who Occupy Democrats is or how they are related to this story.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 17, 2017, 01:20:02 PM
You CAN grab them by the pussy and a near majority of people in America will support you.

What makes you say that?

While Mollete is correct, it's more along this line:
"I love this new world, I no longer have to be politically correct."
Which followed shortly after by a sexual grab. 

But, given what was said and his previous history, I'm going to retract my statement.  If the man was a perv to begin with, then his comments have no actual linkage to his actions aside from him making a point to the woman in question. 

I will still stand by my assertion that this man, even if convicted, could still successfully run for and win office.  He just needs to say the right things to do it.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 17, 2017, 01:52:42 PM
I guess it was wrong of me to directly link this guy's pervy behavior to Trump given that he has always been pervy, but he did pretty clearly insinuate "The president-elect is politically incorrect a perv, which means that my political incorrectness perviness is no longer an issue."

(Obviously it is still an issue since he did get arrested, but the thought process is still quite troubling.)
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 17, 2017, 02:45:07 PM
The quote has been there at least since Mollete posted the story here yesterday at 2 pm ET. (https://web.archive.org/web/20170116162212/http://deadstate.org/i-no-longer-have-to-be-politically-correct-gop-politician-arrested-after-grabbing-a-woman-in-her-genital-area/) (My mistake, 4:22 pm is the earliest Wayback Machine has it.) As far as I can tell, no quote was "added".
Yeah, I read the article before that. I've read it on the 15th of January. I guess I should have double-checked that it hadn't been edited before slamming it, so my bad on that.

And I still can't tell what you are referring to that is inconsistent.
Have you tried reading the paragraph I pointed you to?

It sounds like you're disagreeing with Mollete's post, not the article.
No, I'm disagreeing with the article as it originally stood.

I honestly don't know who Occupy Democrats is or how they are related to this story.
Yes, because you're not reading people's arguments before responding to them. If you looked at the Snopes article I've provided, you'd know Occupy Democrats' involvement.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 17, 2017, 02:56:53 PM
Are you referring to this part?

Quote
As the woman turned to walk away, Keyserling reportedly reach from behind and placed his hand between her legs and pinched on or near her genital area.

Because that's what was reported in the Daily Voice, which the article gets its information from. It only differs from the Greenwich Time in saying groin rather than behind, but it is the Greenwich Time that is wrong on that count, according to the Snopes article you linked.

Is that what is making you call it "fake news"? Because if so, I don't think you know what the term means.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 17, 2017, 04:03:59 PM
The quote has been there at least since Mollete posted the story here yesterday at 2 pm ET. (https://web.archive.org/web/20170116162212/http://deadstate.org/i-no-longer-have-to-be-politically-correct-gop-politician-arrested-after-grabbing-a-woman-in-her-genital-area/) (My mistake, 4:22 pm is the earliest Wayback Machine has it.) As far as I can tell, no quote was "added".
Yeah, I read the article before that. I've read it on the 15th of January. I guess I should have double-checked that it hadn't been edited before slamming it, so my bad on that.

And I still can't tell what you are referring to that is inconsistent.
Have you tried reading the paragraph I pointed you to?

It sounds like you're disagreeing with Mollete's post, not the article.
No, I'm disagreeing with the article as it originally stood.

I honestly don't know who Occupy Democrats is or how they are related to this story.
Yes, because you're not reading people's arguments before responding to them. If you looked at the Snopes article I've provided, you'd know Occupy Democrats' involvement.

Would you please just spell out whatever it is that you're hinting at? I feel like you do this kind of thing all the time - communicate your point very vaguely, get defensive when whoever you're talking with doesn't read your mind, and spend the next several posts snarkily accusing them of being disingenuous while offering little to no clarification on your original point. You're not surrounded by a conspiracy of devious liars. If someone doesn't seem to understand your point, it's almost certainly not deliberate on their part.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 17, 2017, 04:13:08 PM
Would you please just spell out whatever it is that you're hinting at?
I'd really prefer if people would simply read the source text they're provided with. Because, well, it usually works, and it worked just now. After I forced Trekky to actually read the articles, he managed to find the inconsistency himself. Well, sort of. He highlighted the right line of text, at least. With a little bit more effort, he might even process it.

I don't understand what you think there is to gain in me rewriting Snopes's article myself. I'd do a worse job than they did.

Because that's what was reported in the Daily Voice, which the article gets its information from.
If you ignore everything that happened in-between, sure. But ignoring everything that happened in-between to give it a fake sense of immediate reaction is patently dishonest.

Is that what is making you call it "fake news"? Because if so, I don't think you know what the term means.
Nice meme bro. It's a news story that's partly based on facts, which just happens to twist the details to deliver a certain narrative. And mollete's post here illustrates that it worked. Now, if you have something constructive to add (n.b. not "lol if u think dis then u dont kno things"), go ahead!

I feel like you do this kind of thing all the time - communicate your point very vaguely, get defensive when whoever you're talking with doesn't read your mind, and spend the next several posts snarkily accusing them of being disingenuous while offering little to no clarification on your original point.
There's a small handful of people here who make up their mind about what an argument is (n.b. not just whether or not the argument stands up to scrutiny, but rather its very substance) without hearing it out. I'll always mock that, because it is deserving of nothing less. if Trekky truly read the article, which names Occupy Democrats by name and points out their actions, then a response along the lines of "I don't know who OD are or what they did" is just... strange.

You're not surrounded by a conspiracy of devious liars. If someone doesn't seem to understand your point, it's almost certainly not deliberate on their part.
Of course not. It's just a few people (I'm counting 3 in my head right now) who genuinely believe in what they say -- so much that they won't bother evaluating the other side's points, so instead they make assumptions, and in those assumptions they make critical mistakes. We've got the odd liar or two too, but hey ho.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 17, 2017, 05:01:39 PM
Did or did not Keyserling pinch the woman in question in the genital area? Dead State, the Daily Voice, and her own affidavit all claim that he did. I don't even know which pedantic detail you're referring to anymore that causes you to label the entire article as "fake", which makes zero sense for any meaning of the word "fake".
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 17, 2017, 05:08:50 PM
Did or did not Keyserling pinch the woman in question in the genital area?
Probably. Almost certainly. The evidence seems to point to it quite clearly, but I'll wait for the court to decide.

I don't even know which pedantic detail you're referring to anymore that causes you to label the entire article as "fake", which makes zero sense for any meaning of the word "fake".
[emphasis mine]

Well, since you insist:

Quote from: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/18/what-is-fake-news-pizzagate
Strictly speaking, fake news is completely made up and designed to deceive readers to maximise traffic and profit.

But the definition is often expanded to include websites that circulate distorted, decontextualised or dubious information through – for example – clickbaiting headlines that don’t reflect the facts of the story, or undeclared bias.

With nearly all online media motivated to some extent by views, a publication doesn’t have to be written by teenagers in Macedonia to perpetuate misinformation. The very structure of the web enables what BuzzFeed’s head of data science calls “not-fake-but-not-completely-true information”.
[emphasis mine]

See, what happened here is you were the one who decided to cling to a "pedantic detail". You couldn't help but project it, either!
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 17, 2017, 05:24:06 PM
I think his whole point is that the article in question uses language and paragraph placement to suggest that his actions are the result of Trump being elected.


Though I wonder... what's the difference between fake news and propaganda?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 17, 2017, 07:05:10 PM
I think his whole point is that the article in question uses language and paragraph placement to suggest that his actions are the result of Trump being elected.


Though I wonder... what's the difference between fake news and propaganda?

Propaganda is used to prop up a certain message whereas fake news can just be for lulz.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 17, 2017, 08:23:46 PM
I think his whole point is that the article in question uses language and paragraph placement to suggest that his actions are the result of Trump being elected.
At least initially, I didn't mean to directly focus on why the words and omissions were picked the way they were, but I did think that was the reason, yes. In retrospect, I should have made a stronger connection from the get go instead of separating the issues.

Though I wonder... what's the difference between fake news and propaganda?
The use of the term varies a lot between users, probably because the definition has been evolving so rapidly over the past few months. Some say that "fake news" is an umbrella term (which would then encompass propaganda, or at least overlap a lot), while others stick with the traditional meaning of "entirely made up story; not news" (in which case propaganda would be an entirely separate thing).
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 17, 2017, 08:52:08 PM
The original article doesn't even mention Trump. If people are making the connection, it's because a GOP politician remarking about political correctness (which he did, according to the affidavit) and then pinching the victim's genital area (which he did, according to the affidavit) evoke memories of things said by a certain other GOP politician.

The article is not fake news. Literally zero of what it said was untrue, it didn't mention anything about Trump, and even if it did, there's a difference between bias and fake news.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 17, 2017, 08:53:56 PM
The original article doesn't even mention Trump. If people are making the connection, it's because a GOP politician remarking about political correctness (which he did, according to the affidavit) and then pinching the victim's genital area (which he did, according to the affidavit) evoke memories of things said by a certain other GOP politician.

The article is not fake news. Literally zero of what it said was untrue, it didn't mention anything about Trump, and even if it did, there's a difference between bias and fake news.

I read the article, and the way it was framed pretty much said "Donald Trump won, so I don't have to be PC anymore, then 'grabbed' her vagina." It was written in the same exact format as every other bad things that ever happens that they want to construe as a symptom of the super scary "Trump's America"
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 17, 2017, 09:11:39 PM
The original article doesn't even mention Trump. If people are making the connection, it's because a GOP politician remarking about political correctness (which he did, according to the affidavit) and then pinching the victim's genital area (which he did, according to the affidavit) evoke memories of things said by a certain other GOP politician.
An interesting perspective.

The article is not fake news. Literally zero of what it said was untrue, it didn't mention anything about Trump, and even if it did, there's a difference between bias and fake news.
I'm not calling the article biased. If you're making that connection, it's because <masterful analysis of what you're thinking, because I know your thoughts best>

Anyway, yes, the article is fake news. It makes deliberate omissions and messes with the timeline of events. You've successfully identified these omissions, even quoting the deceptive line in this thread. You could try to argue they're unimportant or insignificant to you, but regardless of that a well-placed omission of truth is a lie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Lying_by_omission).
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 17, 2017, 09:21:47 PM
Anyway, yes, the article is fake news. It makes deliberate omissions and messes with the timeline of events.

No, it doesn't. I've pointed out where the Greenwich Time makes a minor factual error, but the original article does not. I guess I'm just being a moron, and I wish you'd just point out the error instead of running around in circles claiming the article is bullshit.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 17, 2017, 09:34:00 PM
I wish you'd just point out the error instead of running around in circles claiming the article is bullshit.
Are you referring to this part?
Quote
As the woman turned to walk away, Keyserling reportedly reach from behind and placed his hand between her legs and pinched on or near her genital area.
Yes, I'm referring to this part, at least among others. But okay, let's spell it out:

Pre-quote-insertion, the article omits all events between von Keyserling talking about "political correctness" and the alleged misdemeanour. But even right now it also entirely omits the context of him saying "It would be your word against mine and nobody will believe you." It also omits the fact that he has a history of misdemeanour, because that doesn't fit the narrative they wanted to build - in fact, it suggests that he doesn't have such a history, through a quote from his lawyer. In other words, the article lies by omission in order to send a message that a truthful account of the story wouldn't have sent. It is fake news.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 17, 2017, 09:37:48 PM
Ah, now I know why you were avoiding saying it. Don't hurt yourself reaching that far.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 17, 2017, 09:41:53 PM
Ah, now I know why you were avoiding saying it.
I wasn't avoiding anything. You posted a quote, asked if that's what it is, and I said yes. I also explained that you're ignoring everything that happened in-between the bits that were reported. Nice try, though.

Don't hurt yourself reaching that far.
It's done the job. Most people here who fell for the story now have an understanding of the full context, and we've seen opinions change here. Sorry that your attempts at shilling were so futile. If you think presenting people with an untrue and tendentious version of the story is worth defending, I can't help you with that.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 17, 2017, 09:48:41 PM
Some say that "fake news" is an umbrella term (which would then encompass propaganda, or at least overlap a lot), while others stick with the traditional meaning of "entirely made up story; not news" (in which case propaganda would be an entirely separate thing).

Using fake news as an umbrella term is kind of a dangerous route to take. If you lump news with a bit of a bias in with straight up fiction, then you can call news with a bit of a bias against you or someone you like “fake news,” and at least some people will be under the impression that anything that makes you or someone you like look unfavorable is straight up fiction. What immediately comes to mind is Trump refusing to speak to CNN during his press conference, saying “Fake news!” into the mic (a la his infantile “Wrong!” interjections from the debates), and then taking a fluff question from fucking Breitbart instead. It's a pathetic attempt at discrediting opposition.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 17, 2017, 09:54:02 PM
Using fake news as an umbrella term is kind of a dangerous route to take.
I think it hugely depends on how exactly it's approached. It could be taken to a dangerous extreme, and I agree that some have been doing it; but I do think that when used responsibly, the umbrella term is more useful. I would argue that if we go with the stricter meaning of "fake news", we will still need an umbrella term of some sort, and that it will be susceptible to the same slippery slope. I like the Guardian's approach to the matter (see article (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/dec/18/what-is-fake-news-pizzagate) I've linked before).

If you lump news with a bit of a bias in with straight up fiction, then you can call news with a bit of a bias against you or someone you like “fake news,” and at least some people will be under the impression that anything that makes you or someone you like unfavorable is straight up fiction. What immediately comes to mind is Trump refusing to speak to CNN during his press conference, saying “Fake news!” into the mic (a la his infantile “Wrong!” interjections from the debates), and then taking a fluff question from fucking Breitbart instead.
There's a line to be drawn somewhere, that's for sure. Reporting will always be biased to some extent, that's just a consequence of human nature. But, as is the case here, when the article makes clear deliberate omissions from its source material, it's not just bias. It doesn't present a perspective, it presents a misrepresentation of facts. To present a deliberately egregious counter-example, the reporting on Podesta's e-mails containing mentions of satanic rituals had some nuggets of truth in it, but since these bits of truth were mixed in with lies and misrepresentation, the whole story was rightly denounced as fake news.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 17, 2017, 11:09:51 PM
I tend to agree with mollete.  News and bias have been done probably since the spoken word.  I think the difference between fake news and just simple bias rests on two questions.

1. Is this claiming the information is accurate when it isn't? 
The Onion and other satire sites are satire and claim as such.  But this isn't just lie by omission, this is outright lies.  A lie by omission may be a lie, but it hints more towards biased than fake news as the information contained is still accurate and still news.

2. Is the article telling you what conclusions to draw?
This, I think, is the biggest question to ask.  A biased news source will give the facts in a biased way, maybe omit others, but otherwise lead you to draw your own conclusion.  It'll present facts in such a way that you end up drawing a conclusion that's likely based on your own personal biased.
But fake news will just flat out tell you what to think.  They won't give a few statements and hope you assume it's Trump's fault, they'll flat out say Trump did it.

That's how I see it anyway, otherwise every major news organization would have printed or aired a fake news story at some point and thus, be considered "fake" news.  Except maybe the Associated Press.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 17, 2017, 11:26:51 PM
2. Is the article telling you what conclusions to draw?
I don't necessarily disagree, but I think this question could do with some rephrasing. I believe it's possible to railroad someone into drawing the "right" conclusion without explicitly telling him what to think. I'm convinced that it's happened before (though I admit I didn't care to search for examples), and I would argue that it's much more dangerous than articles that don't include this illusion of choice.

Here's a better example of biased articles that aren't fake news. They don't provide any misinformation (as opposed to the "Dead State" article), and while thoroughly intellectually dishonest, they don't rely on bending the truth.

(https://i.imgur.com/QtWfnFa.jpg)
http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/elizabeth_wellington/DNC_Fashion_Hillary_Clinton_accepts_the_democratic_nomination_confidently_in_all_white_.html
http://www.philly.com/philly/living/style/Melania-Trump-RNC-fashion-A-scary-statement.html
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 18, 2017, 07:43:18 AM
2. Is the article telling you what conclusions to draw?
I don't necessarily disagree, but I think this question could do with some rephrasing. I believe it's possible to railroad someone into drawing the "right" conclusion without explicitly telling him what to think. I'm convinced that it's happened before (though I admit I didn't care to search for examples), and I would argue that it's much more dangerous than articles that don't include this illusion of choice.

Here's a better example of biased articles that aren't fake news. They don't provide any misinformation (as opposed to the "Dead State" article), and while thoroughly intellectually dishonest, they don't rely on bending the truth.
http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/elizabeth_wellington/DNC_Fashion_Hillary_Clinton_accepts_the_democratic_nomination_confidently_in_all_white_.html (http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/elizabeth_wellington/DNC_Fashion_Hillary_Clinton_accepts_the_democratic_nomination_confidently_in_all_white_.html)
http://www.philly.com/philly/living/style/Melania-Trump-RNC-fashion-A-scary-statement.html (http://www.philly.com/philly/living/style/Melania-Trump-RNC-fashion-A-scary-statement.html)
Your link is a column and thus an opinion, not news but I get your point.

I think it's a grey area that just has to be done on a case by case basis.  Some will railroad you without stating it, some will just imply but won't convince those who don't already want the underlying statement to be true.  But figuring out which is which is never easy. 

You also have the buzz feed articles about the supposed intelligence that Russia has on Trump.  They claim it's unsubstantiated, and it is, but is that fake news?  They aren't lying, they're very clearly stating "This is unsubstantiated" but they clearly want you to start thinking about it.  Is that fake news?  Propaganda?  Media Bias?  I'd wager that was fake news only because while it's truthful in it's statement of being unsubstantiated, it's being shown as news and news should be facts, not unconfirmed speculation.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 18, 2017, 11:20:37 AM
Agreed on all counts
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 18, 2017, 12:21:35 PM
I think if we're going to be expanding the definition of "fake news" this wide, it's going to become meaningless. When this term first started popping up after the election, it was pretty clear it referred to entirely fabricated articles, sometimes on "news" websites that were also fake (e.g. The Denver Guardian, which doesn't exist, that posted the story about the dead FBI agent connected with Hillary's E-mail investigation). I kind of agree with the Guardian's take that SexWarrior posted, but I think biased news should not fall under this umbrella. There's a definite difference between the literally fake news you see on Facebook and news that is trying to spread a particular viewpoint through selective reporting, both in methods and motives.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 18, 2017, 01:56:52 PM
Then it seems that our remaining disagreement is whether or not suggesting that the guy had no history of misdemeanour (against facts and against your source material) is just bias or an outright fabrication. [rinse and repeat for the other two key inconsistencies]

To me, if your reporting says "person x said y" and doesn't contrast it with "but we know that actually the opposite of y is true", that's more than just bias. The moment you start claiming the opposite of the truth because it serves your narrative, you've fucked up.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 18, 2017, 02:01:50 PM
Jesus Christ, the article didn't even suggest that he had no history of misdemeanor. Maybe omitting that history was a bit biased or irresponsible, but it's not as dubious as you're making it out to be.

His criminal history is close to irrelevant. The fact remains that all three articles have the perpetrator saying that he "no longer has to be politically correct." That's a pretty fucking clear allusion to Trump. He's using Trump's behavior as a justification for his own.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 18, 2017, 02:14:23 PM
Jesus Christ, the article didn't even suggest that he had no history of misdemeanor.
Quote
“In almost 30 years of practicing law in this town, I would say Mr. von Keyserling is the one person I would never suspect of having any inappropriate sexual predilections,” lawyer Phil Russell said to the Greenwich Time.

Yeah lol I guess it doesn't literally say that.

His criminal history is close to irrelevant.
"It's irrelevant if this person was doing the same things before Trump. I can still claim he's doing it because of Trump, even if his behaviour didn't change in any way." You're welcome to believe that, but you lack reasoning to back it up. The only thing that's changed since Trump's election is that the guy got arrested now. And no, that's not related to Trump either.

The fact remains that all three articles have the perpetrator saying that he "no longer has to be politically correct."
Yes, in a context that has nothing to do with sexual assault, and a long time before the sexual assault took place. But hey, that's all irrelevant, his thoughts on puppies and flower baskets can probably be somehow linked with Trump too.

That's a pretty fucking clear allusion to Trump. He's using Trump's behavior as a justification for his own.
Only according to the fake news story. Other articles accurately depict the events that took place. They show that, while the statement may be troubling by itself, it took place in a preceding conversation. The clear allusion through fabrication is exactly what you fell for and so proudly announced to everyone.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 18, 2017, 02:25:28 PM
The fact remains that all three articles have the perpetrator saying that he "no longer has to be politically correct."
Yes, in a context that has nothing to do with sexual assault, and a long time before the sexual assault took place. But hey, that's all irrelevant, his thoughts on puppies and flower baskets can probably be somehow linked with Trump too.

It was said on the same day as the sexual assault, according to the affidavit. What the heck are you talking about? Are you denying that the following assault was related to the argument immediately preceding it?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 18, 2017, 02:34:43 PM
What the heck are you talking about?
There were two conversations, in two different rooms, about two different things, with a break between them.

Are you denying that the following assault was related to the argument immediately preceding it?
I make no claim towards whether or not they were "related", because that's an extremely vague term.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 18, 2017, 02:40:10 PM
Jesus Christ, the article didn't even suggest that he had no history of misdemeanor.
Quote
“In almost 30 years of practicing law in this town, I would say Mr. von Keyserling is the one person I would never suspect of having any inappropriate sexual predilections,” lawyer Phil Russell said to the Greenwich Time.

Yeah lol I guess it doesn't literally say that.

That quote didn't have any effect on my opinion on whether or not he had a criminal history. It doesn't really even mean anything at all to me, tbh; I interpreted it as a total fluff quote. A) It's from the guy's lawyer, of course he's going to deny his guilt, and b) as someone who has been sexually assaulted and has known people who have been sexually assaulted, I know that pretty much every person who sexually assaults someone is going to have at least one person in their life be like "just look at them!!! they don't look like someone who would sexually assault anyone!!!"

It could just be me, but I can't see how that quote would lead anyone to erroneously believe that he had no criminal history.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 18, 2017, 02:43:41 PM
What the heck are you talking about?
There were two conversations, in two different rooms, about two different things, with a break between them.

lol k. I forgot that doors were magic, and anything that happened once we step foot through the door is now irrelevant.

EDIT: Oh, also, anything that happened on the other side of the door is now "a long time ago". Star Wars doors.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 18, 2017, 02:47:37 PM
That quote didn't have any effect on my opinion on whether or not he had a criminal history. It doesn't really even mean anything at all to me, tbh; I interpreted it as a total fluff quote.
But you did form an opinion that it was related to Trump, one that you distanced yourself from (at least slightly) when you found out how implausible that conclusion was. If you were adequately informed about the facts of the matter in the first place, your thoughts right now could be different. I can't claim to know which part of the lie worked on you, but it's clear that:

This is how fake news works. It's supposed to reach you first, and make you make up your mind before real news can.

What the heck are you talking about?
There were two conversations, in two different rooms, about two different things, with a break between them.

lol k. I forgot that doors were magic, and anything that happened once we step foot through the door is now irrelevant.

EDIT: Oh, also, anything that happened on the other side of the door is now "a long time ago". Star Wars doors.
Do you have an actual response to these inconsistencies, or have you given up trying to convince people and are now resorting to shitposting?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 18, 2017, 02:50:43 PM
Jesus Christ, the article didn't even suggest that he had no history of misdemeanor. Maybe omitting that history was a bit biased or irresponsible, but it's not as dubious as you're making it out to be.

His criminal history is close to irrelevant. The fact remains that all three articles have the perpetrator saying that he "no longer has to be politically correct." That's a pretty fucking clear allusion to Trump. He's using Trump's behavior as a justification for his own.

By quoting the lawyer defending him and not reporting on any prior offenses it shows either lazy journalism or an attempt to frame the guy as a first time offender.  I thought he was when I first read it, that he had wanted to do something like that for years but now he felt like he could get away with it.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 18, 2017, 02:58:53 PM
By quoting the lawyer defending him and not reporting on any prior offenses it shows either lazy journalism or an attempt to frame the guy as a first time offender.  I thought he was when I first read it, that he had wanted to do something like that for years but now he felt like he could get away with it.

Hm. If it was an attempt to frame him as a first time offender, I'd admit that that's pretty dubious. I honestly drew zero conclusions about his sexual/criminal behavior in the past, and I was not surprised when I gained the knowledge of his past behavior. Only surprised that the article had neglected to include that information. But again, I guess that's just me having more experience interacting with creeps.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 18, 2017, 03:01:41 PM
lol k. I forgot that doors were magic, and anything that happened once we step foot through the door is now irrelevant.

EDIT: Oh, also, anything that happened on the other side of the door is now "a long time ago". Star Wars doors.
Do you have an actual response to these inconsistencies, or have you given up trying to convince people and are now resorting to shitposting?

When someone is obviously wrong (as in, saying a conversation that happened on the same day immediately preceding something else happened "a long time before"), I don't really feel the need to give a good argument. You're just wrong. His comment did not happen "a long time before" the sexual assault. It happened immediately before, and it is arguable whether or not it was a separate conversation. Conversations do continue through doorways, you know. If I argue with someone, and then they follow me into my office to continue arguing, we're still having the same conversation. It certainly isn't separated by any sort of "long time."
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 18, 2017, 03:06:55 PM
When someone is obviously wrong (as in, saying a conversation that happened on the same day immediately preceding something else happened "a long time before"), I don't really feel the need to give a good argument. You're just wrong.
I see, I guess reading the affidavit makes me "just wrong" then. I wish I could live my life with such low levels of nuance.

His comment did not happen "a long time before" the sexual assault. It happened immediately before
I guess I don't consider over half an hour of a gap to be "immediate", but you're welcome to your opinion.

and it is arguable whether or not it was a separate conversation. Conversations do continue through doorways, you know. If I argue with someone, and then they follow me into my office to continue arguing, we're still having the same conversation.
Yes, but if they walk into someone else's office to talk to someone else, it's unlikely that they're having the same conversation.

It certainly isn't separated by any sort of "long time."
*shrug* We disagree. That's the least significant discrepancy anyway, and I note that you stopped defending the rest.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 18, 2017, 03:25:37 PM
His comment did not happen "a long time before" the sexual assault. It happened immediately before
I guess I don't consider over half an hour of a gap to be "immediate", but you're welcome to your opinion.

I don't see any mention of that type of gap anywhere in the affidavit.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 18, 2017, 03:26:55 PM
I don't see any mention of that type of gap anywhere in the affidavit.
Are you denying that half an hour is an extremely generous estimate for how long this would take?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 20, 2017, 01:11:59 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/01/19/donald-trump-has-assembled-the-worst-cabinet-in-american-history/

u mad?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 20, 2017, 03:23:34 AM
Quote from: Rick Perry
In fact, after being briefed on so many of the vital functions of the Department of Energy, I regret recommending its elimination.

😑
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 20, 2017, 05:10:15 AM
Quote from: Rick Perry
In fact, after being briefed on so many of the vital functions of the Department of Energy, I regret recommending its elimination.

😑


That was my face too.  I feel like this election is one "oh shit, thats how it is?" After another.


Maybe that was Trump's plan all alomg?  To get people who want to abolish x department to understand why you shouldn't abolish x department.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 20, 2017, 05:34:48 AM
I do actually hope that these nominees are confirmed, and that Trump is permitted to more or less do his thing in the coming months. We've come too far to not play this whole scenario out now. I don't want to be hearing excuses (from both sides) about how Trump's presidency only succeeded/failed because Congress did this one thing in response to him or stopped him from doing this other thing, etc.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 20, 2017, 06:58:37 AM
I do actually hope that these nominees are confirmed, and that Trump is permitted to more or less do his thing in the coming months. We've come too far to not play this whole scenario out now. I don't want to be hearing excuses (from both sides) about how Trump's presidency only succeeded/failed because Congress did this one thing in response to him or stopped him from doing this other thing, etc.
You really think that'll help?

No matter what happens, people will complain loudly.  Even if Trump does every single thing he says he wants to do and it fails hard, it STILL won't be his fault to his supporters.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 20, 2017, 03:45:47 PM
I do actually hope that these nominees are confirmed, and that Trump is permitted to more or less do his thing in the coming months. We've come too far to not play this whole scenario out now. I don't want to be hearing excuses (from both sides) about how Trump's presidency only succeeded/failed because Congress did this one thing in response to him or stopped him from doing this other thing, etc.
You really think that'll help?

No matter what happens, people will complain loudly.  Even if Trump does every single thing he says he wants to do and it fails hard, it STILL won't be his fault to his supporters.

On the flipside, he could literally Make America Great AgainTM and people still would complain.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on January 20, 2017, 04:15:41 PM
On the flipside, he could literally Make America Great AgainTM and people still would complain.
But what does that even mean?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 20, 2017, 04:50:16 PM
I do actually hope that these nominees are confirmed, and that Trump is permitted to more or less do his thing in the coming months. We've come too far to not play this whole scenario out now. I don't want to be hearing excuses (from both sides) about how Trump's presidency only succeeded/failed because Congress did this one thing in response to him or stopped him from doing this other thing, etc.
You really think that'll help?

No matter what happens, people will complain loudly.  Even if Trump does every single thing he says he wants to do and it fails hard, it STILL won't be his fault to his supporters.

On the flipside, he could literally Make America Great AgainTM and people still would complain.
Yeah, just ask Obama. 
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on January 20, 2017, 04:58:43 PM
Grabbing someone by the pussy without consent is not "politically incorrect", it is sexual assault. To use political correctness to justify your criminal behavior is pathetic.

He said "when you're a star they LET you do it." BTW happy President Trump day.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 20, 2017, 06:02:37 PM
I do actually hope that these nominees are confirmed, and that Trump is permitted to more or less do his thing in the coming months. We've come too far to not play this whole scenario out now. I don't want to be hearing excuses (from both sides) about how Trump's presidency only succeeded/failed because Congress did this one thing in response to him or stopped him from doing this other thing, etc.
You really think that'll help?

No matter what happens, people will complain loudly.  Even if Trump does every single thing he says he wants to do and it fails hard, it STILL won't be his fault to his supporters.

On the flipside, he could literally Make America Great AgainTM and people still would complain.
Yeah, just ask Obama.

I voted for Obama in 2008 and he completely let me down. Kept maybe a tenth of his promises, and people shield him because they swear he faced unprecedented obstruction... when he literally had a Senate majority for half of his first term and didn't do shit. He promised single payer health care and increased tax benefits for the poor and middle class and we got swindled with ACA and the tax burden that comes with it.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on January 20, 2017, 06:33:07 PM
On the flipside, he could literally Make America Great AgainTM and people still would complain.
But what does that even mean?
Anyone?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 20, 2017, 07:20:31 PM
On the flipside, he could literally Make America Great AgainTM and people still would complain.
But what does that even mean?
Anyone?

If we were no longer near the middle or bottom of the list of every single measurable of a first world country's relative "greatness," then we could say America is great again.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 20, 2017, 07:44:42 PM
So the whitehouse.gov pages for civil rights, lgbt rights, climate change, and immigration have all disappeared??? Also, a former Russian politician said "Washington will be ours" and that this is the first phase of the New World Order???

Sources (and yes there is bias but everything checks out):

http://www.vox.com/2017/1/20/14338342/trump-white-house-energy-page
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/20/trump-s-whitehouse-gov-disappears-civil-rights-climate-change-lgbt-rights.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-inauguration-russia-idUSKBN1541S6
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 20, 2017, 07:50:26 PM
Grabbing someone by the pussy without consent is not "politically incorrect", it is sexual assault. To use political correctness to justify your criminal behavior is pathetic.

He said "when you're a star they LET you do it." BTW happy President Trump day.

We aren't talking about Trump. Please read the previous posts including the OP.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 20, 2017, 08:02:19 PM
So the whitehouse.gov pages for civil rights, lgbt rights, climate change, and immigration have all disappeared???
To be expected. Have you tried looking at the content of these pages? Why would a website that's no longer about Obama advertise what President Obama wants and doesn't want to do?

You can view whitehouse.gov as it appeared in 2007. You will notice that many pages disappeared in 2008 - e.g. National Security, Iraq, Patriot act. Gadzooks, why could this be? Did Obama not want his nation to be secure?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 20, 2017, 08:11:15 PM
So the whitehouse.gov pages for civil rights, lgbt rights, climate change, and immigration have all disappeared???
To be expected. Have you tried looking at the content of these pages? Why would a website that's no longer about Obama advertise what President Obama wants and doesn't want to do?

You can view whitehouse.gov as it appeared in 2007. You will notice that many pages disappeared in 2008 - e.g. National Security, Iraq, Patriot act. Gadzooks, why could this be? Did Obama not want his nation to be secure?

I guess the disappearance of the lgbt rights page disproves the claim that "Trump will be the most LGBT-friendly President this country has ever seen" that I saw on r/The_Donald this morning :^)

Also,

Grabbing someone by the pussy without consent is not "politically incorrect", it is sexual assault. To use political correctness to justify your criminal behavior is pathetic.

He said "when you're a star they LET you do it." BTW happy President Trump day.

We aren't talking about Trump. Please read the previous posts including the OP.

To save you from all the scrolling, Luke, here's (http://deadstate.org/i-no-longer-have-to-be-politically-correct-gop-politician-arrested-after-grabbing-a-woman-in-her-genital-area/) the article that was being discussed.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: rooster on January 20, 2017, 09:36:11 PM
If we were no longer near the middle or bottom of the list of every single measurable of a first world country's relative "greatness," then we could say America is great again.
When were we at the top of those relative "greatness" measurements?

I'm genuinely curious. I would like to see sources too as I'm having a hard time coming up with stuff based on my search words.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 20, 2017, 10:15:06 PM
I guess the disappearance of the lgbt rights page disproves the claim that "Trump will be the most LGBT-friendly President this country has ever seen" that I saw on r/The_Donald this morning :^)
Meh, as I said, I'd compare that to saying that Obama didn't care about national security since the page on national security disappeared. It could be an indicator, but I don't think it is.

Especially bearing in mind that this page in particular was quite devoid of content (https://web.archive.org/web/20170112155616/https://www.whitehouse.gov/lgbt).
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 20, 2017, 10:20:12 PM
The website is a marketing and communications tool, not the barometer for the administrations stance on every policy issue.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 21, 2017, 12:14:01 AM
I agree with SW and rama.  It's pretty normal for stuff from the old administration to be wiped.  Especially when it's such a radical shift in policy.  Likely it's being redesigned and new content put up but to make sure there's no confusion, it's removed until then.

Same thing with the POTUS twitter being archived and wiped.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rushy on January 21, 2017, 04:33:54 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkmsHm0Ejf0&feature=youtu.be
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 21, 2017, 11:10:03 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/01/20/interior-department-banned-from-twitter-after-retweet-of-smaller-than-usual-trump-inauguration-crowd/

tl;dr: The National Park Service decided to talk shit about their boss on Twitter and got slapped on the wrist. Alternatively, bad Nazi Trump is curbing free speech already.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 21, 2017, 12:59:21 PM
I thought nobody takes Twitter seriously.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 21, 2017, 01:09:45 PM
w0w you beat me to it, I came to this thread to post that exact article (instead of the OD one I saw my friend share on Facebook).

Anyway, it is a bit of a troubling precedent to set, don't you think? Not "bad Nazi Trump curbing free speech" bad, but... this kind of punishment is rather unAmerican. Obama never punished or whined about people who opposed him.

And, y'know, "talking shit" is a bit of a stretch. It's a couple of slightly unflattering but mostly harmless retweets--one noting a comparatively small inauguration crowd and one noting the whitehouse.gov story. They saw these tweets and pressed a button. It's not like some NPS employee typed up "Trump is a tremendous loser with no talent! Sad!"

I thought nobody takes Twitter seriously.

also this lol ^^^
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 21, 2017, 01:18:31 PM
Your employees still shouldn't be tweeting unflattering articles about their boss on official twitter accounts though
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 21, 2017, 06:19:03 PM
Yeah, that's the thing. It's an official account. I think I'm being consistent here. If Trump posts silly shit as @realDonaldTrump, I reckon that's no big deal. If he starts posting stupid shit as @POTUS, that might change. Similarly, if the employees posted as themselves, I'd be all for it, but they chose to post as the National Park Service itself.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 21, 2017, 11:29:34 PM
And now the media is saying the same thing and oh look, Trump says they're liars and horrible people while talking to reporters at the CIA telling them how great the CIA is.

2nd day and already he's fighting.  Nothing on twitter though.  No shit posting on either account so ... progress?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Parsifal on January 22, 2017, 12:23:54 AM
And now the media is saying the same thing and oh look, Trump says they're liars and horrible people

To be entirely fair, he's right.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 22, 2017, 02:01:36 AM
http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/21/media/sean-spicer-press-secretary-statement/index.html

On the notion of denying reality.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 22, 2017, 03:06:57 AM
I googled and couldn't find anything. Why would the Secret Service use magnetometers at the inauguration? What does that mean?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 22, 2017, 10:31:20 AM
http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/21/media/sean-spicer-press-secretary-statement/index.html (http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/21/media/sean-spicer-press-secretary-statement/index.html)

On the notion of denying reality.
Yeah, Norwegian media is reporting this too.  They have pictures, same exact angle, from Obama's first inauguration and Trump's.
https://www.nrk.no/urix/trump-angriper-media-og-sier-rekordmange-sa-innsettelsen-1.13335197


I googled and couldn't find anything. Why would the Secret Service use magnetometers at the inauguration? What does that mean?
Isn't that a fancy way of saying "metal detectors"?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 22, 2017, 01:14:47 PM
I googled and couldn't find anything. Why would the Secret Service use magnetometers at the inauguration? What does that mean?
Pure speculation, but I'm pretty sure he means metal detectors.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 22, 2017, 02:23:20 PM
Someone just needs to fire Sean Spicer. He's way too antagonistic with the press, is outright lying to the them, and trying to control the narrative by telling them what they should be covering. He's going to be unable to control the narrative at all when the press just stops listening to him because they can't trust what he says.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 22, 2017, 03:13:23 PM
He's way too antagonistic with the press, is outright lying to them, and trying to control the narrative by telling them what they should be covering.

Sounds like the perfect press secretary for our new president.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 22, 2017, 08:50:35 PM
Earlier today I was going to comment that firing Spicer would probably lead to Kellyanne Conway taking the job, and that I'm not sure if that would be any better. I didn't, because I didn't think it would be very funny.

Now that alt-facts are a thing, I regret not having said it.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 22, 2017, 09:08:05 PM
Earlier today I was going to comment that firing Spicer would probably lead to Kellyanne Conway taking the job, and that I'm not sure if that would be any better. I didn't, because I didn't think it would be very funny.

Now that alt-facts are a thing, I regret not having said it.

Honestly Kellyanne Conway would do better. The alt-facts stuff was to cover for Spicer, honestly, and Conway seems to be the only person who can handle the press in a Trump administration. She would've said something like "President Trump is working hard to bring jobs to Americans so that they can actually afford to show up to the inauguration." Or whatever.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 22, 2017, 10:04:57 PM
It's amazing that this is now a thing.  Alternative Facts?  Really?  How the fuck do you even say that in a sentence with a straight face?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 22, 2017, 11:35:25 PM
It's amazing that this is now a thing.  Alternative Facts?  Really?  How the fuck do you even say that in a sentence with a straight face?
In fairness, in context it's pretty clear what she was trying to say. She was trying to suggest that he was presenting facts which backed an alternative narrative to that of the press, not that there is some mystical concept of alternative facts.

She's still almost certainly lying, but yeah.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 22, 2017, 11:50:59 PM
in other news: guess who decided not to release his tax returns?  is anyone surprised?

i genuinely don't understand what could even be in there that he's worried about.  even if he somehow avoided his entire tax bill, doesn't that just fit the "don't hate me because i'm savvy" narrative he's already asserted?  i can't imagine how it could really affect his popularity/ratings one way or another.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 23, 2017, 12:06:45 AM
i genuinely don't understand what could even be in there that he's worried about.
Fat paycheques from Russia?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 23, 2017, 12:36:49 AM
in other news: guess who decided not to release his tax returns?  is anyone surprised?

i genuinely don't understand what could even be in there that he's worried about.  even if he somehow avoided his entire tax bill, doesn't that just fit the "don't hate me because i'm savvy" narrative he's already asserted?  i can't imagine how it could really affect his popularity/ratings one way or another.

If it shows he's failing, that his businesses are failing, it'll destroy said businesses.  All his investors will jump ship, thinking his company is going to go belly up.  Keep it hidden, maybe turn the company around before it fails.  I mean, he's president now, he's got a fuck ton of power to do just that.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 23, 2017, 01:57:45 AM
i genuinely don't understand what could even be in there that he's worried about.
Fat paycheques from Russia?
he probably just doesn't want anyone to know how much he spends on rare pepes.

srsly tho i guess from anther point of view it's the only smart move: even if you think there's nothing in there worth hiding, you don't change your approval by not releasing it, and nothing in it is going to improve your approval, so the only remaining outcomes are bad.  optimal move is not to release.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 23, 2017, 08:17:31 AM
Or he's going to show his tax returns at a formal dinner several years from now, while mercilessly making fun of his opponents. I reckon he's still bitter after Obama's birth certificate release so he might want to copy it.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 23, 2017, 12:00:28 PM
Or he's going to show his tax returns at a formal dinner several years from now, while mercilessly making fun of his opponents. I reckon he's still bitter after Obama's birth certificate release so he might want to copy it.

Well if he wanted to copy Obama with the birth certificate, he would've released the top pages of his 1040 return before the election.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 23, 2017, 01:02:09 PM
Well if he wanted to copy Obama with the birth certificate, he would've released the top pages of his 1040 return before the election.
Surely you mean falsified top pages :^)
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 23, 2017, 03:41:13 PM
Well if he wanted to copy Obama with the birth certificate, he would've released the top pages of his 1040 return before the election.
Surely you mean falsified top pages :^)

I mean only if you're a conspiracy nut.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 23, 2017, 04:21:56 PM
Well if he wanted to copy Obama with the birth certificate, he would've released the top pages of his 1040 return before the election.
Surely you mean falsified top pages :^)

I mean only if you're a conspiracy nut.

Well, now that Obama's out of the whitehouse, maybe he can pull a Trump and claim that Donald's tax returns are forgeries and hasn't filed taxes?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 23, 2017, 05:32:08 PM
Someone just needs to fire Sean Spicer. He's way too antagonistic with the press, is outright lying to the them, and trying to control the narrative by telling them what they should be covering. He's going to be unable to control the narrative at all when the press just stops listening to him because they can't trust what he says.

They've already shown an unwillingness to truthfully report what he says anyway. The most profound thing I got out of this press conference was that he said Trump will continue to spread his message to the American people directly, as opposed to speaking at Press conferences and having the press twist whatever is said to fit their inherent agendas. I actually would prefer this type of communication, I don't necessarily need some talking head telling me how I should feel about anything.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 23, 2017, 06:10:57 PM
They've already shown an unwillingness to truthfully report what he says anyway. The most profound thing I got out of this press conference was that he said Trump will continue to spread his message to the American people directly, as opposed to speaking at Press conferences and having the press twist whatever is said to fit their inherent agendas. I actually would prefer this type of communication, I don't necessarily need some talking head telling me how I should feel about anything.

But surely you can admit there is a serious ethical issue with feeding lies to the media.  Trump has done this in his direct communications with the public via Twitter as well.  I can respect how you want to receive your information, but you should be every bit as concerned with bald-faced lying as the mainstream media is.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 23, 2017, 06:24:38 PM
They've already shown an unwillingness to truthfully report what he says anyway.

Just out of curiosity:
1) What did they not-truthfully report he said or didn't say
2) Where did you learn that?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 23, 2017, 06:31:02 PM
They've already shown an unwillingness to truthfully report what he says anyway. The most profound thing I got out of this press conference was that he said Trump will continue to spread his message to the American people directly, as opposed to speaking at Press conferences and having the press twist whatever is said to fit their inherent agendas. I actually would prefer this type of communication, I don't necessarily need some talking head telling me how I should feel about anything.

But surely you can admit there is a serious ethical issue with feeding lies to the media.  Trump has done this in his direct communications with the public via Twitter as well.  I can respect how you want to receive your information, but you should be every bit as concerned with bald-faced lying as the mainstream media is.

If something is a bold face lie I'm sure the media will tear it apart. But who tears apart bald-faced lies of the mainstream media? They aren't held accountable, and that's partially what Spicer insinuated in the conference. Too often they report unsubstantiated stories with obviously sensational headlines just to pop a retraction in fine print at the bottom of the article days later. More often than not the headline itself is crafted in a way to confirm a target audience's biases so people will share without even reading it. Not to mention the MSM was busted RED HANDED colluding with the democrats so how can anyone reasonably expect them to be fair in the coverage, or lines of questioning.

They've already shown an unwillingness to truthfully report what he says anyway.

Just out of curiosity:
1) What did they not-truthfully report he said or didn't say
2) Where did you learn that?

They reported that he said all mexicans are rapist and all muslims are terrorist, did you miss it?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 23, 2017, 06:59:55 PM
They've already shown an unwillingness to truthfully report what he says anyway. The most profound thing I got out of this press conference was that he said Trump will continue to spread his message to the American people directly, as opposed to speaking at Press conferences and having the press twist whatever is said to fit their inherent agendas. I actually would prefer this type of communication, I don't necessarily need some talking head telling me how I should feel about anything.

But surely you can admit there is a serious ethical issue with feeding lies to the media.  Trump has done this in his direct communications with the public via Twitter as well.  I can respect how you want to receive your information, but you should be every bit as concerned with bald-faced lying as the mainstream media is.

If something is a bold face lie I'm sure the media will tear it apart.
Except when they do Trump and his people call it lies. 

Quote
They've already shown an unwillingness to truthfully report what he says anyway.

Just out of curiosity:
1) What did they not-truthfully report he said or didn't say
2) Where did you learn that?

They reported that he said all mexicans are rapist and all muslims are terrorist, did you miss it?
I did.  You'll have to link me the news articles on that one.  (I say articles cause, you know, I expect more than just one news agency reported this.)
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 23, 2017, 07:17:58 PM
The most profound thing I got out of this press conference was that he said Trump will continue to spread his message to the American people directly, as opposed to speaking at Press conferences and having the press twist whatever is said to fit their inherent agendas. I actually would prefer this type of communication, I don't necessarily need some talking head telling me how I should feel about anything.

The irony. You don't want a talking head telling you what to think, but are content to get your information from the one person who has the most incentive to lie to you.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 23, 2017, 07:47:59 PM
Spicer just walked back on his comments Saturday by saying "Oh no, it's both combined: worldwide plus in-person."  So basically, he spoke in a way that was too ambiguous then fought the media on it instead of clarifying.

But now he's clarifying.
Worldwide audience viewing the inauguration + in person people.  Basically total eyeballs is the most ever.

So now he's basically saying it's frustrating for everyone to constantly hear the news say how he's not good enough or this won't happen or he can't do this.  And that it's never happened before from the media. 

So it's Day 3 and him and his team are demoralized.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 23, 2017, 09:53:48 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2v-_FpUkAErh58.jpg)
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 23, 2017, 09:57:45 PM
If something is a bold face lie I'm sure the media will tear it apart. But who tears apart bald-faced lies of the mainstream media? They aren't held accountable, and that's partially what Spicer insinuated in the conference. Too often they report unsubstantiated stories with obviously sensational headlines just to pop a retraction in fine print at the bottom of the article days later. More often than not the headline itself is crafted in a way to confirm a target audience's biases so people will share without even reading it. Not to mention the MSM was busted RED HANDED colluding with the democrats so how can anyone reasonably expect them to be fair in the coverage, or lines of questioning.

I understand that you dislike the MSM, and I understand where you are coming from in that regard and don't think anything more needs to be said.  I am concerned with people's lack of concern over an administration blatantly lying to the public without any regard for them.  This problem becomes compounded when the same public mistrusts the MSM, that you say will "tear it apart".  How do you protect yourself against a line of thinking where POTUS lies, the MSM "tears it apart" and you decide that you trust POTUS because the MSM is obviously corrupt?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 24, 2017, 12:37:23 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/gxLRlgo.jpg)
ftfy
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 24, 2017, 01:27:59 PM
ftfy

idgi  :(
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 24, 2017, 03:23:10 PM
idgi  :(
(https://i.imgur.com/8BxVef4.png)

hotlinking from Twitter won't work with all browsers because Twitter and because Chrome
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 24, 2017, 03:31:41 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/23/trump-names-his-inauguration-day-a-national-day-of-patriotic-devotion/

How creepy.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 24, 2017, 03:57:07 PM
“When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice,”

lol thanks, judy blume
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on January 24, 2017, 04:28:49 PM
Quote
They've already shown an unwillingness to truthfully report what he says anyway.

There are certainly uncharitable interpretations of what he said out there but we've seen him telling lies and racist/ misogynist things on live television and in his own tweets - or are you saying that MSM has somehow distorted them, too?

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 24, 2017, 04:49:27 PM
If something is a bold face lie I'm sure the media will tear it apart. But who tears apart bald-faced lies of the mainstream media? They aren't held accountable, and that's partially what Spicer insinuated in the conference. Too often they report unsubstantiated stories with obviously sensational headlines just to pop a retraction in fine print at the bottom of the article days later. More often than not the headline itself is crafted in a way to confirm a target audience's biases so people will share without even reading it. Not to mention the MSM was busted RED HANDED colluding with the democrats so how can anyone reasonably expect them to be fair in the coverage, or lines of questioning.

I understand that you dislike the MSM, and I understand where you are coming from in that regard and don't think anything more needs to be said.  I am concerned with people's lack of concern over an administration blatantly lying to the public without any regard for them.  This problem becomes compounded when the same public mistrusts the MSM, that you say will "tear it apart".  How do you protect yourself against a line of thinking where POTUS lies, the MSM "tears it apart" and you decide that you trust POTUS because the MSM is obviously corrupt?

Which lies did the POTUS tell so far? Can you specify?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on January 24, 2017, 05:05:12 PM
That's a very carefully constructed sentence, as a candidate and PEOTUS the lies were tiresome, but he's only been POTUS for 4 days. Are you counting the lies from his representatives and websites, in which case we can already include Spicer's comments about it being the 'biggest inauguration ever. Period' and misleading Washington DC crime statistics, but if you're limiting it to just his live broadcast words and tweets, then we're left with the lie about it not raining during his speech.

I suppose 1 outright lie in 4 days isn't too bad.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 24, 2017, 05:21:57 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/23/trump-names-his-inauguration-day-a-national-day-of-patriotic-devotion/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/23/trump-names-his-inauguration-day-a-national-day-of-patriotic-devotion/)

How creepy.
Yeah that's... unusual.
Next thing you know he'll put his birthday up as a national holiday.

Wait, does that mean schools will be closed on January 20th?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 24, 2017, 05:28:49 PM
Which lies did the POTUS tell so far? Can you specify?

Recently, he's claimed (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/22/donald-trump/trump-wrongly-blames-press-feud-intel-community/) that the media only made it look like he had a feud with the intelligence community, when there's ample evidence of him repeatedly attacking, criticizing, and contradicting them in his public statements, during the debates with Hillary, and on Twitter. These are his words, presented on his own terms. The media isn't misquoting him, removing the context, or distorting what he said in any way. Blaming the media has just become his default response when anything he says is poorly received.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 24, 2017, 05:50:15 PM
Which lies did the POTUS tell so far? Can you specify?

Recently, he's claimed (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/22/donald-trump/trump-wrongly-blames-press-feud-intel-community/) that the media only made it look like he had a feud with the intelligence community, when there's ample evidence of him repeatedly attacking, criticizing, and contradicting them in his public statements, during the debates with Hillary, and on Twitter. These are his words, presented on his own terms. The media isn't misquoting him, removing the context, or distorting what he said in any way. Blaming the media has just become his default response when anything he says is poorly received.

Saddam, you're wrong.
He wasn't feuding.  It's complete BS.

Trump was just insulting them, telling them how horrible they are, and what they did was wrong.
If it was a feud, the CIA would have done the same back.  Obviously the CIA knew they were wrong and begged God Emperor Donald for forgiveness.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 24, 2017, 05:58:59 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/business/economy/trump-business-leaders-meetings-ceos.html?partner=msft_msn&_r=0

So Trump is using his presidential power to threaten businesses to bring in jobs.

I applaud him for this.
Then I look at his base and ask "Is this what letting the free market work looks like?"
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 24, 2017, 07:39:09 PM
http://time.com/4645559/donald-trump-epa-social-media-blackout/

I guess it's not just the National Parks Service then.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 24, 2017, 08:34:08 PM
http://time.com/4645559/donald-trump-epa-social-media-blackout/ (http://time.com/4645559/donald-trump-epa-social-media-blackout/)

I guess it's not just the National Parks Service then.

Some of it is normal.

But given what his press secretary said yesterday, I'm guessing it's a "God, the media just keeps bothering us!  We gotta shut em up!"
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 24, 2017, 08:57:09 PM
Welp, looks like Trump STILL thinks the election was rigged.

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/24/511420960/trump-still-insists-millions-voted-illegally-theres-no-evidence-of-that

And is bitching about it.

Ok, so maybe it was?  I mean, this could be a subconscious "Hey guys, I cheated!  Someone stop me before it's too late" cry for help.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 24, 2017, 09:44:48 PM
I don't understand. Why even bring up the election anymore? He won. There was a peaceful transfer of power. The only reason to bring up this preposterous claim of millions of illegal votes is because Trump personally is insecure about losing the popular vote.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 24, 2017, 09:58:30 PM
I don't understand. Why even bring up the election anymore? He won. There was a peaceful transfer of power. The only reason to bring up this preposterous claim of millions of illegal votes is because Trump personally is insecure about losing the popular vote.

He probably saw a news article about it.

Trump is very insecure about himself and now that he's basically being sunburned by the magnifying glass of the press, he's losing his shit.

I predict heart attack within 6 months.  Or he nukes the East Coast.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 24, 2017, 10:52:59 PM
Trump is very insecure about himself and now that he's basically being sunburned by the magnifying glass of the press, he's losing his shit.

I predict heart attack within 6 months.  Or he nukes the East Coast.
Rightly or not, he's been under fire from the media for most of his life. I strongly doubt it will suddenly start affecting his well-being (more than it already has).
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on January 25, 2017, 02:49:24 AM
On this level, though? I was used to hearing shitty things about Trump maybe...once every few months? A year? Now it's a daily thing on a whole new scale.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 25, 2017, 05:17:37 AM
Can't decide on an article to share, so I'll leave y'all to google if you'd like, but Trump reinstated the Global Gag Rule, which has been known to have drastic negative impacts on women's health worldwide.

It's rather silly, really. US funds never go toward abortions abroad anyway, but with the GGR clinics that receive aid from us would lose that aid if they were to even mention abortion as an option for their patients. The GGR kills women--both women who are seeking non-abortion-related healthcare and can't find it and women who turn to unsafe methods of terminating their pregnancy as a last resort.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 25, 2017, 05:33:44 AM
Oh, also the executive order to allow the Dakota Access Pipeline to continue through Standing Rock.

Trump is doing objectionable shit faster than I can object to it :|
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 25, 2017, 07:33:49 AM
Trump is very insecure about himself and now that he's basically being sunburned by the magnifying glass of the press, he's losing his shit.

I predict heart attack within 6 months.  Or he nukes the East Coast.
Rightly or not, he's been under fire from the media for most of his life. I strongly doubt it will suddenly start affecting his well-being (more than it already has).

Snupes is right.  Yeah he's gotten bad press but it's been pretty minor by comparison.  I mean, his press secretary said it best: It's demoralizing when you turn on the TV and are told constantly what you can't do that it's not good enough.

He's 20 hours of the 24 hour news cycle and I don't think he's handling it well.


Yeah mollete: sucks but I expected the pipeline to go through.  We can all have a good cry when it spills oil or fails to do anything more than make oil companies happier.

The GGR I'm surprised at but then again, the administration probably wants to overturn Roe v Wade.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 25, 2017, 10:16:56 AM
Oh, also the executive order to allow the Dakota Access Pipeline to continue through Standing Rock.
Well, that one was to be expected. Everyone's been talking about it ever since Obama suspended it. What may be more surprised to many is that Justin Trudeau is happy about the development. A few fangirls' hearts probably just got broken.

Trump reinstated the Global Gag Rule, which has been known to have drastic negative impacts on women's health worldwide.
I'm not trying to defend it - I think it's a bad idea in its current implementation - but I do think it's important to keep context in mind. Most of Trump's early reforms are primarily guided by reducing the budget deficit. Government spending was through the roof, and since the economy is not recovering from the 2008 crisis as well as originally hoped, something has to give. If we combine that with many conservatives (even those who don't oppose abortions outright) being violently opposed to the idea of taxpayer-sponsored abortion, we might yet find that this decision will boost his popularity
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 25, 2017, 10:21:12 AM
Speaking of the media...
Guess who got arrested?
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/24/journalists-charged-felonies-trump-inauguration-unrest (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/24/journalists-charged-felonies-trump-inauguration-unrest)

That's right: Non-Mainstream Media Journalists. 

I get that they were swept up in general "arrest everyone in the area" but you know... journalists with actual credentials who were just recording?  Surely this should be a quick dismissal, right?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 11:51:59 AM
Most of Trump's early reforms are primarily guided by reducing the budget deficit. Government spending was through the roof, and since the economy is not recovering from the 2008 crisis as well as originally hoped, something has to give.

If he were serious about reducing the deficit, he'd reduce spending on Medicare, Social Security, or the Military. But he isn't. In fact, his tax decreases are projected by almost all economists to increase the deficit more than the plans by his opponents in the primaries and the general election.

Oh, also the executive order to allow the Dakota Access Pipeline to continue through Standing Rock.
Well, that one was to be expected. Everyone's been talking about it ever since Obama suspended it. What may be more surprised to many is that Justin Trudeau is happy about the development. A few fangirls' hearts probably just got broken.

Keystone XL is different than the Dakota Access Pipeline.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 25, 2017, 11:54:14 AM
Yeah mollete: sucks but I expected the pipeline to go through.

Well, that one was to be expected.

Yeah, no, I wasn't surprised at all. I just don't think "yeah, well, we knew THAT shit was gonna go down" is a good reason to ignore it if it's still a big deal.

taxpayer-sponsored abortion

That does not happen.

US funds never go toward abortions abroad anyway

Any foreign clinics we give aid to were not allowed to use those funds for abortions. If they performed abortions, they funded them through other means. But now they can't even do that.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure taxpayers don't pay for abortions here either, or if they do it's a minuscule amount reserved for extreme cases. Federal funding PP gets goes to the other healthcare services they provide.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 12:04:50 PM
Mollette is correct. Zero taxpayer funds go toward abortion procedures either in the US or abroad. Even Planned Parenthood only receives federal funding directly for things other than abortions thanks to the Hyde amendment.

But of course, that won't really change any minds on the right, because if Planned Parenthood or clinics mentioning abortion abroad get federal funding, they can allocate funds that would have gone to other things to abortion, and so effectively federal funds can help fund abortions indirectly.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 25, 2017, 12:08:23 PM
Most of Trump's early reforms are primarily guided by reducing the budget deficit. Government spending was through the roof, and since the economy is not recovering from the 2008 crisis as well as originally hoped, something has to give.

If he were serious about reducing the deficit, he'd reduce spending on Medicare, Social Security, or the Military. But he isn't. In fact, his tax decreases are projected by almost all economists to increase the deficit more than the plans by his opponents in the primaries and the general election.
In fairness, he told Boeing to go fuck themselves for having such an expensive, over-budget F-35 and the new Airforce One he balked at.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 12:11:06 PM
Oh goody. (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-epa-climatechange-idUSKBN15906G)

Quote
U.S. President Donald Trump's administration has instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to remove the climate change page from its website, two agency employees told Reuters, the latest move by the newly minted leadership to erase ex-President Barack Obama's climate change initiatives.

The employees were notified by EPA officials on Tuesday that the administration had instructed EPA's communications team to remove the website's climate change page, which contains links to scientific global warming research, as well as detailed data on emissions. The page could go down as early as Wednesday, the sources said.

"If the website goes dark, years of work we have done on climate change will disappear," one of the EPA staffers told Reuters, who added some employees were scrambling to save some of the information housed on the website, or convince the Trump administration to preserve parts of it.

The sources asked not to be named because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

The last line really seals the deal, what with the recent news of the EPA recently being restricted from releasing info to the public.

Remember: if you don't like what science is saying, just order the scientists working for the government to remove all mention of it.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 25, 2017, 12:32:17 PM
taxpayer-sponsored abortion
That does not happen.
Correct, but entirely immaterial to my point. Trekky's post pretty much covers it:

But of course, that won't really change any minds on the right, because if Planned Parenthood or clinics mentioning abortion abroad get federal funding, they can allocate funds that would have gone to other things to abortion, and so effectively federal funds can help fund abortions indirectly.

Yeah, no, I wasn't surprised at all. I just don't think "yeah, well, we knew THAT shit was gonna go down" is a good reason to ignore it if it's still a big deal.
Is it a big deal? American economy has to stop being shit if the USA is hoping to achieve anything in the long term. Further restricting development is hardly a good idea.

Keystone XL is different than the Dakota Access Pipeline.
Yes, and Fanta is the second-oldest brand of The Coca-Cola Company. Are we just going to make statements back and forth? 'Cause that sounds boring.

If he were serious about reducing the deficit, he'd reduce spending on Medicare, Social Security, or the Military.
Well, he can't exactly do that. It's not a sign of not being serious about reducing the deficit, it's a sign of not betraying his electorate. He's doing precisely what he was elected to do.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 25, 2017, 12:39:09 PM
Is it a big deal? American economy has to stop being shit if the USA is hoping to achieve anything in the long term. Further restricting development is hardly a good idea.
Development is great but the oil pipeline isn't the answer.   Especially now.  We saw what happens when we drill and drill for oil: We end up having it too cheap to keep drilling.  OPEC killed a lot of US and Canadian oil just by producing more and more.  It's finally going back up but not soon enough for most of the tar sands oil which is what this pipeline is gonna move. 

I mean, how does the pipeline benefit the US?  It won't make oil cheap.  It cuts down on transport cost but so what?  Just means they need to keep oil prices high to make the tar sand oil profitable anyway which is gonna make everyone who ISN'T in the oil business use more money on transportation anyway.  So consumers at the pump will pay more.

Secondly, refineries in Texas get the oil to refine.  Great but will it really help?  Will they build more refineries or just keep plugging away at the steady stream of oil they already have?  I'm under the impression that those Texas Oil Refineries are operating at capacity and adding more workers won't change that.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 25, 2017, 12:43:14 PM
I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 01:10:25 PM
Keystone XL is different than the Dakota Access Pipeline.
Yes, and Fanta is the second-oldest brand of The Coca-Cola Company. Are we just going to make statements back and forth? 'Cause that sounds boring.

Mollete's post was about the Dakota Access Pipeline. Trudeau praised the movement forward on Keystone XL. Your post implied Mollete and Trudeau were talking about the same pipeline. They were not. I mean feel free to talk about other pipelines, but the issues related to Dakota access are different than the ones of other pipelines.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 25, 2017, 01:23:13 PM
Is it a big deal?

I would define the risk of poisoning a region's water supply as a big deal, yes. There's also the harm that the pipeline poses to areas of cultural/spiritual significance to the Sioux, but I don't have the energy to convince the right to care about that too.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 25, 2017, 01:27:27 PM
Is it a big deal?

I would define the risk of poisoning a region's water supply as a big deal, yes. There's also the harm that the pipeline poses to areas of cultural/spiritual significance to the Sioux, but I don't have the energy to convince the right to care about that too.


The right doesn't care about anyone but themselves.  Thats the whole point of conservatism: conserve your resources for yourself.
Fraking?  Not my problem.
Oil spill?  I don't live there.
Flint water is poison?  Don't live in flint.


Republicans who are affected are just ignored.  Then they blame the left for their problems.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 25, 2017, 02:37:55 PM
Mollete's post was about the Dakota Access Pipeline. Trudeau praised the movement forward on Keystone XL. Your post implied Mollete and Trudeau were talking about the same pipeline. They were not. I mean feel free to talk about other pipelines, but the issues related to Dakota access are different than the ones of other pipelines.
A particularly insignificant technicality regarding my choice of words, but I can understand why you'd resort to it.

I would define the risk of poisoning a region's water supply as a big deal, yes.
Sounds like the solution to that would be to both stop exaggerating the risk in left-wing media and lobby for appropriate measures to minimise the risk further. Of course, thanks to past protests, none of that will happen.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 25, 2017, 02:42:51 PM
Sounds like the solution to that would be to both stop exaggerating the risk in left-wing media and lobby for appropriate measures to minimise the risk further. Of course, thanks to past protests, none of that will happen.

But that requires regulation and Donald Trump says we need to remove most of our regulations.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 02:46:02 PM
Mollete's post was about the Dakota Access Pipeline. Trudeau praised the movement forward on Keystone XL. Your post implied Mollete and Trudeau were talking about the same pipeline. They were not. I mean feel free to talk about other pipelines, but the issues related to Dakota access are different than the ones of other pipelines.
A particularly insignificant technicality regarding my choice of words, but I can understand why you'd resort to it.

It wasn't insignificant. They're two different pipelines, and the arguments against them are different. You are misleading people by implying Trudeau is talking about Dakota. But whatever.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 25, 2017, 03:18:24 PM
You are misleading people by implying Trudeau is talking about Dakota. But whatever.
I strongly suspect you were the only person who took it that way, and you obviously did it on purpose since you knew the difference. Shorthand isn't the crime you claim it to be.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: junker on January 25, 2017, 03:24:54 PM
Trump also withdrew from the TPP. It's interesting to see people formerly against the TPP now claim that China will become a bigger superpower because of Trump.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 25, 2017, 03:25:45 PM
You are misleading people by implying Trudeau is talking about Dakota. But whatever.
I strongly suspect you were the only person who took it that way, and you obviously did it on purpose since you knew the difference. Shorthand isn't the crime you claim it to be.

I was misled.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 25, 2017, 03:27:13 PM
I was misled.
Okay: I was talking about Keystone XL.

Well done for letting a random person on the Internet "mislead" you with a figure of speech. I see that for all the lambasting you got here for falling for fake news, you're still failing to double-check things.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 25, 2017, 03:33:28 PM
Allow me to clarify: I was misled into believing that you were implying that Trudeau was talking about DAPL and not KXL. I had not double-checked as to whether or not that was the reality yet because I was getting ready for work at the time, but I wouldn't have been under the impression that Trudeau was talking about the DAPL until I actually found a source other than you saying so.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 25, 2017, 03:36:02 PM
Excellent, a complete non-problem then! Glad we cleared it out
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 25, 2017, 03:39:02 PM
It's only a non-problem now, after Trekky addressed your misleading ambiguity.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 25, 2017, 03:39:54 PM
You two are really desperate, aren't you?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 03:39:59 PM
I was misled.
Okay: I was talking about Keystone XL.

Well done for letting a random person on the Internet "mislead" you with a figure of speech. I see that for all the lambasting you got here for falling for fake news, you're still failing to double-check things.

You know, instead of being dickish, you could have just clarified that yes, you did mean Keystone XL (despite the vague way you phrased your post about Trudeau and the fact that no one brought up Keystone XL except you, in a post about DAPL). It's not really that far of a stretch that when replying to someone's post about DAPL and saying that:

Oh, also the executive order to allow the Dakota Access Pipeline to continue through Standing Rock.
Well, that one was to be expected. Everyone's been talking about it ever since Obama suspended it. What may be more surprised to many is that Justin Trudeau is happy about the development. A few fangirls' hearts probably just got broken.

that people would think you were mistaken. Like goodness, do we really have to spend a whole page of a thread to get you to admit you were vague and misleading?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 25, 2017, 03:40:57 PM
You know, you could have just changed your personality to my liking.
Thanks, but no. You're desperately trying to find a problem where there is none - don't be surprised that I'm making fun of you for it.

Like goodness, do we really have to spend a whole page of a thread to get you to admit you were vague and misleading?
No. I admitted it one post in, but since it wasn't explicit enough for you, I did it again at post number 2.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 03:43:29 PM
Like goodness, do we really have to spend a whole page of a thread to get you to admit you were vague and misleading?
No. I admitted it one post in, but since it wasn't explicit enough for you, I did it again at post number 2.

Actually I believe you said some asshole-ish post about Fanta and Coca Cola rather than clarifying, as if me pointing out DAPL and KXL are not the same was just some rando non sequitur.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 25, 2017, 03:44:05 PM
Actually I believe you said some asshole-ish post about Fanta and Coca Cola rather than clarifying, as if me pointing out DAPL and KXL are not the same was just some rando non sequitur.
Yes, because it was a random non-sequitur at the time. Until you made your accusation that I'm misleading people, it seemed entirely pointless.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 03:47:53 PM
So, no, you didn't admit to anything one post in. Glad we got that sorted. It took multiple posts to admit you were the only one to bring up KXL.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 25, 2017, 03:48:27 PM
So, no, you didn't admit to anything one post in.
Nope. One post in since the accusation was made. Your random non-sequitur was laughed off, as it should have been.

I believe you previously made some comments about how terrible it would be to expect others to read your mind. Now you're on the other side of the fence, but you're expecting me to treat you differently than you did me. Poor form.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 03:51:06 PM
So, no, you didn't admit to anything one post in. Glad we got that sorted. It took multiple posts to admit you were the only one to bring up KXL.
Nope. One post in since the accusation was made. Your random non-sequitur was laughed off, as it should have been.

I believe you previously made some comments about how terrible it would be to expect others to read your mind. Now you're on the other side of the fence, but you're expecting me to treat you differently than you did me. Poor form.

SexWarrior, who brought up Keystone XL first? It was you, in regards to Trudeau. What was it in response to? A post about DAPL. They are two different things. There was no distinction between them in your post. When this was pointed out, you deflected with some meaningless banter and then pretended it was "insignificant." You didn't admit to anything one post in. It took multiple posts to get this out that you're talking about two different things.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 25, 2017, 03:55:45 PM
SexWarrior, who brought up Keystone XL first?
Donald Trump.

It was you, in regards to Trudeau. What was it in response to?
A string of posts about Trump's multiple executive orders.

A post about DAPL.
A particularly cherry-picking approach to the truth, but in face of your rising levels of desperation, I can see why you'd go for it.

You didn't admit to anything one post in. It took multiple posts to get this out that you're talking about two different things.
I'm trekky0623 and I know what people think better than they themselves do.

This is getting old. Clearly you have some vendetta against me, since you keep trying to pull the same shit off over and over, only to eventually give up when it doesn't work. "NUH UH, YOU DIDN'T MEAN THIS, YOU MEANT THAT. WHAT'S THIS, YOU'RE CLARIFYING YOUR MEANING?... NUH UH, YOU'RE NOT CLARIFYING YOUR MEANING!" You simply do not have any ground to claim that you have some divine insight into people's minds that allows you to understand their words a certain way despite their clarifications to the contrary. This is not how human communication works.

If you wanna take this up further, PM me. Otherwise, please let others discuss in peace instead of watching this spectacle.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: junker on January 25, 2017, 03:57:08 PM
Hi guys. Now that whatever confusion which previously existed seems to be cleared up, let's keep things civil and on topic.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 25, 2017, 03:59:22 PM
A post about DAPL.
A particularly cherry-picking approach to the truth, but in face of your rising levels of desperation, I can see why you'd go for it.

My post was about DAPL.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 25, 2017, 04:00:19 PM
My post was about DAPL.
That's great.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 25, 2017, 04:08:53 PM
"That's great"? You claimed that my post was about Trump's executive orders. I'm just letting you know that that was not the impression I intended to give.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 25, 2017, 04:13:33 PM
"That's great"? You claimed that my post was about Trump's executive orders. I'm just letting you know that that was not the impression I intended to give.
As I said, I wasn't responding to a single post. I've admitted early on that my choice of wording can be exploited by the pedantic and desperate; restating this over and over seems to be of little benefit to anyone.

Please also observe the following:

If you wanna take this up further, PM me. Otherwise, please let others discuss in peace instead of watching this spectacle.
Hi guys. Now that whatever confusion which previously existed seems to be cleared up, let's keep things civil and on topic.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 25, 2017, 04:17:06 PM
Well, since you quoted a single post (mine, about DAPL), you can perhaps see why that's why people may think that's the post to which you were referring.

And your invitation to PM was followed by a tirade against Trekky.

You certainly are flailing around with all these edits and misuses of quotes.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 25, 2017, 04:24:51 PM
Well, since you quoted a single post (mine, about DAPL), you can perhaps see why that's why people may think that's the post to which you were referring.
Yes, a grand total of two people with a shared agenda and a history of spreading misinformation. Impressive. Or, well, it would be had I not clarified myself ages ago.

You certainly are flailing around with all these edits and misuses of quotes.
You reckon? I'd say the people who exploited a minor ambiguity to trigger a two-page discussion about absolutely nothing are the ones flailing around.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 25, 2017, 04:53:58 PM
Now that this... whatever this was... is finally over, we can hopefully get back to discussing Trump-related things.

*ahem*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2017/01/24/the-true-correct-story-of-what-happened-at-donald-trumps-inauguration/

Looks like WaPo are trying really hard to cement their place on the "news organisations not to be taken seriously" list.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 25, 2017, 04:58:39 PM
Welp, looks like Trump STILL thinks the election was rigged.

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/24/511420960/trump-still-insists-millions-voted-illegally-theres-no-evidence-of-that

And is bitching about it.

Ok, so maybe it was?  I mean, this could be a subconscious "Hey guys, I cheated!  Someone stop me before it's too late" cry for help.

Because the press keeps hounding them to back up Trump's claim that there were millions of illegal voters. Yet another thing that will blow up in their faces, when we find out, yes, in fact many illegal immigrants voted, and yes there was massive fraud committed. Perhaps  a good place to start any investigation would be the already documented FEC violations the DNC just committed in their primary.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 25, 2017, 05:24:34 PM
Welp, looks like Trump STILL thinks the election was rigged.

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/24/511420960/trump-still-insists-millions-voted-illegally-theres-no-evidence-of-that (http://www.npr.org/2017/01/24/511420960/trump-still-insists-millions-voted-illegally-theres-no-evidence-of-that)

And is bitching about it.

Ok, so maybe it was?  I mean, this could be a subconscious "Hey guys, I cheated!  Someone stop me before it's too late" cry for help.

Because the press keeps hounding them to back up Trump's claim that there were millions of illegal voters. Yet another thing that will blow up in their faces, when we find out, yes, in fact many illegal immigrants voted, and yes there was massive fraud committed. Perhaps  a good place to start any investigation would be the already documented FEC violations the DNC just committed in their primary.
...
So let me make sure I understand you....

Trump makes a claim that he has no proof of.
Press wants proof.
Trump is JUSTIFIED in complaining that the press are hounding him on a rigged election THAT HE WON?

Do you understand how this looks?  It doesn't look like there's fraud against Trump yet he's constantly saying the election was rigged.  But why?  Why does he think that?  He hasn't shown any evidence.  What, exactly, makes him think there was any fraud?

There are only two possibilities.
1) He can't accept losing the popular vote but winning the election.  He needs both.
2) The election WAS rigged to get Trump elected and Trump is trying to get people to discover that so he can not be president.


He hasn't accepted the results of the election even though he won.  He said he would if he won.
Yet another promise broken.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 25, 2017, 05:28:45 PM
Because the press keeps hounding them to back up Trump's claim that there were millions of illegal voters. Yet another thing that will blow up in their faces, when we find out, yes, in fact many illegal immigrants voted, and yes there was massive fraud committed. Perhaps a good place to start any investigation would be the already documented FEC violations the DNC just committed in their primary.

What does the DNC's alleged FEC violations (the only source on this seems to be notorious liar James O'Keefe, so I'm skeptical) have to do with illegal immigrants voting?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 25, 2017, 06:14:12 PM
Because the press keeps hounding them to back up Trump's claim that there were millions of illegal voters. Yet another thing that will blow up in their faces, when we find out, yes, in fact many illegal immigrants voted, and yes there was massive fraud committed. Perhaps a good place to start any investigation would be the already documented FEC violations the DNC just committed in their primary.

What does the DNC's alleged FEC violations (the only source on this seems to be notorious liar James O'Keefe, so I'm skeptical) have to do with illegal immigrants voting?

I'm not interested in partisan witch hunt of election fraud. I'm interested in seeing an investigation based on already established, solid leads.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 25, 2017, 06:32:13 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2017/01/24/the-true-correct-story-of-what-happened-at-donald-trumps-inauguration/

Looks like WaPo are trying really hard to cement their place on the "news organisations not to be taken seriously" list.

This article is not only in the Opinions section, it's in a subsection of the Opinions section called "ComPost," which is given the description "a mix of opinion and humor from Alexandra Petri." This is speculation, but "ComPost" appears to be a play-on-words that likens the articles to compost, the organic garbage/fertilizer.

So I'd say that you're right in that the author of these articles probably isn't trying too hard to be taken seriously, but I don't believe that that's synonymous with WaPo not wanting to be taken seriously in this case.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on January 25, 2017, 07:04:40 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2017/01/24/the-true-correct-story-of-what-happened-at-donald-trumps-inauguration/

Looks like WaPo are trying really hard to cement their place on the "news organisations not to be taken seriously" list.

This article is not only in the Opinions section, it's in a subsection of the Opinions section called "ComPost," which is given the description "a mix of opinion and humor from Alexandra Petri." This is speculation, but "ComPost" appears to be a play-on-words that likens the articles to compost, the organic garbage/fertilizer.

So I'd say that you're right in that the author of these articles probably isn't trying too hard to be taken seriously, but I don't believe that that's synonymous with WaPo not wanting to be taken seriously in this case.

These news agencies even having "blog" platforms is just another way for them to intentionally mislead people without any repercussion. They know damn well a lot of people just share and form their opinions of articles based on "who" published it and the headline.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 25, 2017, 07:20:11 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2017/01/24/the-true-correct-story-of-what-happened-at-donald-trumps-inauguration/

Looks like WaPo are trying really hard to cement their place on the "news organisations not to be taken seriously" list.

This article is not only in the Opinions section, it's in a subsection of the Opinions section called "ComPost," which is given the description "a mix of opinion and humor from Alexandra Petri." This is speculation, but "ComPost" appears to be a play-on-words that likens the articles to compost, the organic garbage/fertilizer.

So I'd say that you're right in that the author of these articles probably isn't trying too hard to be taken seriously, but I don't believe that that's synonymous with WaPo not wanting to be taken seriously in this case.

Cue the snarky, condescending reply about how you're a disingenuous liar who's deliberately twisting his point while making no attempt at clarifying said point, spread out over several posts. And then he'll blame you for derailing the thread.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 25, 2017, 07:24:20 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2017/01/24/the-true-correct-story-of-what-happened-at-donald-trumps-inauguration/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2017/01/24/the-true-correct-story-of-what-happened-at-donald-trumps-inauguration/)

Looks like WaPo are trying really hard to cement their place on the "news organisations not to be taken seriously" list.

This article is not only in the Opinions section, it's in a subsection of the Opinions section called "ComPost," which is given the description "a mix of opinion and humor from Alexandra Petri." This is speculation, but "ComPost" appears to be a play-on-words that likens the articles to compost, the organic garbage/fertilizer.

So I'd say that you're right in that the author of these articles probably isn't trying too hard to be taken seriously, but I don't believe that that's synonymous with WaPo not wanting to be taken seriously in this case.

These news agencies even having "blog" platforms is just another way for them to intentionally mislead people without any repercussion. They know damn well a lot of people just share and form their opinions of articles based on "who" published it and the headline.
Well, I blame the reader myself.
NPR did an april fools joke just to see who read the headlines and not the article.

The amount of people who didn't read the article was staggering.  So it doesn't matter if it's a blog section or has an 80pt font disclaimer about how this is an opinion and not real news.  You'll still get morons who don't read it and take the headline as all the information they need to know.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 25, 2017, 07:29:12 PM
I mean, TTioH could have a bit of a point in that it may be irresponsible for news organizations to have opinion/blog sections on their websites and not have them be more immediately recognizable as distinct from their actual news (especially when, as Lord Dave pointed out, readers are lazy morons), but claiming that they're not distinct at all isn't correct.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 25, 2017, 07:31:23 PM
I'm not interested in partisan witch hunt of election fraud. I'm interested in seeing an investigation based on already established, solid leads.

Then why is it a problem for the press to call Trump out on his unsubstantiated claims?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on January 25, 2017, 08:12:31 PM
So the whitehouse.gov pages for civil rights, lgbt rights, climate change, and immigration have all disappeared???
To be expected. Have you tried looking at the content of these pages? Why would a website that's no longer about Obama advertise what President Obama wants and doesn't want to do?

You can view whitehouse.gov as it appeared in 2007. You will notice that many pages disappeared in 2008 - e.g. National Security, Iraq, Patriot act. Gadzooks, why could this be? Did Obama not want his nation to be secure?

I guess the disappearance of the lgbt rights page disproves the claim that "Trump will be the most LGBT-friendly President this country has ever seen" that I saw on r/The_Donald this morning :^)

Also,

Grabbing someone by the pussy without consent is not "politically incorrect", it is sexual assault. To use political correctness to justify your criminal behavior is pathetic.

He said "when you're a star they LET you do it." BTW happy President Trump day.

We aren't talking about Trump. Please read the previous posts including the OP.

To save you from all the scrolling, Luke, here's (http://deadstate.org/i-no-longer-have-to-be-politically-correct-gop-politician-arrested-after-grabbing-a-woman-in-her-genital-area/) the article that was being discussed.

My bad then.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: junker on January 25, 2017, 08:18:54 PM

Cue the snarky, condescending reply about how you're a disingenuous liar who's deliberately twisting his point while making no attempt at clarifying said point, spread out over several posts. And then he'll blame you for derailing the thread.

Since that hasn't happened as a reply to the previous comment and we have finally started to get the discussion back on track, could you refrain from trying to incite off-topic arguments?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: junker on January 25, 2017, 08:29:10 PM
Oh snap. Trump signed an executive order to build the wall.

Busy first week...
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 25, 2017, 08:45:13 PM

Cue the snarky, condescending reply about how you're a disingenuous liar who's deliberately twisting his point while making no attempt at clarifying said point, spread out over several posts. And then he'll blame you for derailing the thread.

Since that hasn't happened as a reply to the previous comment and we have finally started to get the discussion back on track, could you refrain from trying to incite off-topic arguments?

Don't tell me what to do!

Also, Twitter rebellion?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/donald-trump-administration.html
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 25, 2017, 08:46:32 PM
Quote
In an interview with ABC News on Wednesday, Trump said [...] that Mexico would pay back to the United States "100 percent" of the costs.

lol k
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 25, 2017, 09:04:40 PM
Oh snap. Trump signed an executive order to build the wall.

Busy first week...
Yeah but it can't be done without congressional approval. 

So if Trump thinks that'll be done by a stroke of the pen, then he's basically the evil dictator Obama, just white and richer.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 25, 2017, 10:13:02 PM
This article is not only in the Opinions section, it's in a subsection of the Opinions section called "ComPost," which is given the description "a mix of opinion and humor from Alexandra Petri." This is speculation, but "ComPost" appears to be a play-on-words that likens the articles to compost, the organic garbage/fertilizer.

So I'd say that you're right in that the author of these articles probably isn't trying too hard to be taken seriously, but I don't believe that that's synonymous with WaPo not wanting to be taken seriously in this case.
It's a part of a long-lasting trend. I haven't been following WaPo as closely as I should, but the Guardian's "Comment is Free" section (an opinion section known for its particularly earnest SJW viewpoints) has demonstrably deteriorated people's trust in the medium over time (this Twitter account (https://twitter.com/somuchguardian) explains why, though obviously they're cherry-picking for comedic effect). While I don't disagree with your point of view, it's a simple matter of fact that if you slap your logo on something, many will directly associate you with it. And, as you've experienced first hand, no amount of clarification is good enough once someone has made up their mind ;)

So if Trump thinks that'll be done by a stroke of the pen, then he's basically the evil dictator Obama, just white and richer.
That, to me, is the most concerning part of Trump's presidency so far. I strongly disliked Obama's excessive use of executive orders, and so far Trump's been even worse.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 26, 2017, 02:21:11 AM
Speaking of executive orders... (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/cia-detainee-prisons.html)

(http://i.imgur.com/E0OxBdG.jpg)
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 26, 2017, 06:14:49 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/25/netherlands-trump-gag-rule-international-safe-abortion-fund

This isn't a trumpy thing, but I still think it belongs here since it's another country's response to one of his actions.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 26, 2017, 08:28:55 PM
You'll notice that the text (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/25/text-trump-executive-order-on-enhancing-public-safety-in-interior-united-states.html) of Trump's executive order signed Tuesday calls for the Department of Homeland Security to "on a weekly basis, make public a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens". So "aliens". Not "illegal aliens". I'm sure this list will in no way give the public an outlet for their anger or put immigrants in harm's way.

Next, we'll release a list of crimes committed by people named Tim.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 26, 2017, 08:39:14 PM
You'll notice that the text (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/25/text-trump-executive-order-on-enhancing-public-safety-in-interior-united-states.html) of Trump's executive order signed Tuesday calls for the Department of Homeland Security to "on a weekly basis, make public a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens". So "aliens". Not "illegal aliens". I'm sure this list will in no way give the public an outlet for their anger or put immigrants in harm's way.

Next, we'll release a list of crimes committed by people named Tim.
Clearly he meant Extra-Terrestrials.

Those damn aliens always causing problems.  Send'em back to Mars!
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 26, 2017, 11:23:14 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/business/media/stephen-bannon-trump-news-media.html?partner=msft_msn&_r=0

Quote
“I want you to quote this,” Mr. Bannon added. “The media here is the opposition party. They don’t understand this country. They still do not understand why Donald Trump is the president of the United States.”
They do though.  It's just a dumb reason.


Quote
“The media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for awhile,” Mr. Bannon said during a telephone call.
But that is concerning.
He's basically saying "Stop questioning us!  Stop reporting us!" which is not a good policy to have if you want a free and open democracy.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on January 27, 2017, 09:26:25 AM
Quote
That, to me, is the most concerning part of Trump's presidency so far. I strongly disliked Obama's excessive use of executive orders, and so far Trump's been even worse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders#Consolidated_list_by_President

Obama signed fewer exec. orders than Dubya, Carter, Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, Reagan, Eisenhower, Harding, Taft, Truman, Hoover, Roosevelt, Coolridge, Wilson, and FDR.

In terms of Orders per year, there are 22 presidents (Including Trump!) who signed more.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 27, 2017, 10:49:34 AM
What is it with liberals and cherry-picking whichever statistic they think makes them "right"? Guys, that meme got boring in like 2010
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 27, 2017, 11:17:39 AM
Quote
That, to me, is the most concerning part of Trump's presidency so far. I strongly disliked Obama's excessive use of executive orders, and so far Trump's been even worse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders#Consolidated_list_by_President (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders#Consolidated_list_by_President)

Obama signed fewer exec. orders than Dubya, Carter, Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, Reagan, Eisenhower, Harding, Taft, Truman, Hoover, Roosevelt, Coolridge, Wilson, and FDR.

In terms of Orders per year, there are 22 presidents (Including Trump!) who signed more.

I think it's less quantity and more the use of authority.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 27, 2017, 12:01:48 PM
What is it with liberals and cherry-picking whichever statistic they think makes them "right"? Guys, that meme got boring in like 2010

Cherry-picking is out, alternative facts are in.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on January 27, 2017, 02:12:28 PM
Quote
That, to me, is the most concerning part of Trump's presidency so far. I strongly disliked Obama's excessive use of executive orders, and so far Trump's been even worse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders#Consolidated_list_by_President (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders#Consolidated_list_by_President)

Obama signed fewer exec. orders than Dubya, Carter, Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, Reagan, Eisenhower, Harding, Taft, Truman, Hoover, Roosevelt, Coolridge, Wilson, and FDR.

In terms of Orders per year, there are 22 presidents (Including Trump!) who signed more.

I think it's less quantity and more the use of authority.

Fair enough. I'm not about to go through Roosevelt's 3,500-odd E.O.s to see which were more 'powerful.'
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 27, 2017, 02:20:33 PM
I'm not too worried about the executive orders, to the extent that regardless of what Trump orders people under the executive to do, Congress is still controlling the budget. His wall order, for example, is essentially a suggestion at this point as long as there's no money for it, and with the allocation of funds apparently being separate from the main budget, according to Paul Ryan, the likelihood is that Democrats will filibuster funds for the wall, and nothing will happen.

I am concerned about the DHS publishing crimes committed by aliens and the global gag rule.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 27, 2017, 05:23:27 PM
I guess it depends on whether it is "aliens" or "illegal aliens". I know you've pointed out that the text of the order omits the word "illegal" (and it only does so in this one place; it's very clear more or less everywhere else throughout the document), but a naive part of me hopes that it's just an ambiguous phrasing rather than an attempt at sneaking it in. The realist in me, obviously, doesn't think that's particularly likely.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 27, 2017, 06:27:42 PM
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/27/511983884/trump-reportedly-called-national-park-service-over-inauguration-crowd-photos

If this is true and accurate...

I'm not shocked at all.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on January 27, 2017, 09:27:01 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/oOXDJDU.jpg)
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 28, 2017, 05:54:03 AM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38777437

Incoming drama
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 28, 2017, 08:49:47 AM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38777437 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38777437)

Incoming drama
He did it on International Holocaust Remembrance Day.  Which is ironic since it was the holocaust that helped shift our refugee policy.  America turned away a lot of Jews seeking asylum from Germany.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/us-government-turned-away-thousands-jewish-refugees-fearing-they-were-nazi-spies-180957324/

History repeating?  Learning from the past?  Or is Trump just a hater?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 28, 2017, 04:05:50 PM
Reuters is reporting that legal green card holders are included in Trump's travel ban. (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-greencard-idUSKBN15C0KX) So it seems that, even if you have legal residence in the United States, if you are using a passport from one of the countries listed in his executive order, you cannot enter the United States anymore.

I doubt this is legal, and we're only on day 9.

EDIT: Even legal residents who are not entering the US from one of the seven banned countries, like PhD student Ali Abdi (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/28/rights-groups-flooded-with-calls-as-people-fear-re-entry-to-us-will-be-denied) who travelled to Afghanistan on field work, are unable to re-enter the country.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 28, 2017, 04:36:31 PM
Reuters is reporting that legal green card holders are included in Trump's travel ban. (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-greencard-idUSKBN15C0KX) So it seems that, even if you have legal residence in the United States, if you are using a passport from one of the countries listed in his executive order, you cannot enter the United States anymore.

I doubt this is legal, and we're only on day 9.

Worse yet, if the Daily Show is accurate, none of the countries in the ban have ever had a citizen commit a terrorist attack against the US.  9/11 was mostly Afghanistan and the California one he mentioned in his interview was from Pakistan.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 28, 2017, 05:53:43 PM
Just tried to call the White House Comments line about this green card issue, since it was reported a while ago that if you stayed on the line, someone would answer.

Nope. Fucking hung up on me.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 28, 2017, 07:25:02 PM
Just tried to call the White House Comments line about this green card issue, since it was reported a while ago that if you stayed on the line, someone would answer.

Nope. Fucking hung up on me.
Donald Trump is for THE PEOPLE.
Just so long as they don't ask questions or criticize him.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 28, 2017, 07:29:31 PM
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-muslim-ban-excludes-countries-linked-businesses-article-1.2957956

This won't last. It literally just can't last. He'll be impeached, or else he'll resign (I doubt the latter will happen, unless he has a chance to frame it as a "Screw you guys, I'm going home!" gesture). There's no way we're going to have four years of this.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 28, 2017, 07:41:42 PM
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-muslim-ban-excludes-countries-linked-businesses-article-1.2957956 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-muslim-ban-excludes-countries-linked-businesses-article-1.2957956)

This won't last. It literally just can't last. He'll be impeached, or else he'll resign (I doubt the latter will happen, unless he has a chance to frame it as a "Screw you guys, I'm going home!" gesture). There's no way we're going to have four years of this.

I can see the trump supporters now....
"No, the media's lying.  That's not true.  And those countries are our allies, duh!"
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 28, 2017, 07:46:05 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/ZCmPz9K.jpg)
Hmm...
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 28, 2017, 07:47:50 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/ZCmPz9K.jpg)
Hmm...

Not sure what you're getting at.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 28, 2017, 07:49:24 PM
Not sure what you're getting at.
If we're drawing spurious connections about the list of countries affected by the ban, we might as well go all in and claim that every single correlation is relevant.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 28, 2017, 07:51:09 PM
Not sure what you're getting at.
If we're drawing spurious connections about the list of countries affected by the ban, we might as well go all in and claim that every single correlation is relevant.
Yeah but the list you put up is most of the middle east and includes Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.  And forgive me if I'm wrong but aren't all those countries, countries that have been at war with Israel in the past?  With the exception of Pakistan.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 28, 2017, 07:52:59 PM
Saudi Arabia tends to get special treatment from the West for whatever reason. I disapprove of it, but it's hardly uncommon.

As for the rest, fair enough
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 28, 2017, 07:56:46 PM
The ACLU filed suit today because of the Muslim ban, on behalf of two Iraqi citizens with valid visas not being permitted entry, which they claim violates Fifth Amendment rights.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 28, 2017, 08:01:56 PM
What kind of visas are we talking about? My B1/B2 visa was issued with a clear disclaimer that it simply gives me the right to ask nicely to be let in - and that I may be denied entry despite having it.

Also, Fifth Amendment? Am I missing something? I thought the Fifth Amendment was about due process in courts. They haven't been unjustly convicted of a crime, have they?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 28, 2017, 08:13:23 PM
What kind of visas are we talking about? My B1/B2 visa was issued with a clear disclaimer that it simply gives me the right to ask nicely to be let in - and that I may be denied entry despite having it.

Also, Fifth Amendment? Am I missing something? I thought the Fifth Amendment was about due process in courts. They haven't been unjustly convicted of a crime, have they?

The "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" part is my guess. They are being held by immigration despite having valid visas, though SCOTUS's interpretation of the Constitution has been vague of exactly what rights are afforded to permanent residents, but it is not none.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 28, 2017, 08:26:08 PM
though SCOTUS's interpretation of the Constitution has been vague of exactly what rights are afforded to permanent residents, but it is not none.
I'm taking from this part of the sentence that they're green card holders, and not just crappy visa holders, yes?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 28, 2017, 08:29:44 PM
though SCOTUS's interpretation of the Constitution has been vague of exactly what rights are afforded to permanent residents, but it is not none.
I'm taking from this part of the sentence that they're green card holders, and not just crappy visa holders, yes?

That was what my link on the previous page said. Green-card holders are being denied entry if they have a passport from one of the seven countries in the ban. That comes from the DHS (as well as the White House, now).
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 28, 2017, 08:32:10 PM
What kind of visas are we talking about? My B1/B2 visa was issued with a clear disclaimer that it simply gives me the right to ask nicely to be let in - and that I may be denied entry despite having it.

Also, Fifth Amendment? Am I missing something? I thought the Fifth Amendment was about due process in courts. They haven't been unjustly convicted of a crime, have they?

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/2-iraqis-file-lawsuit-after-being-detained-in-ny-due-to-travel-ban/ (http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/2-iraqis-file-lawsuit-after-being-detained-in-ny-due-to-travel-ban/)

So apparently one of the men worked with the US army during the Iraq War as an interpreter and was granted a visa.  Another has family who are already in the US as refugees. 
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 28, 2017, 08:37:18 PM
Do green card holders or visa holders get constitutional protection?  Thought that was just for naturalized citizens.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 28, 2017, 08:38:55 PM
That was what my link on the previous page said. Green-card holders are being denied entry if they have a passport from one of the seven countries in the ban.
In particular, I was curious about the ACLU story, which I believe you didn't provide a link for.

According to the ACLU (https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/aclu-and-other-groups-challenge-trump-immigration-ban-after-refugees-detained), these two are not green card holders.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 28, 2017, 08:40:03 PM
Do green card holders or visa holders get constitutional protection?
Green card holders, yes (https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/after-green-card-granted/rights-and-responsibilities-permanent-resident/rights-and-responsibilities-green-card-holder-permanent-resident). Visa holders, depends.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 28, 2017, 08:54:34 PM
In particular, I was curious about the ACLU story, which I believe you didn't provide a link for.

According to the ACLU (https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/aclu-and-other-groups-challenge-trump-immigration-ban-after-refugees-detained), these two are not green card holders.

Gotcha, my mistake.

As far as I am aware, the fifth amendment's wording has been historically interpreted to mean that any person in the US is protected by it. This is bolstered by the 14th amendment, which makes explicit distinctions between citizens and all people, and due process is listed as a right for all people there. There is also precedent for immigrants stopped at the border being due fifth amendment rights.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 28, 2017, 09:03:13 PM
In particular, I was curious about the ACLU story, which I believe you didn't provide a link for.

According to the ACLU (https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/aclu-and-other-groups-challenge-trump-immigration-ban-after-refugees-detained), these two are not green card holders.

Gotcha, my mistake.

As far as I am aware, the fifth amendment's wording has been historically interpreted to mean that any person in the US is protected by it. This is bolstered by the 14th amendment, which makes explicit distinctions between citizens and all people, and due process is listed as a right for all people there. There is also precedent for immigrants stopped at the border being due fifth amendment rights.
Ok so EOs are legally binding just like a law.  So it's like if Congress passed a law banning those people from entering.  But they were detained... which is kinda different than just banning, right?  I mean, you can ban someone from entering but not detain them.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 28, 2017, 09:11:16 PM
I'm not a lawyer, but I would think it is different to deny visas to people from those countries versus denying entry to people who already have visas.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 28, 2017, 09:18:37 PM
I agree with LD - I think them being detained is an issue, but I'm somewhat confident that a visa does not guarantee you entry. I'm no expert on the matter, but I'm basing this from my own experience with US visas and the things the Consulate General told me to be aware of at the time.

Granted, it was something along the lines of "btw, not that this will ever happen haha, but technically we might still tell you to piss off at the border", but still. Immigrant visas may be different in that respect. If they are, fair enough.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 28, 2017, 09:28:53 PM
Regardless of the legality, if there are any Trump supporters here that think the Muslim ban should not apply to permanent residents here, you should write the White House and let them know, because that is currently happening, at least until the DHS or the Trump administration clarifies what the heck is supposed to be going on.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 28, 2017, 09:29:37 PM
I agree with LD - I think them being detained is an issue, but I'm somewhat confident that a visa does not guarantee you entry. I'm no expert on the matter, but I'm basing this from my own experience with US visas and the things the Consulate General told me to be aware of at the time.

Granted, it was something along the lines of "btw, not that this will ever happen haha, but technically we might still tell you to piss off at the border", but still. Immigrant visas may be different in that respect. If they are, fair enough.
They aren't different but they generally need a reason to deny your visa.  They can't just say ... "Yeah, see, I decided I don't like Muslims so we're canceling your visa."
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 28, 2017, 09:50:45 PM
Trump is spamming me for campaign money for the Republican Party.


I'm like... Wft?  Election's over.  Why are you asking now?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 28, 2017, 09:54:39 PM
I agree with LD - I think them being detained is an issue, but I'm somewhat confident that a visa does not guarantee you entry. I'm no expert on the matter, but I'm basing this from my own experience with US visas and the things the Consulate General told me to be aware of at the time.

Granted, it was something along the lines of "btw, not that this will ever happen haha, but technically we might still tell you to piss off at the border", but still. Immigrant visas may be different in that respect. If they are, fair enough.
They aren't different but they generally need a reason to deny your visa.  They can't just say ... "Yeah, see, I decided I don't like Muslims so we're canceling your visa."

Customs can deny you entry because they don't like the cut of your jib, nevermind your religion.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 29, 2017, 12:06:01 AM
i fail to see how this policy makes me any safer today than i was yesterday.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 29, 2017, 12:31:25 AM
i fail to see how this policy makes me any safer today than i was yesterday.

The theory is there will be less Jihad in your backyard.  Your 0.1% chance of dying to Islamic terrorism just went down to 0.09%.  Show some gratitude.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 29, 2017, 12:44:50 AM
The theory is there will be less Jihad in your backyard.

for sure, but i can't image how this could accomplish that.  i feel like i were an isis commander right now, my first thoughts would be "uh, we use iraqis to kill other iraqis, dummies.  just like we recruit americans to kill americans.  are u dudes even paying attention lmao."

or whatever the arabic equivalent of that is.  i assume lmao is directly translatable.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 29, 2017, 01:04:33 AM
for sure, but i can't image how this could accomplish that.  i feel like i were an isis commander right now, my first thoughts would be "uh, we use iraqis to kill other iraqis, dummies.  just like we recruit americans to kill americans.  are u dudes even paying attention lmao."

or whatever the arabic equivalent of that is.  i assume lmao is directly translatable.

I think even this thought is too much credit to the problem.  We should be more concerned with developing safer seat belts than we are with homegrown jihadi.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on January 29, 2017, 01:36:46 AM
i fail to see how this policy makes me any safer today than i was yesterday.

The theory is there will be less Jihad in your backyard.  Your 0.1% chance of dying to Islamic terrorism just went down to 0.09%.  Show some gratitude.

That's only in America. Go to Saudi Arabia or the rest of the world for that matter and that percentage goes higher. That's excluding the places where rape and violent crime are going up because of all these refugees.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 29, 2017, 02:10:31 AM
That's only in America.

Well we are talking about America.

Quote
Go to Saudi Arabia or the rest of the world for that matter and that percentage goes higher. That's excluding the places where rape and violent crime are going up because of all these refugees.

Does it?  I genuinely don't know.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on January 29, 2017, 02:21:18 AM
i fail to see how this policy makes me any safer today than i was yesterday.

The theory is there will be less Jihad in your backyard.  Your 0.1% chance of dying to Islamic terrorism just went down to 0.09%.  Show some gratitude.

That's only in America. Go to Saudi Arabia or the rest of the world for that matter and that percentage goes higher. That's excluding the places where rape and violent crime are going up because of all these refugees.

Trump just handed every would-be terrorist a righteous cause to justify striking against the US and drive recruitment. If you think this policy was a good idea and made the US safer, well... you may want to do some deep introspection of your own logic and motivations.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 29, 2017, 02:30:37 AM
Of course it doesn't make the US safer. This ban isn't going to stop terrorists from getting into the United States, not as long as places like Saudi Arabia or Egypt are not on the list. The only thing it has demonstrably done so far is hurt US residents by denying them entry, and entrapping current US residents inside the country for fear of not getting back in.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 29, 2017, 03:04:38 AM
A federal judge issued an emergency stay that will prevent those with valid visas in the US from being sent back. (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-stay-idUSKBN15D025)

Edited for correctness.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 29, 2017, 03:52:21 AM
Little late here, but virtually all of the protections and freedoms under the Constitution are afforded to persons, not simply citizens. The Fifth Amendment even begins with "No person..." It's part of the reason I'm skeptical about any plans for a "deportation force" somehow cutting through the backlog of illegal immigrants. You can't just round them up and throw them out of the country en masse.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Parsifal on January 29, 2017, 04:58:17 AM
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/an-immigration-order-as-stupid-as-it-is-counterproductive/514847/

Beautifully written, and spot on.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 29, 2017, 09:20:53 AM
A federal judge issued an emergency stay that will prevent those with valid visas in the US from being sent back. (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-stay-idUSKBN15D025)

Edited for correctness.
Worth bearing in mind that, at least temporarily, this makes these people's situation even worse. Now they can neither be deported nor admitted into the country. Previously at least the former was an option.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38786660

Little late here, but virtually all of the protections and freedoms under the Constitution are afforded to persons, not simply citizens. The Fifth Amendment even begins with "No person..." It's part of the reason I'm skeptical about any plans for a "deportation force" somehow cutting through the backlog of illegal immigrants. You can't just round them up and throw them out of the country en masse.
You're partially correct, except illegal immigration is dealt with as an administrative, not criminal matter. To my understanding this hasn't changed over the past decades, so have an old explainer: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2001/09/do_noncitizens_have_constitutional_rights.html



It's okay, guys, I'm sure Mike Pence will step in any moment now (https://twitter.com/GovPenceIN/status/674249808610066433).
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 29, 2017, 11:23:57 AM
A federal judge issued an emergency stay that will prevent those with valid visas in the US from being sent back. (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-stay-idUSKBN15D025)

Edited for correctness.
Worth bearing in mind that, at least temporarily, this makes these people's situation even worse. Now they can neither be deported nor admitted into the country. Previously at least the former was an option.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38786660 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38786660)
Really depends on their situation.  If I were fleeing a shit hole that had nothing but death for me, I'd be happy to be locked in an airport.
And it's not so bad.  Has no one seen "The Terminal"?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 29, 2017, 02:15:11 PM
Worth bearing in mind that, at least temporarily, this makes these people's situation even worse. Now they can neither be deported nor admitted into the country. Previously at least the former was an option.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38786660

Do you have any source that these people would be prevented from turning around and going home? That seems a direct contradiction of the judge's orders that these people not be detained at the airport, and though I can't find a source right now, I'm pretty sure this was addressed at the hearing and it was stated outright that she was not ordering these people be kept here.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 29, 2017, 03:12:58 PM
Worth bearing in mind that, at least temporarily, this makes these people's situation even worse. Now they can neither be deported nor admitted into the country. Previously at least the former was an option.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38786660

Do you have any source that these people would be prevented from turning around and going home? That seems a direct contradiction of the judge's orders that these people not be detained at the airport, and though I can't find a source right now, I'm pretty sure this was addressed at the hearing and it was stated outright that she was not ordering these people be kept here.
Yeah. From the article I've linked (see quote above):

Quote from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38786660
The ruling from federal Judge Ann Donnelly, in New York, prevented the removal from the US of people with approved refugee applications, valid visas, and "other individuals... legally authorised to enter the United States".

The emergency ruling also said there was a risk of "substantial and irreparable injury" to those affected.

Her ruling is not on the constitutionality of Mr Trump's executive order. What will happen to those still held at airports remains unclear.

It sure sounds like the only thing that changed is that they can no longer be removed from the country, which was previously their only way out.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 29, 2017, 03:27:11 PM
Preventing removal is not the same as preventing someone from returning. Removal implies being ejected.

EDIT: This tweet is from Jackie Vino, from the National Immigration Law Center: https://twitter.com/JackieVimo/status/825522062970195969

Quote
US: "There are some people who might request to return to their country." Judge: "I'm not directing you to trap them here!"

She was tweeting excerpts from the hearing yesterday. Not a valid source, but that's where I heard this from.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 29, 2017, 04:01:12 PM
Preventing removal is not the same as preventing someone from returning. Removal implies being ejected.
But they're currently being detained.

EDIT: This tweet is from Jackie Vino, from the National Immigration Law Center: https://twitter.com/JackieVimo/status/825522062970195969

Quote
US: "There are some people who might request to return to their country." Judge: "I'm not directing you to trap them here!"

She was tweeting excerpts from the hearing yesterday. Not a valid source, but that's where I heard this from.
I'm okay with taking that at face value, but even if that was said, current reporting on the issue seems to suggest that they haven't been released from detention, and that there isn't a clear way forward.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 29, 2017, 04:45:40 PM
It's a clusterfuck that Trump dumped on everyone instantly and without any time to get the logistics and legality dealt with.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 29, 2017, 04:47:33 PM
Yup. Putting aside the question of whether or not this was a reasonable plan in the first place for a moment, its implementation is absolutely abysmal. Putting it into effect so suddenly that it affected people who were already en route to the US is just crazy.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 29, 2017, 04:51:25 PM
Little late here, but virtually all of the protections and freedoms under the Constitution are afforded to persons, not simply citizens. The Fifth Amendment even begins with "No person..." It's part of the reason I'm skeptical about any plans for a "deportation force" somehow cutting through the backlog of illegal immigrants. You can't just round them up and throw them out of the country en masse.
You're partially correct, except illegal immigration is dealt with as an administrative, not criminal matter. To my understanding this hasn't changed over the past decades, so have an old explainer: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2001/09/do_noncitizens_have_constitutional_rights.html

They don't get criminal trials, but there still needs to be some sort of process where people can plead their case to satisfy the due process requirement. That's what slows down the deporting of illegal immigrants, not leniency or a lack of manpower.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 29, 2017, 04:52:32 PM
Little late here, but virtually all of the protections and freedoms under the Constitution are afforded to persons, not simply citizens. The Fifth Amendment even begins with "No person..." It's part of the reason I'm skeptical about any plans for a "deportation force" somehow cutting through the backlog of illegal immigrants. You can't just round them up and throw them out of the country en masse.
You're partially correct, except illegal immigration is dealt with as an administrative, not criminal matter. To my understanding this hasn't changed over the past decades, so have an old explainer: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2001/09/do_noncitizens_have_constitutional_rights.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2001/09/do_noncitizens_have_constitutional_rights.html)

They don't get criminal trials, but there still needs to be some sort of process where people can plead their case to satisfy the due process requirement. That's what slows down the deporting of illegal immigrants, not leniency or a lack of manpower.
It's funny how people who claim to love America and the constitution are happy to throw out that 5th amendment for non-Americans.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 29, 2017, 04:54:20 PM
That's what slows down the deporting of illegal immigrants, not leniency or a lack of manpower.
I completely agree that it's a factor, but surely you will agree that the existence of sanctuary cities is one too. Not trying to make any claims about which factor is bigger since I literally have no clue.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 29, 2017, 05:26:49 PM
That's what slows down the deporting of illegal immigrants, not leniency or a lack of manpower.
I completely agree that it's a factor, but surely you will agree that the existence of sanctuary cities is one too. Not trying to make any claims about which factor is bigger since I literally have no clue.
I honestly figured that if you were arrested and found to not be a citizen, you automatically called Immigration.  What is the rationale of not doing this?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 29, 2017, 05:49:29 PM
I honestly figured that if you were arrested and found to not be a citizen, you automatically called Immigration.  What is the rationale of not doing this?
I don't know much about the official rationales. To the best of my understanding, while it varies hugely between cities, commonalities include "it's a federal law thing, so state/local law enforcement doesn't need to get involved" (even though that argument is inaccurate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city#Political_action)) plus "it would be expensive to get involved". I'm sure the actual reasons are much more diverse than that, however.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 29, 2017, 05:50:01 PM
That's what slows down the deporting of illegal immigrants, not leniency or a lack of manpower.
I completely agree that it's a factor, but surely you will agree that the existence of sanctuary cities is one too. Not trying to make any claims about which factor is bigger since I literally have no clue.
I honestly figured that if you were arrested and found to not be a citizen, you automatically called Immigration.  What is the rationale of not doing this?

They don't find out in the first place. Sanctuary cities are basically the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" of illegal immigration, where they do not look into the immigration status of the people there in an attempt to not have to report them. Federal statute requires their reporting, but does not require the collection of that information, to my knowledge. That is a state issue. I don't agree with that sentiment, but that's the rationale.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 29, 2017, 05:59:06 PM
There's also the concern that illegal immigrants will start avoiding the police if they know that any contact with them could lead to their immigration status being questioned.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 29, 2017, 06:09:20 PM
According to The Hill, (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316701-admin-trump-to-issue-three-more-executive-orders) Trump has removed the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Director of National Intelligence from the National Security Council and instead appointed Steve Bannon and Chief of Staff Reince Priebus as permanent members.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 29, 2017, 06:19:21 PM
And who here thinks that was a good idea?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 30, 2017, 06:11:38 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-kentucky-us-dozens-terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131




So apparently not only has terrorists come to the us from Iraq as refugees, but Obama did (sorta) ban refugees for 6 months.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 30, 2017, 08:03:50 AM
Yeah, but that's okay. That was Obama, not HITLER
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 30, 2017, 11:15:40 AM
Yeah, but that's okay. That was Obama, not HITLER


It really is all about execution.
Obama did it in a way that no one will really notice.  Trump just blunt.  He lacks sublty.  He demands maximum effort immediately instead of easing into it.


He skips foreplay and goes straight for the ass fucking.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 30, 2017, 11:25:18 AM
I don't think continuously bombing the shit out of the same countries counts as being "subtle". It's a question of what the media chooses to report. His feud with the media means they're keen on making them look bad. Not that I blame them entirely.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 30, 2017, 11:42:22 AM
Obama stopped processing refugee applications from Iraq for six months. He didn't stop people with valid visas from getting in and sure as shit didn't detain them at the airport. What's with this false equivalency?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 30, 2017, 12:03:24 PM
I don't think continuously bombing the shit out of the same countries counts as being "subtle". It's a question of what the media chooses to report. His feud with the media means they're keen on making them look bad. Not that I blame them entirely.

War is almost never subtle.  Can't blame someone for that.  But we aren't at war with those nations, just groups inside those nations.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 30, 2017, 02:14:55 PM
Processing refugees is a little different than a ban on entry, but meh.  My biggest problem with this whole affair is how badly it was implemented, not the policy itself.  You can argue it is an ineffective policy, but it is a valid response to a perceived security concern.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on January 30, 2017, 02:28:04 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-kentucky-us-dozens-terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131




So apparently not only has terrorists come to the us from Iraq as refugees, but Obama did (sorta) ban refugees for 6 months.

He had all the visas issued but not yet used cancelled and implemented a more intense vetting procedure. This had the effect of freezing visa applications for 6 months. During which time, a couple of Iraqi interpreters were killed. I'm not sure how much outrage there was in the US but here in the UK it was quite a big story.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 30, 2017, 02:35:59 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-kentucky-us-dozens-terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131 (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-kentucky-us-dozens-terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131)




So apparently not only has terrorists come to the us from Iraq as refugees, but Obama did (sorta) ban refugees for 6 months.

He had all the visas issued but not yet used cancelled and implemented a more intense vetting procedure. This had the effect of freezing visa applications for 6 months. During which time, a couple of Iraqi interpreters were killed. I'm not sure how much outrage there was in the US but here in the UK it was quite a big story.


Dunno.  Don't remember.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 30, 2017, 02:39:12 PM
lol (https://twitter.com/seanspicer/status/825565510418968578)

Screenshot in case it goes away:
(https://i.imgur.com/kczcU9k.png)
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 30, 2017, 02:49:06 PM
Oh jesus. 
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 30, 2017, 02:56:44 PM
obama's ban was a response to a known vulnerability: finding al qaeda terrorists in kentucky via iraq.  if you receive direct evidence that your vetting procedures have failed, then it makes perfect sense to stop issuing additional visas until you can strengthen the process.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826060143825666051

lol.  jesus fucking christ.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 30, 2017, 03:02:35 PM
The man is delusional. Apparently if he had given notice of this immigration ban, a terrorist would have been able to get a visa within one week. Yea, OK.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: mollete on January 30, 2017, 03:02:49 PM

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826060143825666051

lol.  jesus fucking christ.

Lol, reminds me of something my cousin said in a Facebook comment recently:

Quote from: mollete's cousin
If someone told a serial frozen treat eater that the ice cream truck was going to stop coming on Tuesday you would have a stampede of tasty treat bandits bum rushing the truck on Monday. Same thing goes for this travel restriction, If Trump announced that a ban for those countries would start next month you would have a mad rush of people trying to squeeze in. It makes total sense to me to throw up a "travel wall" while they figure it out.

(this, btw, was in response to something I said that had nothing to do with how much notice should or should not have been given before the ban)
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 30, 2017, 03:16:25 PM
obama's ban was a response to a known vulnerability: finding al qaeda terrorists in kentucky via iraq.  if you receive direct evidence that your vetting procedures have failed, then it makes perfect sense to stop issuing additional visas until you can strengthen the process.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826060143825666051 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826060143825666051)

lol.  jesus fucking christ.

Yeah...
Considering it takes 2 years for a Syrian refugee to get in, I don't think they can "rush in".  Trump clearly doesn't understand how the immigration process works.
Hell, when my wife moved over to the USA on a K-12 visa, it took a year to do that.  And she's from Norway and that's a safe, nearly guaranteed acceptance, country. 

I mean, just getting a tourist visa takes months.  And why would they rush in now?  Why haven't they already gotten in? 
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 30, 2017, 03:46:11 PM
And why would they rush in now?  Why haven't they already gotten in?

lol right?  like isis just had a bunch of terrorist refugees with visas just milling about, only to be stumped by the trump sneak attack.

i can't get past the irony that he's concerned about isis circumventing the vetting process in one week, but he's not concerned that isis could simply recruit a jordanian.  or an egyptian.  or an american.  like they already have done.

i called this shit months ago.  forget whether or not you think his policies are good ideas.  he's an amateur.  he doesn't know what he's doing.  he doesn't know how to be a political leader.  it's not the same as being a business leader.  this is going to be a giant, bumbling, amateur-hour that wastes everyone's time for hopefully no more than four years.

and ffs he kicks the joint chiefs off the nsc and replaces them with steve fucking bannon?  is that a joke?  can someone remind me what foreign policy experience steve bannon has?  or military experience?  or intelligence experience?  or security?  or literally anything else related to that job?  if hillary clinton had won, nominated a bunch of her top donors to her cabinet, replaced key nsc heads with motherfucking arianna huffington, and omitted from a travel ban a bunch of nations that did business with the clinton foundation, centipedes would be losing their fucking minds right now.  am i wrong?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 30, 2017, 04:28:49 PM
Bannon was a naval officer for seven years back in the seventies and eighties, so he does have some military experience, but that hardly qualifies him to sit on the NSC. He's not interested in running the country. He's willing to burn it all down in the interests of advertising his (repugnant) brand.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 30, 2017, 05:14:37 PM
Bannon was a naval officer for seven years back in the seventies and eighties, so he does have some military experience, but that hardly qualifies him to sit on the NSC. He's not interested in running the country. He's willing to burn it all down in the interests of advertising his (repugnant) brand.

Yeah and I can't see much of what his rank was but likely lieutenant. But he was special assistant to an ops director at the pentagon for several years so....
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: totallackey on January 30, 2017, 05:16:11 PM
Bannon was a naval officer for seven years back in the seventies and eighties, so he does have some military experience, but that hardly qualifies him to sit on the NSC. He's not interested in running the country. He's willing to burn it all down in the interests of advertising his (repugnant) brand.

Yeah...

Right...
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on January 30, 2017, 05:27:37 PM
i stand corrected; i'll put a checkmark in the military experience column.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 30, 2017, 05:41:30 PM
i stand corrected; i'll put a checkmark in the military experience column.

I mean the people he replaced had way more military experience, so it's not exactly in the plus column for "appoint Steve Bannon".
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Snupes on January 30, 2017, 05:50:45 PM
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826060143825666051

Why are we all ignoring the fact that, if he does ban these "bad dudes" from entering the U.S., we're risking not letting in any who are bad enough dudes to rescue the president? :[
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 30, 2017, 07:41:17 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-regulations-idUSKBN15E1QU?utm_source=34553&utm_medium=partner

And here's another bone head move.

"Sorry, we wanted to make sure banks can't cause the great recession again but it would require taking out regulations that we put in to also help stop another great recession."

This is absolute BS.  What happens when the cost of a reguation is calculated to more than 2 other regulations?  What about environmental or agricultural?  My god, the sheer horror of it all.  And who calculates the cost? 

Oh and the military and national security are except.  Cause, you know, Republican fucktards love them.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on January 30, 2017, 11:22:36 PM
i fail to see how this policy makes me any safer today than i was yesterday.

The theory is there will be less Jihad in your backyard.  Your 0.1% chance of dying to Islamic terrorism just went down to 0.09%.  Show some gratitude.

That's only in America. Go to Saudi Arabia or the rest of the world for that matter and that percentage goes higher. That's excluding the places where rape and violent crime are going up because of all these refugees.

Trump just handed every would-be terrorist a righteous cause to justify striking against the US and drive recruitment. If you think this policy was a good idea and made the US safer, well... you may want to do some deep introspection of your own logic and motivations.

Wait, if these Muslims are that easily offended that if we don't let them in they'll blow us up then what are we doing letting them in? That's like saying "I better let my neighbor Bob live in my house or else he'll murder my entire family." Also I thought not all Muslims are violent.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 30, 2017, 11:32:17 PM
i fail to see how this policy makes me any safer today than i was yesterday.

The theory is there will be less Jihad in your backyard.  Your 0.1% chance of dying to Islamic terrorism just went down to 0.09%.  Show some gratitude.

That's only in America. Go to Saudi Arabia or the rest of the world for that matter and that percentage goes higher. That's excluding the places where rape and violent crime are going up because of all these refugees.

Trump just handed every would-be terrorist a righteous cause to justify striking against the US and drive recruitment. If you think this policy was a good idea and made the US safer, well... you may want to do some deep introspection of your own logic and motivations.

Wait, if these Muslims are that easily offended that if we don't let them in they'll blow us up then what are we doing letting them in? That's like saying "I better let my neighbor Bob live in my house or else he'll murder my entire family." Also I thought not all Muslims are violent.

I don't think it's a great argument, but he's not saying that the would-be terrorists and would-be refugees are the same people.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 30, 2017, 11:46:51 PM
What the shit. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/29/unnamed-white-house-official-on-implementing-travel-ban-it-really-is-a-massive-success-story/) The White House, if you believe the Washington Post, held a press conference on the condition that senior officials briefing the press be anonymous.

Also, seems the administrations official stance is the people inconvenienced by the ban are a "fractional, marginal, minuscule percentage" of overall travelers, which I don't think anyone ever disputed.

"It really is a massive success story in terms of implementation on every single level." ::)

The whole article is crazy.

Taking bets on who these two officials were. I'm betting the angry one is Bannon.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 30, 2017, 11:48:48 PM
i fail to see how this policy makes me any safer today than i was yesterday.

The theory is there will be less Jihad in your backyard.  Your 0.1% chance of dying to Islamic terrorism just went down to 0.09%.  Show some gratitude.

That's only in America. Go to Saudi Arabia or the rest of the world for that matter and that percentage goes higher. That's excluding the places where rape and violent crime are going up because of all these refugees.

Trump just handed every would-be terrorist a righteous cause to justify striking against the US and drive recruitment. If you think this policy was a good idea and made the US safer, well... you may want to do some deep introspection of your own logic and motivations.

Wait, if these Muslims are that easily offended that if we don't let them in they'll blow us up then what are we doing letting them in? That's like saying "I better let my neighbor Bob live in my house or else he'll murder my entire family." Also I thought not all Muslims are violent.

That's not really what Totes said. He specifically said it would motivate "would-be terrorists". That doesn't really include the vast majority of Muslims.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on January 31, 2017, 12:16:21 AM
I'm betting the angry one is Bannon.

I highly doubt that Bannon would ever ask to be anonymous. His interest is in courting his base, not quietly clarifying issues for the media.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 31, 2017, 04:48:15 AM
Acting Attorney General Sally Yates refused to defend the new travel restrictions, so she has been fired.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-idUSKBN15E1DE

EDIT: Wikipedia already mad (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monday_Night_Massacre)

EDIT2: Director of ICE was also replaced. (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-replaces-acting-director-immigration-enforcement-n714491)
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 31, 2017, 05:54:50 AM
Trump's administration ia falling apart faster than his qtlqntic city casinos.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on January 31, 2017, 06:00:26 AM
i fail to see how this policy makes me any safer today than i was yesterday.

The theory is there will be less Jihad in your backyard.  Your 0.1% chance of dying to Islamic terrorism just went down to 0.09%.  Show some gratitude.

That's only in America. Go to Saudi Arabia or the rest of the world for that matter and that percentage goes higher. That's excluding the places where rape and violent crime are going up because of all these refugees.

Trump just handed every would-be terrorist a righteous cause to justify striking against the US and drive recruitment. If you think this policy was a good idea and made the US safer, well... you may want to do some deep introspection of your own logic and motivations.

Wait, if these Muslims are that easily offended that if we don't let them in they'll blow us up then what are we doing letting them in? That's like saying "I better let my neighbor Bob live in my house or else he'll murder my entire family." Also I thought not all Muslims are violent.

That's not really what Totes said. He specifically said it would motivate "would-be terrorists". That doesn't really include the vast majority of Muslims.

However it does include the infiltrators coming in as refugees.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 31, 2017, 08:22:42 AM
EDIT: Wikipedia already mad (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monday_Night_Massacre)
Bah, no speedy deletion debate? I was looking forward to people arguing whether or not a Reddit meme is relevant to an encyclopedia again.

Nvm it's right there, it's just slightly hidden in the mobile layout.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 31, 2017, 11:24:02 AM
i fail to see how this policy makes me any safer today than i was yesterday.

The theory is there will be less Jihad in your backyard.  Your 0.1% chance of dying to Islamic terrorism just went down to 0.09%.  Show some gratitude.

That's only in America. Go to Saudi Arabia or the rest of the world for that matter and that percentage goes higher. That's excluding the places where rape and violent crime are going up because of all these refugees.

Trump just handed every would-be terrorist a righteous cause to justify striking against the US and drive recruitment. If you think this policy was a good idea and made the US safer, well... you may want to do some deep introspection of your own logic and motivations.

Wait, if these Muslims are that easily offended that if we don't let them in they'll blow us up then what are we doing letting them in? That's like saying "I better let my neighbor Bob live in my house or else he'll murder my entire family." Also I thought not all Muslims are violent.

Ok, you need a lesson.

1) A refugee application takes up to 2 years to process, goes through the UN first, AND (here's the big kicker) you CAN NOT CHOOSE THE COUNTRY YOU GO TO!  Seriously, how do you people not read up on this?  What, you think Syrians just fly over to the US and say "I'm a Refugee" and suddenly they get in?  The UN vets you, figures out which country you should go to, then sends a referral to that country who then takes over the vetting process.  US refugees take 2 years which includes interviews and major background checks.

2) ISIL recruits through two main methods: Propoganda and Conscription.  Propoganda is basically "The US is at war with Islam!  They kill your children and bomb your homes.  Fight with us!"  With the election of Trump, they cheered because the facade of peace that Obama put on has been thrown aside and America's true nature revealed as a country and people who wish to destroy Islam.  Just look at Trump's speeches and see for yourself.  When Trump did this ban, they also cheered cause now it's yet more proof, straight from Trump's own hand, that America hates Muslims.

Conscription is usually done by force.  They go into a village with guns and numbers, threaten to kill anyone's family who doesn't fight, and walks away with a bunch of recruits.  So no refugees means more families at risk for death.  Yay for that.

So this is really a win-win for ISIL.  I mean, how many people have they actually managed to sneak into the US?

Hell, why use the refugee program?  Why not just take a boat, go to the East coast where no one lives, and just walk on land?  Easy as fuck.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on January 31, 2017, 05:45:10 PM
Trump just handed every would-be terrorist a righteous cause to justify striking against the US and drive recruitment. If you think this policy was a good idea and made the US safer, well... you may want to do some deep introspection of your own logic and motivations.

Wait, if these Muslims are that easily offended that if we don't let them in they'll blow us up then what are we doing letting them in? That's like saying "I better let my neighbor Bob live in my house or else he'll murder my entire family." Also I thought not all Muslims are violent.

Don't be a simpleton. Of course not all Muslims are violent. But some are. Also, I hear that some black people are violent. Mexicans too. I even heard a few hushed rumors of white people being violent! gasp! And Asians... well, read a history book! There's only one solution: deport all humans!

Lord Dave's response was better than I could've put it.

That's not really what Totes said. He specifically said it would motivate "would-be terrorists". That doesn't really include the vast majority of Muslims.

However it does include the infiltrators coming in as refugees.

And exactly how many infiltrators do you think are among those refugees? You seem worried about this. Surely your worries are motivated by some hard data, right?

To get some precise estimates of the number of infiltrators, I recommend looking at past data. Perhaps the number of terrorists that have come over from these countries as refugees so far? Or perhaps American deaths at the hands of refugees from these countries? That should be a solid place to start. Good luck.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 31, 2017, 06:04:02 PM
"Democrats are delaying my cabinet picks for purely political reasons,'' Trump tweeted. "They have nothing going but to obstruct. Now have an Obama A.G."
I like how he's feeling what Obama felt and unlike Obama, bitches about it in the most blatant way the moment it happens.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 31, 2017, 09:02:15 PM
I don't think many Obama cabinet picks were delayed.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on January 31, 2017, 09:14:45 PM
I don't think many Obama cabinet picks were delayed.

Federal judges were, though. I think that is what he is referring to. Plus there were huge amounts of obstruction in general.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on January 31, 2017, 09:22:12 PM
I don't think many Obama cabinet picks were delayed.

Federal judges were, though. I think that is what he is referring to. Plus there were huge amounts of obstruction in general.
Yup.  That's what I'm referring to.  The judges and the MASSIVE obstruction.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on January 31, 2017, 09:37:51 PM
Ah fair enough.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on February 01, 2017, 12:44:44 AM
Trump just handed every would-be terrorist a righteous cause to justify striking against the US and drive recruitment. If you think this policy was a good idea and made the US safer, well... you may want to do some deep introspection of your own logic and motivations.

Wait, if these Muslims are that easily offended that if we don't let them in they'll blow us up then what are we doing letting them in? That's like saying "I better let my neighbor Bob live in my house or else he'll murder my entire family." Also I thought not all Muslims are violent.

Don't be a simpleton. Of course not all Muslims are violent. But some are. Also, I hear that some black people are violent. Mexicans too. I even heard a few hushed rumors of white people being violent! gasp! And Asians... well, read a history book! There's only one solution: deport all humans!

Lord Dave's response was better than I could've put it.

That's not really what Totes said. He specifically said it would motivate "would-be terrorists". That doesn't really include the vast majority of Muslims.

However it does include the infiltrators coming in as refugees.

And exactly how many infiltrators do you think are among those refugees? You seem worried about this. Surely your worries are motivated by some hard data, right?

To get some precise estimates of the number of infiltrators, I recommend looking at past data. Perhaps the number of terrorists that have come over from these countries as refugees so far? Or perhaps American deaths at the hands of refugees from these countries? That should be a solid place to start. Good luck.

The San Bernardino shooter and OSU shooter were vetted immigrants.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 01, 2017, 01:19:48 AM
I'm ok with Gorsuch. I hope the Democrats don't try and fillibuster this nominee and save that fight for someone like Ginsburg.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on February 01, 2017, 03:53:19 AM
I'm ok with Gorsuch. I hope the Democrats don't try and fillibuster this nominee and save that fight for someone like Ginsburg.

Gorsuch might be the most shocking Trump appointment yet. He's, what's the word, qualified. He has a degree in law and not animal husbandry. He doesn't think the Supreme Court is a hoax by the Chinese. I'd prefer someone less conservative but he doesn't seem like a madman.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 01, 2017, 04:04:26 AM
Trump just handed every would-be terrorist a righteous cause to justify striking against the US and drive recruitment. If you think this policy was a good idea and made the US safer, well... you may want to do some deep introspection of your own logic and motivations.

Wait, if these Muslims are that easily offended that if we don't let them in they'll blow us up then what are we doing letting them in? That's like saying "I better let my neighbor Bob live in my house or else he'll murder my entire family." Also I thought not all Muslims are violent.

Don't be a simpleton. Of course not all Muslims are violent. But some are. Also, I hear that some black people are violent. Mexicans too. I even heard a few hushed rumors of white people being violent! gasp! And Asians... well, read a history book! There's only one solution: deport all humans!

Lord Dave's response was better than I could've put it.

That's not really what Totes said. He specifically said it would motivate "would-be terrorists". That doesn't really include the vast majority of Muslims.

However it does include the infiltrators coming in as refugees.

And exactly how many infiltrators do you think are among those refugees? You seem worried about this. Surely your worries are motivated by some hard data, right?

To get some precise estimates of the number of infiltrators, I recommend looking at past data. Perhaps the number of terrorists that have come over from these countries as refugees so far? Or perhaps American deaths at the hands of refugees from these countries? That should be a solid place to start. Good luck.

The San Bernardino shooter and OSU shooter were vetted immigrants.

Good job! Now we are getting somewhere. Now, how many total immigrants have there been in the timespan that you are looking at? Also, where specifically did they come from?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 01, 2017, 06:08:27 AM
Trump just handed every would-be terrorist a righteous cause to justify striking against the US and drive recruitment. If you think this policy was a good idea and made the US safer, well... you may want to do some deep introspection of your own logic and motivations.

Wait, if these Muslims are that easily offended that if we don't let them in they'll blow us up then what are we doing letting them in? That's like saying "I better let my neighbor Bob live in my house or else he'll murder my entire family." Also I thought not all Muslims are violent.

Don't be a simpleton. Of course not all Muslims are violent. But some are. Also, I hear that some black people are violent. Mexicans too. I even heard a few hushed rumors of white people being violent! gasp! And Asians... well, read a history book! There's only one solution: deport all humans!

Lord Dave's response was better than I could've put it.

That's not really what Totes said. He specifically said it would motivate "would-be terrorists". That doesn't really include the vast majority of Muslims.

However it does include the infiltrators coming in as refugees.

And exactly how many infiltrators do you think are among those refugees? You seem worried about this. Surely your worries are motivated by some hard data, right?

To get some precise estimates of the number of infiltrators, I recommend looking at past data. Perhaps the number of terrorists that have come over from these countries as refugees so far? Or perhaps American deaths at the hands of refugees from these countries? That should be a solid place to start. Good luck.

The San Bernardino shooter and OSU shooter were vetted immigrants.


Only two of the three.
One was a us citizen.


And the refugee?  0 fatalities.


The refugee was from Somalia, lives in Pakistan for 7 years, then came to the US, and killed no one.
The San Berdino shooter (wife) was from... Pakistan.
So one refugee failed to kill anyone and one woman married a us citizen and helped kill 14 people.


Somalian Refugees number about 100,000 since 2001 and, funny thing is, all of the attackers appear to have become radicalized after coming here.


The minnesota mall stabbing (0 fatalities) was also a somalian refugee... When he was 2.  Yes, terrorists recruited a 2 year old to infultrate and terrorize America...


Got any more examples to cherry pick?  Cause so far you have yet to show one example of a refugee being a terrorist before entering the US.  (And the San Berdino shooter wasn't even a refugee)
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on February 01, 2017, 05:49:35 PM
Trump just handed every would-be terrorist a righteous cause to justify striking against the US and drive recruitment. If you think this policy was a good idea and made the US safer, well... you may want to do some deep introspection of your own logic and motivations.

Wait, if these Muslims are that easily offended that if we don't let them in they'll blow us up then what are we doing letting them in? That's like saying "I better let my neighbor Bob live in my house or else he'll murder my entire family." Also I thought not all Muslims are violent.

Don't be a simpleton. Of course not all Muslims are violent. But some are. Also, I hear that some black people are violent. Mexicans too. I even heard a few hushed rumors of white people being violent! gasp! And Asians... well, read a history book! There's only one solution: deport all humans!

Lord Dave's response was better than I could've put it.

That's not really what Totes said. He specifically said it would motivate "would-be terrorists". That doesn't really include the vast majority of Muslims.

However it does include the infiltrators coming in as refugees.

And exactly how many infiltrators do you think are among those refugees? You seem worried about this. Surely your worries are motivated by some hard data, right?

To get some precise estimates of the number of infiltrators, I recommend looking at past data. Perhaps the number of terrorists that have come over from these countries as refugees so far? Or perhaps American deaths at the hands of refugees from these countries? That should be a solid place to start. Good luck.

The San Bernardino shooter and OSU shooter were vetted immigrants.

Good job! Now we are getting somewhere. Now, how many total immigrants have there been in the timespan that you are looking at? Also, where specifically did they come from?

A lot and from all over. The Syrian refugee status is the easiest to fake. That's why President Trump is putting a temporary halt of refugees accepted. Plus more than 70% of these people support sharia law and suicide bombings. Not only that but we can look at places like Germany and see the carnage these people are causing when in large amounts.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 01, 2017, 06:21:53 PM
Wow...


Ok, how do you fake syrian refugee status?  And to what end?  You still don't pick your country.  You go where the un says.


Also, cite source of that 70% please.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 01, 2017, 07:34:18 PM
In latest news Trump wants Republicans to stop any democrat ability to filibuster if they can't get his guy into the supreme court.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/01/donald-trump-neil-gorsuch-nuclear-option/97340984/

Seriously, this is what the making of a dictatorship looks like.  Trump has used alot of executive orders, banned people, fired people who disagree with him, gotten close friends and advisers (without the needed qualifications) into high ranking spots (like the security council) and now he's telling Republicans to do whatever it takes to get his nominee in place even if it means removing the Democrat's ability to do anything about it.

If this keeps up, Republicans will be the ONLY party that can do anything at any time.  And they'll make sure to keep it that way.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 01, 2017, 07:44:29 PM
from what little i've read, i don't want the dems to oppose gorsuch.  the socialist sc clerk whose podcast i follow seems to think that it's basically a gift.

if that's the case, then i'd rather the dems barter gorsuch's nomination for something they want.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 01, 2017, 09:42:06 PM
from what little i've read, i don't want the dems to oppose gorsuch.  the socialist sc clerk whose podcast i follow seems to think that it's basically a gift.

if that's the case, then i'd rather the dems barter gorsuch's nomination for something they want.
Barter how?  The repubs won and they don't give a flying fuck about dems.  Every Democrat could scream no and it wouldn't matter, they'd just change the rules so gorsuch got nominated with only republican votes.

Also:
http://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-02-01/devos-nomination-in-danger-after-collins-murkowski-defect

Quote
Spicer said. "I think that the games being played with Betsy Devos are sad."
This sums up the entire problem right here.  Every time someone opposes Trump's rule, they're playing games or are "sad".  Make no mistake, Maine and Alaska will suffer for their refusal to support God Emperor Trump's decision.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 02, 2017, 12:31:50 AM
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/frederick-douglass-trump/515292/

Quote from: Donald Trump
Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is getting recognized more and more, I notice.

lol

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-mexico-care-bad-hombres-us-45205127

Quote
"You have a bunch of bad hombres down there," Trump told Pena Nieto, according to the excerpt seen by the AP. "You aren't doing enough to stop them. I think your military is scared. Our military isn't, so I just might send them down to take care of it."

Hmm.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 02, 2017, 06:00:24 AM
Did Trump just threaten to invade Mexico?
O.o
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 02, 2017, 09:36:53 AM
According to Mexico, he did not

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mexico-deny-donald-trump-send-troops-over-us-mexico-border-president-enrique-pena-nieto-american-a7558526.html

Don't forget that Saddam's source was ABC
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on February 02, 2017, 10:08:06 AM
The weird thing is that under any other president, including Dubya, a news story that implied that he was considering invading Mexico could be easily dismissed. With Trump, you really have to double-check.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 02, 2017, 11:40:03 AM
The weird thing is that under any other president, including Dubya, a news story that implied that he was considering invading Mexico could be easily dismissed. With Trump, you really have to double-check.
It correlates, yes, but the rapid decline of mainstream media started long before Trump. Naturally, few people paid attention before they started plastering accusations of fascism all over the place.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 02, 2017, 12:00:04 PM
According to Mexico, he did not

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mexico-deny-donald-trump-send-troops-over-us-mexico-border-president-enrique-pena-nieto-american-a7558526.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mexico-deny-donald-trump-send-troops-over-us-mexico-border-president-enrique-pena-nieto-american-a7558526.html)

Don't forget that Saddam's source was ABC

Eh, I'm iffy on trusting the Mexican president on this.  Context and tone would help and it could have been a joke or an offer of aid more than anything else.

Or the Mexican president could be trying very hard to not make people panic.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 02, 2017, 12:14:28 PM
Iran, though. (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/10)
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 02, 2017, 12:17:42 PM
Eh, I'm iffy on trusting the Mexican president on this.  Context and tone would help and it could have been a joke or an offer of aid more than anything else.
More or less iffy than you are on trusting an anonymous person who provided one alleged sentence of a phone conversation, and one sentence only?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 02, 2017, 12:34:44 PM
Eh, I'm iffy on trusting the Mexican president on this.  Context and tone would help and it could have been a joke or an offer of aid more than anything else.
More or less iffy than you are on trusting an anonymous person who provided one alleged sentence of a phone conversation, and one sentence only?
Eh, I trust the AP.
https://apnews.com/0b3f5db59b2e4aa78cdbbf008f27fb49
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 02, 2017, 12:35:43 PM
Eh, I trust the AP.
https://apnews.com/0b3f5db59b2e4aa78cdbbf008f27fb49
And they're telling you exactly what I told you. An unidentified source gave them a one-sentence excerpt. Why is this better than the same AP telling you that a person who actually partook in the conversation dismisses this allegation as lies?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 02, 2017, 12:37:33 PM
Eh, I trust the AP.
https://apnews.com/0b3f5db59b2e4aa78cdbbf008f27fb49 (https://apnews.com/0b3f5db59b2e4aa78cdbbf008f27fb49)
And they're telling you exactly what I told you. An unidentified source gave them a one-sentence excerpt. Why is this better than the same AP telling you that a person who actually partook in the conversation dismisses this allegation as lies?

Oh, I misread.  I missed the excerpt part.  I thought they got the whole transcript.  Nor that it was just one line.

Then yeah, I agree with your point.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 02, 2017, 12:54:20 PM
And then there's Australia:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/politics/malcolm-turnbull-donald-trump-pena-nieto/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT4YbO_1mvA

Their account of the conversation with the Mexican president is a bit different, too.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on February 02, 2017, 01:47:21 PM
The weird thing is that under any other president, including Dubya, a news story that implied that he was considering invading Mexico could be easily dismissed. With Trump, you really have to double-check.
It correlates, yes, but the rapid decline of mainstream media started long before Trump. Naturally, few people paid attention before they started plastering accusations of fascism all over the place.

That's not what I mean. Every so often you got bonkers stories about Dubya doing something, or saying something terrible and it was so far-fetched as to need about 5 seconds to dismiss.

Trump has spent his political career - such as it is - saying such outrageous things that it's sometimes difficult to know what's silly hyperbole or fabrication, and what he's actually said.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 02, 2017, 03:48:40 PM
Trump threatened to cut off federal funding for UC Berkeley if they continue protesting against Milo. (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/827112633224544256?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: junker on February 02, 2017, 03:57:41 PM
Trump threatened to cut off federal funding for UC Berkeley if they continue protesting against Milo. (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/827112633224544256?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

I think you're confusing protesting with rioting.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 02, 2017, 04:08:04 PM
I was using wording from another article, but yes, when shit's on fire, it's a riot.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: junker on February 02, 2017, 04:20:35 PM
I was using wording from another article, but yes, when shit's on fire, it's a riot.

Fair enough.

I assume everyone who has seen coverage of it knows it wasn't a protest. It was rioting and terrorism literally to the definitions of the words. Free speech isn't a one way road like these psychos seem to think. I don't care for Milo at all, but civil rights were violated. People need to be held accountable and I hope some people go to prison for a long time. A bunch of cowards behind masks committing arson, assault & battery, and what certainly looks like attempted murder (or murder if the guy didn't make it). So yeah, if local authorities won't do anything about, then I won't get upset at federal intervention.

Some examples of the "protesters" just from the top comments on the main Reddit article:

https://twitter.com/TEN_GOP/status/827074607534469120

https://twitter.com/BakedNorwegian/status/827059707017846784   and    https://i.redditmedia.com/Tr5HvR52TusHBrKZlthFYvNrFUv8oxPSjJxSn0RhFu8.png?w=914&s=d8f0d97e4cea74aa230d1cf0a09bfdbb

https://twitter.com/shane_bauer/status/827022173386649600

Plenty more examples are available.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 02, 2017, 04:34:33 PM
I haven't read up on it but yeah that sounds pretty bad if it's rioting.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 02, 2017, 04:59:30 PM
Trump threatened to cut off federal funding for UC Berkeley if they continue protesting against Milo. (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/827112633224544256?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

I think this is one of those cases where Trump is just straight-up trolling. He's far too busy to be worrying about this.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 02, 2017, 05:19:44 PM
Trump threatened to cut off federal funding for UC Berkeley if they continue protesting against Milo. (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/827112633224544256?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

I think this is one of those cases where Trump is just straight-up trolling. He's far too busy to be worrying about this.
Pfft.

Right.
Like he's far too busy to complain about crowd size?  The popular vote?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Parsifal on February 02, 2017, 05:28:36 PM
And then there's Australia:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/politics/malcolm-turnbull-donald-trump-pena-nieto/

Trump is absolutely correct in everything he said there. Someone should have told Turnbull that years ago.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on February 02, 2017, 08:43:10 PM
Wow...


Ok, how do you fake syrian refugee status?  And to what end?  You still don't pick your country.  You go where the un says.


Also, cite source of that 70% please.

Here's how migrants are faking refugee status.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/migrants-are-disguising-themselves-as-syrians-to-gain-entry-to-europe/2015/09/22/827c6026-5bd8-11e5-8475-781cc9851652_story.html

Here's the stats showing 70% of Muslim support at least some form of sharia law.

http://pamelageller.com/2011/11/70-of-american-muslims-say-us-should-impose-sharia-legalized-polygamy.html/

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/statistics-the-muslim-worlds-problem-over-70-of-muslims-support-sharia-law-90-support-execution-of-apostates/
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 02, 2017, 09:05:45 PM
Wow...


Ok, how do you fake syrian refugee status?  And to what end?  You still don't pick your country.  You go where the un says.


Also, cite source of that 70% please.

Here's how migrants are faking refugee status.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/migrants-are-disguising-themselves-as-syrians-to-gain-entry-to-europe/2015/09/22/827c6026-5bd8-11e5-8475-781cc9851652_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/migrants-are-disguising-themselves-as-syrians-to-gain-entry-to-europe/2015/09/22/827c6026-5bd8-11e5-8475-781cc9851652_story.html)


Europe is the US now?  How interesting...
Also, that article talked of arriving en mass wih others for a bettr life, not terrorism.  So... Yeah, doesn't help your point since refugees aren't able to arrive "en mass" to America.


Quote
Here's the stats showing 70% of Muslim support at least some form of sharia law.

http://pamelageller.com/2011/11/70-of-american-muslims-say-us-should-impose-sharia-legalized-polygamy.html/ (http://pamelageller.com/2011/11/70-of-american-muslims-say-us-should-impose-sharia-legalized-polygamy.html/)

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/statistics-the-muslim-worlds-problem-over-70-of-muslims-support-sharia-law-90-support-execution-of-apostates/ (https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/statistics-the-muslim-worlds-problem-over-70-of-muslims-support-sharia-law-90-support-execution-of-apostates/)


A website surveying its members via web poll is not scientific nor unbiased.


And oh the other does not show the muslims in the US.  It surveys muslims who live in countries that operate under shair law.  If you made a survey on who thinks their country should run under the US constitution's laws, I bet Americans would be at 90% yes.  Its a heavily biased survey.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 03, 2017, 12:10:46 AM
Trump wants to end the ban on 501(c)(3) organizations donating to political causes. (http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-trump-religion-idUSL1N1FN19J) This would include churches and other non-profits.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 03, 2017, 03:40:08 AM
So the Muslim Brotherhood of America could finally throw money at a candidate and then be insulted and torn apart for it?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 03, 2017, 03:53:15 AM
Here's the stats showing 70% of Muslim support at least some form of sharia law.

http://pamelageller.com/2011/11/70-of-american-muslims-say-us-should-impose-sharia-legalized-polygamy.html/

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/statistics-the-muslim-worlds-problem-over-70-of-muslims-support-sharia-law-90-support-execution-of-apostates/

I'm sorry, but this is terrible sourcing. Your first link is to an article which links to another article which finally links to this article (http://www.muslimlinkpaper.com/index.php/community-news/community-news/2792-polygamy-tis-the-season.html). I'm not sure how reliable it is. It's several years old, and it vaguely refers to a survey without giving any specific details on how or where it was conducted. Your second link, again, leads to an article which links to another article which finally links to this article (http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/). It's a much better source, thankfully.

I have to say, though, it seems like you're conflating Muslims with would-be refugees, when Trump keeps stressing that this isn't a ban against Muslims. If that's true, then he can't have made his decision based on the information you're providing.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on February 03, 2017, 10:49:37 AM
Wow...


Ok, how do you fake syrian refugee status?  And to what end?  You still don't pick your country.  You go where the un says.


Also, cite source of that 70% please.

Here's how migrants are faking refugee status.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/migrants-are-disguising-themselves-as-syrians-to-gain-entry-to-europe/2015/09/22/827c6026-5bd8-11e5-8475-781cc9851652_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/migrants-are-disguising-themselves-as-syrians-to-gain-entry-to-europe/2015/09/22/827c6026-5bd8-11e5-8475-781cc9851652_story.html)


Europe is the US now?  How interesting...
Also, that article talked of arriving en mass wih others for a bettr life, not terrorism.  So... Yeah, doesn't help your point since refugees aren't able to arrive "en mass" to America.


Quote
Here's the stats showing 70% of Muslim support at least some form of sharia law.

http://pamelageller.com/2011/11/70-of-american-muslims-say-us-should-impose-sharia-legalized-polygamy.html/ (http://pamelageller.com/2011/11/70-of-american-muslims-say-us-should-impose-sharia-legalized-polygamy.html/)

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/statistics-the-muslim-worlds-problem-over-70-of-muslims-support-sharia-law-90-support-execution-of-apostates/ (https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/statistics-the-muslim-worlds-problem-over-70-of-muslims-support-sharia-law-90-support-execution-of-apostates/)


A website surveying its members via web poll is not scientific nor unbiased.


And oh the other does not show the muslims in the US.  It surveys muslims who live in countries that operate under shair law.  If you made a survey on who thinks their country should run under the US constitution's laws, I bet Americans would be at 90% yes.  Its a heavily biased survey.

Not to mention, Shariah Law isn't just lopping off hands and stoning adulterers, it is a system of laws that affects everything. I've read a few writers who have argued that there are elements of Shariah banking law which could help contain some of the vulture capitalism we currently see.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 03, 2017, 12:29:57 PM
That's not what I mean. Every so often you got bonkers stories about Dubya doing something, or saying something terrible and it was so far-fetched as to need about 5 seconds to dismiss.

Trump has spent his political career - such as it is - saying such outrageous things that it's sometimes difficult to know what's silly hyperbole or fabrication, and what he's actually said.
I know what you meant. I claim you're wrong. It still takes about 5 seconds to dismiss, but your approach to it has changed, thanks to the media doing its thing unopposed.

It's not *harder* to fact-check things these days (in fact, it's much easier), but people stopped fact-checking anyway.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 03, 2017, 12:52:26 PM
Pile on!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/former-norway-pm-says-he-was-grilled-at-dulles-over-2014-iran-visit_us_589422d6e4b09bd304baac8f?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000618 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/former-norway-pm-says-he-was-grilled-at-dulles-over-2014-iran-visit_us_589422d6e4b09bd304baac8f?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000618)

Not only is this a WFT moment but they blamed it on Obama.  Politically motivated border control agents.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/317704-conway-blames-iraqi-refugees-for-bowling-green-massacre-that-never-happened
Fuck you Conway.

And fuck you DeVos and Republican assholes.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/317675-senate-schedules-630-am-vote-on-devos
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 03, 2017, 07:32:07 PM
Oh Trump...

Hate. 
I fucking Hate Donald Trump.
FUCK That impatient, motherfucking bag of dicks!

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/02/02/512490365/yemen-aftermath-trumps-first-military-raid-continues-to-raise-questions

He just can't fucking hold it in.  He just says "go kill them" and sends in a team to a location unprepared and without sufficient intel and oh hey, a lot of CHILDREN ARE DEAD!  This isn't even just casualties of war, this is downright poor planning and impatience.  He sent in a team without any useful surveillance and gets a bunch of civillians killed.  But where's the outcry? The same republicans who decried Hillary as "Killary" for "killing" 4 Americans in Bengahzi aren't even raising their eyebrows at this.  Why?  Because a fucking Republican did it, that's why.  Even if one of the kids was an American, it doesn't matter, they're probably fucking cheering for the death of anyone they can.

FUCK you Trump and Fuck you Republicans!
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on February 04, 2017, 12:06:47 AM
Wow...


Ok, how do you fake syrian refugee status?  And to what end?  You still don't pick your country.  You go where the un says.


Also, cite source of that 70% please.

Here's how migrants are faking refugee status.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/migrants-are-disguising-themselves-as-syrians-to-gain-entry-to-europe/2015/09/22/827c6026-5bd8-11e5-8475-781cc9851652_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/migrants-are-disguising-themselves-as-syrians-to-gain-entry-to-europe/2015/09/22/827c6026-5bd8-11e5-8475-781cc9851652_story.html)


Europe is the US now?  How interesting...
Also, that article talked of arriving en mass wih others for a bettr life, not terrorism.  So... Yeah, doesn't help your point since refugees aren't able to arrive "en mass" to America.

Actually it does. It's the reason why we shouldn't accept them here.

Quote
Quote
Here's the stats showing 70% of Muslim support at least some form of sharia law.

http://pamelageller.com/2011/11/70-of-american-muslims-say-us-should-impose-sharia-legalized-polygamy.html/ (http://pamelageller.com/2011/11/70-of-american-muslims-say-us-should-impose-sharia-legalized-polygamy.html/)

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/statistics-the-muslim-worlds-problem-over-70-of-muslims-support-sharia-law-90-support-execution-of-apostates/ (https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/statistics-the-muslim-worlds-problem-over-70-of-muslims-support-sharia-law-90-support-execution-of-apostates/)


A website surveying its members via web poll is not scientific nor unbiased.


And oh the other does not show the muslims in the US.  It surveys muslims who live in countries that operate under shair law.  If you made a survey on who thinks their country should run under the US constitution's laws, I bet Americans would be at 90% yes.  Its a heavily biased survey.

Yet those countries make up most of all Muslims.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 04, 2017, 09:21:01 AM
Actually it does. It's the reason why we shouldn't accept them here.
Again, you seem to fail to grasp the very basics of refugee programs.  Large masses of people were arriving on boats and having to be sorted through and put into camps.  Some, if they had false IDs, would still need to be vetted and their Identities confirmed.  Especially if they go to the US, which has a very extreme vetting process.  And as you've noticed, large masses of people are not showing up on boats to the US shores.  So again, you're trying to point to a problem that doesn't really exist for the US. 


Quote
Yet those countries make up most of all Muslims.
Irrelevant.
Even if it's a scientific survey (it's not) simply liking one set of laws over another does not mean much if you don't act upon them.  I like the idea of no guns in America.  Does that mean I shouldn't be allowed in because I may try to remove the 2nd amendment? 

Also, as ghost said, "some form" could simply mean "No alcohol" or "ban prostitutes".  It's really open to interpretation.  Doesn't mean violence.

And finally:
I happen to be taking Norwegian classes with about 10 refugees. (15 total class size)  Assimilation is not an easy thing but so far I haven't seen anything to suggest they aren't doing it.  That they aren't trying to adopt to the culture of their new home.  I'm also certain they'd love to go home, go back to their lives before all this shit.  But it's not an option for them now.  But I also don't see them trying to tear apart Norway and change it's laws to fit what they like.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 04, 2017, 03:46:34 PM
"But we expect to be cutting a lot out of Dodd-Frank, because, frankly, I have so many people, friends of mine that have nice businesses that can’t borrow money, they just can’t get any money because the banks just won’t let them borrow because of the rules and regulations in Dodd-Frank.  So we’ll be talking about that, Jamie, in terms of the banking industry."

thank god we didn't get crooked shillery and her goldman sachs cronies writing the rules in washington to make her and her wall street friends rich.

finally we've got a president who will stand up for main street
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 04, 2017, 03:52:16 PM
"But we expect to be cutting a lot out of Dodd-Frank, because, frankly, I have so many people, friends of mine that have nice businesses that can’t borrow money, they just can’t get any money because the banks just won’t let them borrow because of the rules and regulations in Dodd-Frank.  So we’ll be talking about that, Jamie, in terms of the banking industry."

thank god we didn't get crooked shillery and her goldman sachs cronies writing the rules in washington to make her and her wall street friends rich.

finally we've got a president who will stand up for main street
Or Killary who lets innocent Americans die.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on February 05, 2017, 09:01:02 PM
Actually it does. It's the reason why we shouldn't accept them here.
Again, you seem to fail to grasp the very basics of refugee programs.  Large masses of people were arriving on boats and having to be sorted through and put into camps.  Some, if they had false IDs, would still need to be vetted and their Identities confirmed.  Especially if they go to the US, which has a very extreme vetting process.  And as you've noticed, large masses of people are not showing up on boats to the US shores.  So again, you're trying to point to a problem that doesn't really exist for the US.

Which again, we're preventing a problem before it grows.

Quote
Quote
Yet those countries make up most of all Muslims.
Irrelevant.
Even if it's a scientific survey (it's not) simply liking one set of laws over another does not mean much if you don't act upon them.  I like the idea of no guns in America.  Does that mean I shouldn't be allowed in because I may try to remove the 2nd amendment? 

I'd actually consider it. You (if you're not an immigrant then take "you" as a general sense) came to our country under the promise that you will abide by and promote our constitution. Advocating the undermining of one of our freedoms is in my opinion violation of your promise. Granted, up until now I haven't really thought of it so bear with my rough draft. So I have to think about that more.

Quote
Also, as ghost said, "some form" could simply mean "No alcohol" or "ban prostitutes".  It's really open to interpretation.  Doesn't mean violence.

However most them agree with parts that deny equal rights to women.

Quote
And finally:
I happen to be taking Norwegian classes with about 10 refugees. (15 total class size)  Assimilation is not an easy thing but so far I haven't seen anything to suggest they aren't doing it.  That they aren't trying to adopt to the culture of their new home.  I'm also certain they'd love to go home, go back to their lives before all this nonsense.  But it's not an option for them now.  But I also don't see them trying to tear apart Norway and change it's laws to fit what they like.

Then why places like Norway and Germany had a dramatic increase in rape since the exceptence of these "refugees"?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on February 05, 2017, 10:18:48 PM


I actually agree with you on some of these points.  The subject of immigration is so politicized that the discussion all too often goes to the extreme of "if you don't completely open up your borders you're Hitler!" or "if you let in anyone they're probably going to bomb us".

I'm not very concerned with terrorists getting in.  Our vetting process is pretty thorough.  I'm more concerned about a large influx of a population that insists on setting up a fascist theocracy.  Somewhat paradoxically this is why we should take on refugees and immigrants from these countries.  When you have a country the size of Norway it's very easy to get overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of refugees this Islamic civil war is creating.  The US on the other hand is 65 times larger.  Additionally we generate more cultural influence than any civilization in history and that's an easy thing to forget if you've never lived outside the country.  Any group that immigrates to this country is far more influenced by us than we are by them.  If America is caught in a rain storm we don't get wet, the water gets Americanized.

This conflict between radical Islam and the West is not fought between countries, it's a war of ideologies.  To attack its adherents directly is often to make that ideology stronger.  Moral high ground, liberty and cultural plurality are more effective weapons here.  Carefully vet anyone who immigrates here?  Absolutely.  Limit the numbers to what we can handle?  Yes.  And while we're at it let's drop "it's just their culture" as an excuse for terrible behavior.  But to shut them out entirely on the ground of security?  I think we're missing an important opportunity bring Islam out of the Bronze age.

That aside I'll ask you a question and it'll seem like I'm trying to bash you with your own faith but I really not.  I'm just curious.  Because there's several situations where modern Christians seem very at odds with this question.

What would Jesus do?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 05, 2017, 10:46:17 PM
Actually it does. It's the reason why we shouldn't accept them here.
Again, you seem to fail to grasp the very basics of refugee programs.  Large masses of people were arriving on boats and having to be sorted through and put into camps.  Some, if they had false IDs, would still need to be vetted and their Identities confirmed.  Especially if they go to the US, which has a very extreme vetting process.  And as you've noticed, large masses of people are not showing up on boats to the US shores.  So again, you're trying to point to a problem that doesn't really exist for the US.

Which again, we're preventing a problem before it grows.
That's pretty damn racist, if that's the reasoning.  You're saying "let's prevent this (potential)problem before it becomes an issue by blocking everyone" yet America has far, far, far worse problems and it's terrorists are, more often than not, home grown yet they don't want to fix that.

Quote
However most them agree with parts that deny equal rights to women.
So do some Americans.  What's your point?

Quote
Then why places like Norway and Germany had a dramatic increase in rape since the exceptence of these "refugees"?
Yeah...
I live in Norway.  You're wrong by alot.
http://norwaytoday.info/news/marked-increase-rape-reviews/
http://norwaytoday.info/news/increase-number-rape-reviews/

First off, rate of reporting has increased.  Secondly, here in Norway, online abuse counts.  Third, assault rapes (like I assume you're referring too) are still very low.

Next time, pick a country I don't live in, yeah? 
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 06, 2017, 11:41:58 AM
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/us/politics/trump-white-house-aides-strategy.html?referer=https://t.co/4sFV11e2Jo

Quote
But for the moment, Mr. Bannon remains the president’s dominant adviser, despite Mr. Trump’s anger that he was not fully briefed on details of the executive order he signed giving his chief strategist a seat on the National Security Council, a greater source of frustration to the president than the fallout from the travel ban.

This would be quite funny if true.

"Hey bud, sign this piece of paper."
"What's it do?"
"Don't worry about it, just sign it."
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 06, 2017, 01:40:22 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/06/us/politics/donald-trump-administration.html

Negative polls are fake news.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 06, 2017, 01:50:54 PM
Trump is perfect.  Anyone who says otherwise is lying.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 06, 2017, 03:45:25 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-foxnews-kremlin-idUSKBN15L0XC

So Russia wants an apology from Fox News.

This is interesting.  I'm curious to see if they do appologize.  If they do, it's evidence that Trump controls them.  If not, Trump may lash out at Fox and lose the only friend in media he has.  Should be fun.

In other news:
The house is terminating the EPA
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/861/text
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 06, 2017, 04:38:32 PM
In other news:
The house is terminating the EPA
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/861/text

I want to see the text on this.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 06, 2017, 04:50:48 PM
In other news:
The house is terminating the EPA
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/861/text (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/861/text)

I want to see the text on this.
I'm sure we won't know what's in it until Trump signs it.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 06, 2017, 08:43:08 PM
In other news:
The house is terminating the EPA
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/861/text

I want to see the text on this.

I think this is just a token attempt that will die during committee consideration. Even most republicans don't want the EPA outright abolished. (I think/hope.) Worth keeping an eye on though.

Edit:
I'm sure we won't know what's in it until Trump signs it.

Congress publishes bills to the public shortly after being introduced. Luckily Trump doesn't have much power over how Congress operates.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 06, 2017, 08:48:13 PM
FUCK you Trump and Fuck you Republicans!

You need to get laid man.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 06, 2017, 08:59:39 PM
FUCK you Trump and Fuck you Republicans!

You need to get laid man.

I'm confused. I thought the people who hate Trump are all sexually-deviant liberals. Haven't they already been laid way too many times for their own good?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 06, 2017, 09:27:13 PM
FUCK you Trump and Fuck you Republicans!

You need to get laid man.

I'm confused. I thought the people who hate Trump are all sexually-deviant liberals. Haven't they already been laid way too many times for their own good?

I'm willing to make an exception to that inaccurate, broadly misinformed stereotype for Dave. Only the worst kind of repression and self-loathing could lead to the kind of frothing at the mouth we see him exhibiting.

By the way, aren't you not even American, Dave? That just makes your indignation even that more hilarious.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 06, 2017, 09:39:54 PM
FUCK you Trump and Fuck you Republicans!

You need to get laid man.

I'm confused. I thought the people who hate Trump are all sexually-deviant liberals. Haven't they already been laid way too many times for their own good?

I'm willing to make an exception to that inaccurate, broadly misinformed stereotype for Dave. Only the worst kind of repression and self-loathing could lead to the kind of frothing at the mouth we see him exhibiting.

By the way, aren't you not even American, Dave? That just makes your indignation even that more hilarious.

HA
HA
HA

AAAAaahahahahah..

I'm sorry if my anger at the death of children is odd.  I guess only conservatives can be frothing at the mouth angry about the death of ... oh wait, they don't give a shit about kids, just zygotes.

Secondly, Lurk Moar.  I'm married AND American.  I just live in Norway.  Which means I can actually see the US for the scum sucking shit hole it really is. I mean, once you see how other places of the world live, you realize that what's going on in America isn't necessary.  You can have environmental control, healthcare for all, and good schools mixed with a christian nation that doesn't give a shit about how christian it's people are.

Sadly, you're stuck in America.  And you will suffer.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 06, 2017, 10:18:06 PM
FUCK you Trump and Fuck you Republicans!

You need to get laid man.

I'm confused. I thought the people who hate Trump are all sexually-deviant liberals. Haven't they already been laid way too many times for their own good?

I'm willing to make an exception to that inaccurate, broadly misinformed stereotype for Dave. Only the worst kind of repression and self-loathing could lead to the kind of frothing at the mouth we see him exhibiting.

You know what I love about you? The irony that seems to be intrinsic to almost everything you say. Is it intentional parody? I honestly can't tell. If so, bravo.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 06, 2017, 11:20:29 PM
FUCK you Trump and Fuck you Republicans!

You need to get laid man.

I'm confused. I thought the people who hate Trump are all sexually-deviant liberals. Haven't they already been laid way too many times for their own good?

I'm willing to make an exception to that inaccurate, broadly misinformed stereotype for Dave. Only the worst kind of repression and self-loathing could lead to the kind of frothing at the mouth we see him exhibiting.

You know what I love about you? The irony that seems to be intrinsic to almost everything you say. Is it intentional parody? I honestly can't tell. If so, bravo.

I think it's called sarcasm, lol

What's most baffling is either you're not a republican, or you don't care about kids dying apparently. Ironic no one was up in arms while the compassionate Nobel peace prize winning President on "your" side of the fence droned innocent women and children for the past 8 years. The moral high ground is a slippery slope.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 07, 2017, 12:06:12 AM
You seriously think that Obama's use of drones wasn't controversial?

http://www.salon.com/topic/drones/
http://www.slate.com/topics/d/drones.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/drones
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/drone-strikes/

If anything, I'd argue that drones have gotten too much criticism in recent years. Not that there aren't ethical issues with their use, but I swear that a lot of the people complaining about them don't even realize how they work, and just assume that they're autonomous murderbots that we send out to slaughter freely.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on February 07, 2017, 05:07:20 AM
Actually it does. It's the reason why we shouldn't accept them here.
Again, you seem to fail to grasp the very basics of refugee programs.  Large masses of people were arriving on boats and having to be sorted through and put into camps.  Some, if they had false IDs, would still need to be vetted and their Identities confirmed.  Especially if they go to the US, which has a very extreme vetting process.  And as you've noticed, large masses of people are not showing up on boats to the US shores.  So again, you're trying to point to a problem that doesn't really exist for the US.

Which again, we're preventing a problem before it grows.
That's pretty damn racist, if that's the reasoning.  You're saying "let's prevent this (potential)problem before it becomes an issue by blocking everyone" yet America has far, far, far worse problems and it's terrorists are, more often than not, home grown yet they don't want to fix that.

How is it racist when (1) countries aren't a race and (2) the people have shown to be trouble elsewhere like Europe?

Quote
Quote
However most them agree with parts that deny equal rights to women.
So do some Americans.  What's your point?

They do it at a greater extent and more frequently than Americans.

Quote
Quote
Then why places like Norway and Germany had a dramatic increase in rape since the exceptence of these "refugees"?
Yeah...
I live in Norway.  You're wrong by alot.
http://norwaytoday.info/news/marked-increase-rape-reviews/
http://norwaytoday.info/news/increase-number-rape-reviews/

First off, rate of reporting has increased.  Secondly, here in Norway, online abuse counts.  Third, assault rapes (like I assume you're referring too) are still very low.

Next time, pick a country I don't live in, yeah?

While Norway isn't experiencing the rape epidemic (yet) other countries like Sweden, France, and Germany (which you ignored) are having not only a rape epidemic but a terrorism epidemic.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 07, 2017, 11:32:23 AM
He wasn't ignoring the others, bud, he just lives in Norway.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 07, 2017, 12:18:39 PM
How is it racist when (1) countries aren't a race and (2) the people have shown to be trouble elsewhere like Europe?
1) Because you aren't talking about countries, you're talking about the people in the countries.  Countries aren't going into refugee programs, people are.
2) People ARE trouble.  Period.  By saying "Those people" are trouble while somehow ignoring everyone else, you're assigning a group of people (by nationality/religious affiliation) as "bad" without proving that the "bad" people in their group is all of them or even most of them or even a higher than average "bad" people amount.

Quote
They do it at a greater extent and more frequently than Americans.
Well duh.  They grew up in a country where that's the norm.  Look at 1950s America and you'll find the same damn thing.  Or hey, Americans are more gun loving than other countries.  We have more mass shootings than other countries.  Doesn't that, by your very logic, mean Americans are dangerous and will start mass shootings in any country they move to?

Quote
While Norway isn't experiencing the rape epidemic (yet) other countries like Sweden, France, and Germany (which you ignored) are having not only a rape epidemic but a terrorism epidemic.

Yet?  When should we start?  Cause we've got plenty of refugees.

Sweden has always had a very high rape number compared to other countries(since 1995), mostly due to how they report and mark such crimes.  For example, let's say I'm a woman and I go to the police and say I was raped by 5 people one time each.
That's 5 rapes.
Another says "I was raped 5 times by one person"
That's 5 rapes.
They also mark it as rape even if it gets changed later on to another crime.
Here ya go.  The "epidemic"
http://www.bra.se/bra/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statistics.html (http://www.bra.se/bra/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statistics.html)
It spiked 0.5% in 2013 then went back down 0.3% in 2014.
http://www.bra.se/download/18.358de3051533ffea5ea7f2cf/1459417671952/Reported_offences_1950_2015.xls (http://www.bra.se/download/18.358de3051533ffea5ea7f2cf/1459417671952/Reported_offences_1950_2015.xls)
2015 showed rape is down from the last two years.
I am unable to find 2016 but it's probably too early for that.

France - Up 15% in 2015
http://i.f1g.fr/media/figaro/orig/2016/01/18/INFc4cf451a-bdf8-11e5-8da0-9d78361a1065-300x1506.jpg (http://i.f1g.fr/media/figaro/orig/2016/01/18/INFc4cf451a-bdf8-11e5-8da0-9d78361a1065-300x1506.jpg)

Germany - 2013-2014 Rape is down.
https://www.bka.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Publications/PoliceCrimeStatistics/2014/pks2014_englisch.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1 (https://www.bka.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Publications/PoliceCrimeStatistics/2014/pks2014_englisch.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1)
https://www.bka.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Publications/PoliceCrimeStatistics/2015/pks2015_englisch.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3 (https://www.bka.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Publications/PoliceCrimeStatistics/2015/pks2015_englisch.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3)
Down again in 2015


So far, you've got France up by alot.  But without any further data on what that increase actually means I can't say anything. 

And all these STILL fall flat compared to the US.
France has a lower rape rate than the United States. 






---------------------------
Now then...
http://www.npr.org/2017/02/06/513777052/trump-says-media-fail-to-report-terrorist-attacks-white-house-promises-list (http://www.npr.org/2017/02/06/513777052/trump-says-media-fail-to-report-terrorist-attacks-white-house-promises-list)
Trump says the Media doesn't report Terrorist Attacks.  I admit, some of them I don't remember seeing.

However....

Quote
NEW YORK CITY, NY, USA
October, 2014
TARGET: Two police officers wounded in knife attack
ATTACKER: US person
Shit like that is pure padding.  Making the list seem bigger than it is.  I'd hardly call a knife attack against two cops by a US person to suddenly be a terrorist attack. 

Some are in the Middle East and aren't going to be reported much on American news.  Is he assuming that if no news outlet in America reported it, then the media is lying?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 07, 2017, 02:59:03 PM
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/melissa-mccarthy-sean-spicer-234715

lol
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 07, 2017, 05:43:39 PM
TIMELINE: September, 2014 - December, 2016
NUMBER OF ATTACKS: 78

MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA
September, 2014
TARGET: Two police officers wounded in knife attack
ATTACKER: Abdul Numan Haider

TIZI OUZOU, ALGERIA
September, 2014
TARGET: One French citizen beheaded
ATTACKER: Jund al-Khilafah in Algeria

QUEBEC, CANADA
October, 2014
TARGET: One soldier killed and one wounded in vehicle attack
ATTACKER: Martin Couture-Rouleau

OTTAWA, CANADA
October, 2014
TARGET: One soldier killed at war memorial; two wounded in shootings at Parliament building
ATTACKER: Michael Zehaf-Bibeau

NEW YORK CITY, NY, USA
October, 2014
TARGET: Two police officers wounded in knife attack
ATTACKER: US person

RIYADH, SAUDI ARABIA
November, 2014
TARGET: One Danish citizen wounded in shooting
ATTACKERS: Three Saudi Arabia-based ISIL members

ABU DHABI, UAE
DATE: December 2014
TARGET: One American killed in knife attack
ATTACKER: Dalal al-Hashimi

SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA
December, 2014
TARGET: Two Australians killed in hostage taking and shooting
ATTACKER: Man Haron Monis

TOURS, FRANCE
December, 2014
TARGET: Three police officers wounded in knife attack
ATTACKER: Bertrand Nzohabonayo

PARIS, FRANCE
January, 2015
TARGET: One police officer and four hostages killed in shooting at a kosher supermarket
ATTACKER: Amedy Coulibaly

TRIPOLI, LIBYA
January, 2015
TARGET: Ten killed, including one US citizen, and five wounded in bombing and shooting at a hotel frequented by westerners
ATTACKERS: As many as five ISIL-Libya members

RIYADH, SAUDI ARABIA
January, 2015
TARGET: Two US citizens wounded in shooting
ATTACKER: Saudi Arabia-based ISIL supporter

NICE, FRANCE
February, 2015
TARGET: Two French soldiers wounded in knife attack outside a Jewish community center
ATTACKER: Moussa Coulibaly

COPENHAGEN, DENMARK
February, 2015
TARGET: One civilian killed in shooting at a free-speech rally and one security guard killed outside the city’s main synagogue
ATTACKER: Omar Abdel Hamid el-Hussein

TUNIS, TUNISIA
March, 2015
TARGET: 21 tourists killed, including 16 westerners, and 55 wounded in shooting at the Bardo Museum
ATTACKERS: Two ISIL-aligned extremists

KARACHI, PAKISTAN
April, 2015
TARGET: One US citizen wounded in knife attack
ATTACKERS: Pakistan-based ISIL supporters

PARIS, FRANCE
April, 2015
TARGET: Catholic churches targeted; one civilian killed in shooting, possibly during an attempted carjacking
ATTACKER: Sid Ahmed Ghlam

ZVORNIK, BOSNIA
April, 2015
TARGET: One police officer killed and two wounded in shooting
ATTACKER: Nerdin Ibric

GARLAND, TX, USA
May, 2015
TARGET: One security guard wounded in shooting at the Prophet Muhammad cartoon event
ATTACKERS: Two US persons

BOSTON, MA, USA
June, 2015
TARGET: No casualties; one police officer attacked with knife
ATTACKER: US person

EL GORA (AL JURAH), EGYPT
June, 2015
TARGET: No casualties; camp used by Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) troops attacked in shooting and bombing attack
ATTACKERS: Unknown number of ISIL-Sinai members

LUXOR, EGYPT
June, 2015
TARGET: One police officer killed by suicide bomb near the Temple of Karnak
ATTACKER: Unidentified

SOUSSE, TUNISIA
June, 2015
TARGET: 38 killed and 39 wounded in shooting at a beach frequented by westerners
ATTACKERS: Seifeddine Rezgui and another unidentified attacker

LYON, FRANCE
June, 2015
TARGET: One civilian killed in beheading and explosion at a chemical plant
ATTACKER: Yasin Salhi

CAIRO, EGYPT
July, 2015
TARGET: One killed and nine wounded in VBIED attack at Italian Consulate
ATTACKER: Unidentified ISIL operatives

CAIRO, EGYPT
July, 2015
TARGET: One Croatian national kidnapped; beheaded on August 12 at an unknown location
ATTACKER: Unidentified ISIL-Sinai operative

PARIS, FRANCE
August, 2015
TARGET: Two civilians and one US soldier wounded with firearms and knife on a passenger train
ATTACKER: Ayoub el-Khazzani

EL GORA, EGYPT
September, 2015
TARGET: Four US and two MFO troops wounded in IED attack
ATTACKER: Unidentified

DHAKA, BANGLADESH
September, 2015
TARGET: One Italian civilian killed in shooting
ATTACKER: Unidentified

COPENHAGEN, DENMARK
September, 2015
TARGET: One police officer wounded in knife attack
ATTAKER: Palestinian national

EL GORA, EGYPT
October, 2015
TARGET: No casualties; airfield used by MFO attacked with rockets
ATTAKER: Unidentified ISIL-Sinai operatives

PARRAMATTA, AUSTRALIA
October, 2015
TARGET: One police officer killed in shooting
ATTAKER: Farhad Jabar

RANGPUR, BANGLADESH
October, 2015
TARGET: One Japanese civilian killed in shooting
ATTAKER: Unidentified

HASANAH, EGYPT
October, 2015
TARGET: 224 killed in downing of a Russian airliner
ATTAKER: Unidentified ISIL-Sinai operatives

MERCED, CA, US
November, 2015
TARGET: Four wounded in knife attack on a college campus
ATTAKER: US person

PARIS, FRANCE
November, 2015
TARGET: At least 129 killed and approximately 400 wounded in series of shootings and IED attacks
ATTAKERS: Brahim Abdelslam, Saleh Abdeslam, Ismail Mostefai, Bilal Hadfi, Samy Amimour, Chakib Ahrouh, Foued Mohamed Aggad, and Abdelhamid Abaaoud

DINAJPUR, BANGLADESH
November, 2015
TARGET: One Italian citizen wounded in shooting
ATTAKER: Unidentified

RAJLOVAC, BOSNIA
December, 2015
TARGET: Two Bosnian soldiers killed in shooting
ATTAKER: Enes Omeragic

SAN BERNADINO, CA, US
December, 2015
TARGET: 14 killed and 21 wounded in coordinated firearms attack
ATTAKERS: Two US persons

LONDON, ENGLAND, UK
December, 2015
TARGET: Three wounded in knife attack at an underground rail station
ATTAKER: Muhyadin Mire

DERBENT, RUSSIA
December, 2015
TARGET: One killed and 11 wounded in shooting at UN World Heritage site
ATTAKER: Unidentified ISIL-Caucasus operative

CAIRO, EGYPT
January, 2016
TARGET: Two wounded in drive-by shooting outside a hotel frequented by tourists
ATTAKERS: Unidentified ISIL operatives

PARIS, FRANCE
January, 2016
TARGET: No casualties; attacker killed after attempted knife attack on Paris police station
ATTAKER: Tarek Belgacem

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
January, 2016
TARGET: One police officer wounded in shooting
ATTAKER: US person

HURGHADA, EGYPT
January, 2016
TARGET: One German and one Danish national wounded in knife attack at a tourist resort
ATTAKER: Unidentified

MARSEILLES, FRANCE
January, 2016
TARGET: One Jewish teacher wounded in machete attack
ATTAKER: 15 year-old Ethnic Kurd from Turkey

ISTANBUL, TURKEY
January, 2016
TARGET: 12 German tourists killed and 15 wounded in suicide bombing
ATTAKER: Nabil Fadli

JAKARTA, INDONESIA
January, 2016
TARGET: Four civilians killed and more than 20 wounded in coordinated bombing and firearms attacks near a police station and a Starbucks
ATTAKERS: Dian Joni Kurnaiadi, Muhammad Ali, Arif Sunakim, and Ahmad Muhazan bin Saron

COLUMBUS, OH, US
February, 2016
TARGET: Four civilians wounded in machete attack at a restaurant
ATTAKER: US person

HANOVER, GERMANY
February, 2016
TARGET: One police officer wounded in knife attack
ATTAKER: Safia Schmitter

ISTANBUL, TURKEY
March, 2016
TARGET: Four killed and 36 wounded in suicide bombing in the tourist district
ATTAKER: Mehmet Ozturk

BRUSSELS, BELGIUM
March, 2016
TARGET: At least 31 killed and 270 wounded in coordinated bombings at Zaventem Airport and on a subway train
ATTAKERS: Khalid el-Bakraoui, Ibrahim el-Bakraoui, Najim Laachraoui, Mohammed Abrini, and Osama Krayem

ESSEN, GERMANY
April, 2016
TARGET: Three wounded in bombing at Sikh temple
ATTAKERS: Three identified minors

ORLANDO, FL, US
June, 2016
TARGET: 49 killed and 53 wounded in shooting at a nightclub
ATTAKER: US person

MAGNANVILLE, FRANCE
June, 2016
TARGET: One police officer and one civilian killed in knife attack
ATTAKER: Larossi Abballa

KABUL, AFGHANISTAN
June, 2016
TARGET: 14 killed in suicide attack on a bus carrying Canadian Embassy guards
ATTAKER: ISIL-Khorasan operative

ISTANBUL, TURKEY
June, 2016
TARGET: 45 killed and approximately 240 wounded at Ataturk International Airport
ATTACKERS: Rakhim Bulgarov, Vadim Osmanov, and an unidentified ISIL operative

DHAKA, BANGLADESH
July, 2016
TARGET: 22 killed, including one American and 50 wounded after hours-long siege using machetes and firearms at holy Artisan Bakery
ATTACKERS: Nibras Islam, Rohan Imtiaz, Meer Saameh Mubasheer, Khairul Islam Paye, and Shafiqul Islam Uzzal

NICE, FRANCE
July, 2016
TARGET: 84 civilians killed and 308 wounded by an individual who drove a truck into a crowd
ATTACKER: Mohamed Bouhlel

WURZBURG, GERMANY
July, 2016
TARGET: Four civilians wounded in axe attack on a train
ATTACKER: Riaz Khan Ahmadzai

ANSBACH, GERMANY
July, 2016
TARGET: At least 15 wounded in suicide bombing at a music festival
ATTACKER: Mohammad Daleel

NORMANDY, FRANCE
July, 2016
TARGET: One priest killed in knife attack
ATTACKERS: Adel Kermiche and Abdel Malik Nabil Petitjean

CHALEROI, BELGIUM
August, 2016
TARGET: Two police officers wounded in machete attack
ATTACKER: Khaled Babouri

QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA
August, 2016
TARGET: Two killed and one wounded in knife attack at a hostel frequented by Westerners
ATTACKER: Smail Ayad

COPENHAGEN, DENMAKR
September, 2016
TARGET: Two police officers and a civilian wounded in shooting
ATTACKER: Mesa Hodzic

PARIS, FRANCE
September, 2016
TARGET: One police officer wounded in raid after VBIED failed to detonate at Notre Dame Cathedral
ATTACKERS: Sarah Hervouet, Ines Madani, and Amel Sakaou

SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA
September, 2016
TARGET: One civilian wounded in knife attack
ATTACKER: Ihsas Khan

ST. CLOUD, MN, US
September, 2016
TARGET: 10 wounded in knife attack in a mall
ATTACKER: Dahir Ahmed Adan

NEW YORK, NY; SEASIDE PARK AND ELIZABETH, NJ, US
September, 2016
TARGET: 31 wounded in bombing in New York City; several explosive devices found in New York and New Jersey; one exploded without casualty at race in New Jersey; one police officer wounded in shootout
ATTACKER: Ahmad Khan Rahami

BRUSSELS, BELGIUM
October, 2016
TARGET: Two police officers wounded in stabbing
ATTACKER: Belgian national

KUWAIT CITY, KUWAIT
TARGET: No casualties; vehicle carrying three US soldiers hit by a truck
ATTACKER: Ibrahim Sulayman

MALMO, SWEDEN
October, 2016
TARGET: No casualties; mosque and community center attacked with Molotov cocktail
ATTACKER: Syrian national

HAMBURG, GERMANY
October, 2016
TARGET: One killed in knife attack
ATTACKER: Unknown

MANILA, PHILIPPINES
November, 2016
TARGET: No casualties; failed IED attempt near US Embassy
ATTACKERS: Philippine nationals aligned with the Maute group

COLUMBUS, OH, US
November, 2016
TARGET: 14 wounded by individuals who drove a vehicle into a group of pedestrians and attacked them with a knife
ATTACKER: US person

N’DJAMENA, CHAD
November, 2016
TARGET: No casualties; attacker arrested after opening fire at entrance of US Embassy
ATTACKER: Chadian national

KARAK, JORDAN
December, 2016
TARGET: 10 killed and 28 wounded in shooting at a tourist site
ATTACKERS: Several gunmen

BERLIN, GERMANY
December, 2016
TARGET: 12 killed and 48 wounded by individual who drove truck into a crowded market
ATTACKER: Anis Amri
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 07, 2017, 05:51:20 PM
Yes, Truth, I just linked to that.
What's your point?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 07, 2017, 08:28:10 PM
Quote
ORLANDO, FL, US
June, 2016
TARGET: 49 killed and 53 wounded in shooting at a nightclub
ATTAKER: US person

[...]

NICE, FRANCE
July, 2016
TARGET: 84 civilians killed and 308 wounded by an individual who drove a truck into a crowd
ATTACKER: Mohamed Bouhlel

[...]

PARIS, FRANCE
November, 2015
TARGET: At least 129 killed and approximately 400 wounded in series of shootings and IED attacks
ATTAKERS: Brahim Abdelslam, Saleh Abdeslam, Ismail Mostefai, Bilal Hadfi, Samy Amimour, Chakib Ahrouh, Foued Mohamed Aggad, and Abdelhamid Abaaoud

Damn these terrorist attacks that don't get mentioned!

Also lol "Attaker", "US Person"
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 07, 2017, 09:32:16 PM
http://www.npr.org/2017/02/06/513777052/trump-says-media-fail-to-report-terrorist-attacks-white-house-promises-list (http://www.npr.org/2017/02/06/513777052/trump-says-media-fail-to-report-terrorist-attacks-white-house-promises-list)

I am amazed at how brazen they are with their lies. Most politicians would make a vague/unsupported claim, and then hope people forget about it or don't care enough to fact check them.

This administration seems to double down on their lies over and over again and goes out of their way to make it easy to discredit them. That list is full of attacks that most definitely got heavily reported. How on earth are there still people supporting Trump? How on earth does he not have a 100% disapproval rating? Baffling.

(Yes, I do understand the irony of asking that question on this particular website.)
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 07, 2017, 09:48:44 PM
http://www.npr.org/2017/02/06/513777052/trump-says-media-fail-to-report-terrorist-attacks-white-house-promises-list (http://www.npr.org/2017/02/06/513777052/trump-says-media-fail-to-report-terrorist-attacks-white-house-promises-list)

I am amazed at how brazen they are with their lies. Most politicians would make a vague/unsupported claim, and then hope people forget about it or don't care enough to fact check them.

This administration seems to double down on their lies over and over again and goes out of their way to make it easy to discredit them. That list is full of attacks that most definitely got heavily reported. How on earth are there still people supporting Trump? How on earth does he not have a 100% disapproval rating? Baffling.

(Yes, I do understand the irony of asking that question on this particular website.)
I'm watching a program on NRK and they're interviewing a few journalists from America and the current guest is saying that people believe whatever they want to believe and Trump gave them what they already believed.  He told them what they wanted to hear so it doesn't matter what he said, what lies he spews, they'll follow him.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 07, 2017, 09:58:53 PM
http://www.npr.org/2017/02/06/513777052/trump-says-media-fail-to-report-terrorist-attacks-white-house-promises-list (http://www.npr.org/2017/02/06/513777052/trump-says-media-fail-to-report-terrorist-attacks-white-house-promises-list)

I am amazed at how brazen they are with their lies. Most politicians would make a vague/unsupported claim, and then hope people forget about it or don't care enough to fact check them.

This administration seems to double down on their lies over and over again and goes out of their way to make it easy to discredit them. That list is full of attacks that most definitely got heavily reported. How on earth are there still people supporting Trump? How on earth does he not have a 100% disapproval rating? Baffling.

(Yes, I do understand the irony of asking that question on this particular website.)
I'm watching a program on NRK and they're interviewing a few journalists from America and the current guest is saying that people believe whatever they want to believe and Trump gave them what they already believed.  He told them what they wanted to hear so it doesn't matter what he said, what lies he spews, they'll follow him.

Yeah, it was kind of a rhetorical question. I know quite a few people that still support Trump in spite of everything he has said. Many of them can provide very rational sounding arguments as to why they support him, although their arguments are fueled by a Fox News + conservative talk radio echo chamber of biased opinions. But when Trump's blatant lies get brought up, they go into full blinder/denial mode. Or alternatively, "but the dems did it first and 10x worse in every way!". Or "it doesn't matter what he says, only what he does!". It's disheartening because these are people that I normally respect.

Edit: To be clear, I agree with those journalists' take. Facts don't matter. He is saying what they want to hear.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 08, 2017, 04:45:01 PM
http://www.npr.org/2017/02/06/513777052/trump-says-media-fail-to-report-terrorist-attacks-white-house-promises-list (http://www.npr.org/2017/02/06/513777052/trump-says-media-fail-to-report-terrorist-attacks-white-house-promises-list)

I am amazed at how brazen they are with their lies. Most politicians would make a vague/unsupported claim, and then hope people forget about it or don't care enough to fact check them.

This administration seems to double down on their lies over and over again and goes out of their way to make it easy to discredit them. That list is full of attacks that most definitely got heavily reported. How on earth are there still people supporting Trump? How on earth does he not have a 100% disapproval rating? Baffling.

(Yes, I do understand the irony of asking that question on this particular website.)

There is no lie here, and you know it. This is a list that the Trump administration FEELS didn't get enough coverage.

And even if they were covered, now every news agency has to cover it again, and to be honest, when you see it in Chronological list view, it doesn't state a very good case for Islam being the religion of peace. Obviously that was the point of making the list and even the claim that the attacks weren't covered, to draw attention to this black and white, plain as day, chronological list of terrorists attacks.

I've even heard people say that KellyAnne Conway purposely called it the Bowling Green Massacre to draw people's attention to an attempted attack by VETTED refugees that most people never heard of or knew a lot about.

Do you not see how these people are beating the press at their own game? Trump literally rode free publicity to the White House, and the media is just doubling down on their failed methods, it's hilarious.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 08, 2017, 05:07:48 PM
There is no lie here, and you know it. This is a list that the Trump administration FEELS didn't get enough coverage.

i.e. a pointless list that attempts to back up the baseless claim that the news media are not covering terrorist attacks. What he feels is largely irrelevant.

And even if they were covered, now every news agency has to cover it again, and to be honest, when you see it in Chronological list view, it doesn't state a very good case for Islam being the religion of peace.

Not all of the attacks are committed by Islamists, not all of them are even terror attacks, and even fewer came from the countries Trump banned.

Obviously that was the point of making the list and even the claim that the attacks weren't covered, to draw attention to this black and white, plain as day, chronological list of terrorists attacks.

The point may have been to draw attention to a list of terror attacks, but it was still a lie that the media doesn't cover them. All the major attacks on this list got covered in some way. How Trump feels about the coverage, again, is his own business. But I'm pretty sure it's a lie to say that the Orlando attack, for instance, was "covered up".

Do you not see how these people are beating the press at their own game? Trump literally rode free publicity to the White House, and the media is just doubling down on their failed methods, it's hilarious.

His negative approval ratings would seem to indicate his 4D triwizard tournament chess bonanza isn't working that well.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 08, 2017, 05:21:37 PM
What Trump said was, "It's gotten to a point where it's not even being reported, and in many cases, the very, very dishonest press doesn't want to report it. They have their reasons, and you understand that." That doesn't read like a statement of opinion to me. And even if it was, it's still ridiculous, given the wall-to-wall coverage that some of those attacks got.

His negative approval ratings would seem to indicate his 4D triwizard tournament chess bonanza isn't working that well.

>relying on polls and surveys after this election
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 08, 2017, 05:45:16 PM
We should put together a list of American Terrorist attacks that probably didn't get any coverage.  You know, when Americans killed innocent people both home and abroad.  Bet it would be way bigger and full of more fatalities.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 08, 2017, 06:32:25 PM
It cannot possibly be a lie. What Trump feels IS important when it comes to US Policy. Trump feels the vetting process needed to be reviewed by his team. Thus the 90 day travel ban.

It's not a lie that he feels the process is flawed, and warrants a deeper look. No amount of statistics you provide will convince me that the concern is A. unfounded B. deceitful or C. within his rights as the president.

How do you have any faith in poll results or approval ratings from the same sources that told you Hillary had a 98% chance of winning? Any faith in the media should at this point be grounds for involuntary commitment to your nearest mental hospital. The shit is literally a video version of US Weekly at this point.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 08, 2017, 06:38:14 PM
That's not what he says.  Nor does he provide any evidence.

I mean, WHY does he feel the vetting process isn't good enough?  Has there been people who got through after the last time?  Or is this just his hunch?
Also, if that's what he feels, why didn't he do what Obama did?

Secondly, yes, she had a high chance of winning.  Wouldn't be the first time polls were wrong.  But if you have no faith in the media, who do YOU have faith in?  Cause if you say Trump then I gotta say...

When you get your news from the person in power, you're not likely to get anything that puts him in a bad light are you?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 08, 2017, 06:47:36 PM
That's not what he says.  Nor does he provide any evidence.

I mean, WHY does he feel the vetting process isn't good enough?  Has there been people who got through after the last time?  Or is this just his hunch?
Also, if that's what he feels, why didn't he do what Obama did?

I'm not privy to the conversation so I couldn't tell you.


Secondly, yes, she had a high chance of winning.  Wouldn't be the first time polls were wrong.  But if you have no faith in the media, who do YOU have faith in?  Cause if you say Trump then I gotta say...

When you get your news from the person in power, you're not likely to get anything that puts him in a bad light are you?

Just because I don't trust the establishment media that has been exposed time and time again to have absolutely zero integrity doesn't mean I don't do my due diligence. I get my information from a plethora of sources, but most importantly I use my own critical thinking skills to determine whether something is dog shit or not.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 08, 2017, 07:00:34 PM
That's not what he says.  Nor does he provide any evidence.

I mean, WHY does he feel the vetting process isn't good enough?  Has there been people who got through after the last time?  Or is this just his hunch?
Also, if that's what he feels, why didn't he do what Obama did?

I'm not privy to the conversation so I couldn't tell you.
Neither was most of Trump's administration either.  And why didn't he ban people from countries he KNEW terrorists had come from?  Like Pakistan, which HID Osama Bin Laden? 

Quote
Secondly, yes, she had a high chance of winning.  Wouldn't be the first time polls were wrong.  But if you have no faith in the media, who do YOU have faith in?  Cause if you say Trump then I gotta say...

When you get your news from the person in power, you're not likely to get anything that puts him in a bad light are you?

Just because I don't trust the establishment media that has been exposed time and time again to have absolutely zero integrity doesn't mean I don't do my due diligence. I get my information from a plethora of sources, but most importantly I use my own critical thinking skills to determine whether something is dog shit or not.
The established media is based though NPR and the Associated Press are pretty neutral.  To say that they have 0 integrity though is pretty bad.  That means that any and every story I open on any media, in your opinion, is full of lies and can't be trusted.

So, in your opinion, what sources CAN be trusted?

As for your critical thinking skills, well...
I've seen them and they amount to simple biased paranoia.  Any skills you may have had, are so buried under personal bias that you might as well be Steve Bannon.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 08, 2017, 07:16:47 PM
The gap in his ethical criteria for the MM vs the Trump administration is staggering.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 08, 2017, 07:25:19 PM
Neither was most of Trump's administration either.  And why didn't he ban people from countries he KNEW terrorists had come from?  Like Pakistan, which HID Osama Bin Laden? 

Again, I'm not privy to the conversation so I couldn't tell you. Maybe geopolitics and not wanting to alienate himself from our actual allies?

The established media is based though NPR and the Associated Press are pretty neutral.  To say that they have 0 integrity though is pretty bad.  That means that any and every story I open on any media, in your opinion, is full of lies and can't be trusted.


So, in your opinion, what sources CAN be trusted?

Ones that aren't owned by billionaires with agendas. But either way, my distrust doesn't mean I don't read articles or watch any clips from the major "news" corporations, just that I have less propensity to believe they are completely unbiased and fair in their reporting. Something doesn't have to be a "lie" to mislead.

As for your critical thinking skills, well...
I've seen them and they amount to simple biased paranoia.  Any skills you may have had, are so buried under personal bias that you might as well be Steve Bannon.

Thanks for yet another unsolicited psychoanalysis, Doc.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 08, 2017, 07:57:16 PM
Neither was most of Trump's administration either.  And why didn't he ban people from countries he KNEW terrorists had come from?  Like Pakistan, which HID Osama Bin Laden? 

Again, I'm not privy to the conversation so I couldn't tell you.
Then what does your critical thinking skills tell you about a man who doesn't consult the people who know this stuff, goes on his gut instincts in making policy, and doesn't even understand the process to which he's trying to change?  (He said if he gave a week's notice, bad guys would move up their time table which is false since the refugee process isn't something you can speed up like that from the refugee's end)

Quote
Neither was most of Trump's administration either.  And why didn't he ban people from countries he KNEW terrorists had come from?  Like Pakistan, which HID Osama Bin Laden?
Umm, maybe geopolitics?
Really?  Trump the "I don't care about anyone's feelings" president worried about geopolitics?  He's trying to start a trade war with China, ignoring protocol with Taiwan, insulting Mexico, yelling at Australia, and has handed ISIS the best recruitment lines in decades.  MY critical thinking skills are telling me that geopolitics isn't on his list of worries when it came to the travel ban.

Quote
The established media is based though NPR and the Associated Press are pretty neutral.  To say that they have 0 integrity though is pretty bad.  That means that any and every story I open on any media, in your opinion, is full of lies and can't be trusted.
So, in your opinion, what sources CAN be trusted?

Ones that aren't owned by billionaires with agendas. But either way, my distrust doesn't mean I don't read articles or watch any clips from the major "news" corporations, just that I have less propensity to believe they are completely unbiased and fair in their reporting. Something doesn't have to be a "lie" to mislead.
You don't need to be owned by a billionaire to have an agenda.  Also, Trump is a Billionaire with an agenda.  So... where does he fall in the realm of bias and fair reporting?

Quote
As for your critical thinking skills, well...
I've seen them and they amount to simple biased paranoia.  Any skills you may have had, are so buried under personal bias that you might as well be Steve Bannon.
Thanks for yet another unsolicited psychoanalysis, Doc.
It's not a psychoanalysis.  I'm just stating a fact.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 08, 2017, 08:24:18 PM
Geopolitics is why we didn't ban Saudi Arabia aka ISIS Lite from the travel ban. Your assertion that he doesn't care about geopolitics is largely based on your own feelings.

You don't have to be a billionaire to have an agenda, but it certainly helps when you can pay the costs to actually implement it.

Have you ever thought that maybe Confirmation Bias is leading you to confirm my confirmation bias? Your opinion means shit to me. I can look up mental disorders on the internet too. If only you could use some of that Buddha Level self awareness and clairvoyance to analyze your own motivations and intentions.

To be perfectly honest, if everything you wrote wasn't drenched in egotistical judgement then perhaps you could ever convince someone of one of your points. I haven't seen it yet. But if you could somehow channel that inherent, unique-to-you, resistance to bias into a non-incendiary format rooted in sound logic and reason you might be able to advance the Human condition. Or you can just "Lord" over everyone, and arbitrarily determine whether or not the opinions of us lowly peasants warrants any consideration.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 08, 2017, 08:36:44 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ivanka-trump-nordstrom-donald-trump-twitter-treated-so-unfairly/

I like how Trump retweets his shitposts using the official POTUS account.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 08, 2017, 08:44:23 PM
http://www.npr.org/2017/02/06/513777052/trump-says-media-fail-to-report-terrorist-attacks-white-house-promises-list (http://www.npr.org/2017/02/06/513777052/trump-says-media-fail-to-report-terrorist-attacks-white-house-promises-list)

I am amazed at how brazen they are with their lies. Most politicians would make a vague/unsupported claim, and then hope people forget about it or don't care enough to fact check them.

This administration seems to double down on their lies over and over again and goes out of their way to make it easy to discredit them. That list is full of attacks that most definitely got heavily reported. How on earth are there still people supporting Trump? How on earth does he not have a 100% disapproval rating? Baffling.

(Yes, I do understand the irony of asking that question on this particular website.)

There is no lie here, and you know it. This is a list that the Trump administration FEELS didn't get enough coverage.

...

"And all across Europe, you've seen what happened in Paris, and Nice. All over Europe. It's happening. It's gotten to a point where it's not even being reported. And in many cases, the very very dishonest press doesn't want to report it. They have their reasons, and you understand that."  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDcu0RwMO8I&t=9m13s)

That's a fairly serious accusation, and I don't see the word "FEELS" anywhere in there. Spicer later tried to soften Trump's accusations somewhat (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toRE_Nan5ns), which is where I assume you are getting the word "FEELS" from.

I prefer to judge Trump's words on their own merit, not based on the spin that Spicer tries to put on it. The list definitely does not back up Trump's statement. It only backs up Spicer's statement under the technicality that Spicer's statement was somewhat subjective. At the very least, it speaks to Spicer's own lack of good judgement if he thinks these attacks were "under reported". If you want to excuse Trump's lies based on technicalities generated by his spin-doctors, have at it. For those of us without our heads lodged firmly up Trump's orange bum, his dishonesty is obvious and alarming.

edit: spelling
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 08, 2017, 08:50:01 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ivanka-trump-nordstrom-donald-trump-twitter-treated-so-unfairly/

I like how Trump retweets his shitposts using the official POTUS account.

Holy conflict of interest Batman!
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 08, 2017, 09:04:41 PM
http://www.npr.org/2017/02/06/513777052/trump-says-media-fail-to-report-terrorist-attacks-white-house-promises-list (http://www.npr.org/2017/02/06/513777052/trump-says-media-fail-to-report-terrorist-attacks-white-house-promises-list)

I am amazed at how brazen they are with their lies. Most politicians would make a vague/unsupported claim, and then hope people forget about it or don't care enough to fact check them.

This administration seems to double down on their lies over and over again and goes out of their way to make it easy to discredit them. That list is full of attacks that most definitely got heavily reported. How on earth are there still people supporting Trump? How on earth does he not have a 100% disapproval rating? Baffling.

(Yes, I do understand the irony of asking that question on this particular website.)

There is no lie here, and you know it. This is a list that the Trump administration FEELS didn't get enough coverage.

...

"And all across Europe, you've seen what happened in Paris, and Nice. All over Europe. It's happening. It's gotten to a point where it's not even being reported. And in many cases, the very very dishonest press doesn't want to report it. They have their reasons, and you understand that."  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDcu0RwMO8I&t=9m13s)

That's a fairly serious accusation, and I don't see the word "FEELS" anywhere in there. Spicer later tried to soften Trump's accusations somewhat (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toRE_Nan5ns), which is where I assume you are getting the word "FEELS" from.

I prefer to judge Trump's words on their own merit, not based on the spin that Spicer tries to put on it. The list definitely does not back up Trump's statement. It only backs up Spicer's statement under the technicality that Spicer's statement was somewhat subjective. At the very least, it speaks to Spicer's own lack of good judgement if he thinks these attacks were "under reported". If you want to excuse Trump's lies based on technicalities generated by his spin-doctors, have at it. For those of us without our heads lodged firmly up Trump's orange bum, his dishonestly is obvious and alarming.

Where's the LIE?

"It's gotten to a point where it's not even being reported"

How can anyone read that and say, unequivocally, that it is a declarative statement meant solely to deceive or mislead. The expression "It's gotten to a point," is often interchangeable with "It's getting to the point" and is purely figurative. You know it, and I know it. Stop pretending you don't.

How can anyone watch the mainstream media without seeing the obvious propensity towards softening the image of refugees, and Islam in general. How can anyone watch it not automatically detect the how disingenuous the reporting is, and realize it is just another way to insubstantially paint one side as the Moral Compass and the other as the "bad guy" when it is politically convenient.

I assume the globalists reason to do what they do is so that they can continue to bomb and subvert sovereign nations with impunity while forcing every other nation to bear the burden of their actions.

We should put together a list of American Terrorist attacks that probably didn't get any coverage.  You know, when Americans killed innocent people both home and abroad.  Bet it would be way bigger and full of more fatalities.

Which is it Dave, America isn't so innocent and has it's share of our own killers, or Trump is a complete and total asshole for making that exact same point. 
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 08, 2017, 09:35:50 PM
Where's the LIE?

"And all across Europe, you've seen what happened in Paris, and Nice. All over Europe. It's happening. It's gotten to a point where it's not even being reported. And in many cases, the very very dishonest press doesn't want to report it. They have their reasons, and you understand that."  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDcu0RwMO8I&t=9m13s)

Quote
"It's gotten to a point where it's not even being reported"

How can anyone read that and say, unequivocally, that it is a declarative statement meant solely to deceive or mislead.

Because it IS being reported.

Quote
The expression "It's gotten to a point," is often interchangeable with "It's getting to the point" and is purely figurative. You know it, and I know it. Stop pretending you don't.

The only difference between those two statements is the tense. One is in the past tense, the other is in the present tense. Trump used the past tense. Spicer provided examples of past events. Those past events don't back up Trump's past tense statement. It is "purely figurative"? Are you now excusing Trump's lies by claiming that he speaks in metaphor like some sort of oracle?

Quote
How can anyone watch the mainstream media without seeing the obvious propensity towards softening the image of refugees, and Islam in general. How can anyone watch it not automatically detect the how disingenuous the reporting is, and realize it is just another way to insubstantially paint one side as the Moral Compass and the other as the "bad guy" when it is politically convenient.

The media has it's fair share of bias and sensationalism. That doesn't make Trump's statement any less false.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 08, 2017, 09:36:47 PM
Geopolitics is why we didn't ban Saudi Arabia aka ISIS Lite from the travel ban. Your assertion that he doesn't care about geopolitics is largely based on your own feelings.
O.o
I... I gave 5 examples.  5 examples of a world leader doing things that are counter productive to positive geopolitical relationships.  I'm not sure how you can call that my "feelings" when I listed evidence. 


Quote
You don't have to be a billionaire to have an agenda, but it certainly helps when you can pay the costs to actually implement it.
I'm still waiting for a list of approved sources from you.

Quote
Have you ever thought that maybe Confirmation Bias is leading you to confirm my confirmation bias? Your opinion means shit to me. I can look up mental disorders on the internet too. If only you could use some of that Buddha Level self awareness and clairvoyance to analyze your own motivations and intentions.
First, it's certainly possible.
Second, I haven't looked up any mental disorders.  You'll note that I haven't listed any either so I'm not sure why you think I am. 

Finally, who says I haven't?  I know my motives and intentions.  I'm politically left while being slightly liberal.  I'm emotionally biased against Trump but have warmed to some Republicans.  I'm emotionally biased again anyone who supports Trump and his policies as they are in direct contradiction to my own view as to what is or isn't morally right and I find the hypocrisy of their arguments to be extremely frustrating.

Quote
To be perfectly honest, if everything you wrote wasn't drenched in egotistical judgement then perhaps you could ever convince someone of one of your points. I haven't seen it yet. But if you could somehow channel that inherent, unique-to-you, resistance to bias into a non-incendiary format rooted in sound logic and reason you might be able to advance the Human condition. Or you can just "Lord" over everyone, and arbitrarily determine whether or not the opinions of us lowly peasants warrants any consideration.
I'm not resistant to bias.  Never said I was.
What you ARE showing, however, is that you lack evidence to support your claims.  While I throw out facts, you simply say "I don't know" or point out how I'm being judgemental and egotistical.  I am, but that should be irrelevant.  You should be able to refute my claims but so far, you haven't.  You can't even support your own or answer simple questions such as what specific sources are valid, in your view. 

To be perfectly honest, I really do think that you don't have anything but faith.  Your views are true because they're your views.  Because the people around you tell you the same thing.  Because that's how you were raised growing up.  My opinion means shit to you and that's fine.  But my facts shouldn't, yet they do.  I can't change your mind because you don't even know why you believe the things you do, all you know is that they're yours.

Your world is just a shadow on a cave wall.  Mine, at least, allows me to turn my head a little.



Where's the LIE?

"It's gotten to a point where it's not even being reported"

How can anyone read that and say, unequivocally, that it is a declarative statement meant solely to deceive or mislead. The expression "It's gotten to a point," is often interchangeable with "It's getting to the point" and is purely figurative. You know it, and I know it. Stop pretending you don't.
You really wanna play the grammar game?  Alright.  "It's gotten to the point" is not interchangable with "It's getting to the point" because one is past tense, one is future tense.  Meaning "It's getting to the point where the levee is going to breach." vs "It's gotten to the point where the levee is going to breach."  In the first part, the levee will breach soon.  In the second one, it's already at that point and the levee has breached or is about to breach.  Even so, the tone of the words as well as his past statements strongly imply that that his meaning is that the media does NOT report on them.  Not that they are starting to not report on it.

Quote
How can anyone watch the mainstream media without seeing the obvious propensity towards softening the image of refugees, and Islam in general. How can anyone watch it not automatically detect the how disingenuous the reporting is, and realize it is just another way to insubstantially paint one side as the Moral Compass and the other as the "bad guy" when it is politically convenient.
Depends on which media.  Liberal media tends to show people suffering or being persecuted softer.  Conservative media tends to paint them in a harder image than actually exists.  This is due to their audience.  The conservative media audience doesn't like Islam or Refugees because they represent someone they should hate.  Someone different.  Someone who is "leeching" off their hard work.  They feel that those who have lost everything should figure out how to solve their own problems.  Ironically, they also are strongly religious.  Also, ironically, Islam is considered a very conservative religion.  Islamic people and conservatives actually would get along well and share many of the same values.  But they're TOO conservative to accept another point of view on their faith.



Quote
We should put together a list of American Terrorist attacks that probably didn't get any coverage.  You know, when Americans killed innocent people both home and abroad.  Bet it would be way bigger and full of more fatalities.
Which is it Dave, America isn't so innocent and has it's share of our own killers, or Trump is a complete and total asshole for making that exact same point. 
Err....
No.  No it isn't.
He made that comment in defense of Vladimir Putin.  Essentially saying that America has done some bad things, thus it's ok that Russia did bad things.

Had he made that point in relation to Refugees and Terrorists then it would be a favorable comparison.  He would be saying that even though there are some bad people in other countries that might try to get into the US to cause harm, we have people in the US who do the same so it's ok since we don't treat our own citizens any different due to the mass killings they do both home and abroad.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 08, 2017, 09:52:02 PM
It isn't covered nearly as thoroughly as every single fart that escapes Kim Kardashians bleached asshole gets covered.

Obviously Trump wants them covered more, because it proves his point. Obviously, other's don't want to cover it more, because it proves Donald Trump's point. Islam, for whatever reason, is responsible for more Terrorist attacks in modern history than any other ideology or religion.

You can keep saying I haven't given you evidence and facts Dave, but whenever I give you figures or numbers you just gloss over or cherry pick. It really isn't worth my time. You guys can continue to dissect every tweet for wrongdoing, or you can just leave it up to the "professional" spin doctors on 95% of cable news networks.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 08, 2017, 09:53:20 PM
Can we all take a moment to fully appreciate this statement? I'm sorry that I'm repeating this, but I just couldn't stop chuckling over it...

The expression "It's gotten to a point," is often interchangeable with "It's getting to the point" and is purely figurative. You know it, and I know it. Stop pretending you don't.

So every time Trump says something false in the past tense, we should just assume that he meant to speak in the future tense, and that it was metaphorical. Lol...
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 08, 2017, 10:05:15 PM
Can we all take a moment to fully appreciate this statement? I'm sorry that I'm repeating this, but I just couldn't stop chuckling over it...

The expression "It's gotten to a point," is often interchangeable with "It's getting to the point" and is purely figurative. You know it, and I know it. Stop pretending you don't.

So every time Trump says something false in the past tense, we should just assume that he meant to speak in the future tense, and that it was metaphorical. Lol...

I made no mentions of tense or metaphysics or whatever you're on about. I said it is a figure of speech. And to top it off, it is the way Trump FEELS. He feels the stories aren't covered enough, or at all. I can't make the assumption that he is being purely deceitful, anymore than I can assume that perhaps he wasn't given all the information or "evidence" that some stories weren't covered. It is completely subjective whether or not something was "covered" thoroughly, and whether or not a quick mention on the 5 O' clock news counts as covered.

Clearly he would prefer if every story about terrorism would be covered the way it was when Bush was president, if only to justify keeping dangerous people out of our country, as opposed to justifying bring dangerous "freedom" into theirs.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 08, 2017, 10:38:48 PM
Can we all take a moment to fully appreciate this statement? I'm sorry that I'm repeating this, but I just couldn't stop chuckling over it...

The expression "It's gotten to a point," is often interchangeable with "It's getting to the point" and is purely figurative. You know it, and I know it. Stop pretending you don't.

So every time Trump says something false in the past tense, we should just assume that he meant to speak in the future tense, and that it was metaphorical. Lol...

I made no mentions of tense or metaphysics or whatever you're on about. I said it is a figure of speech.

figurative (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/figurative): 
"1. of the nature of or involving a figure of speech, especially a metaphor; metaphorical and not literal: The word “head” has several figurative senses, as in “She's the head of the company.”.
Synonyms: metaphorical, not literal, symbolic."

Quote
And to top it off, it is the way Trump FEELS.

...according to Spicer in damage control mode. Trump's original statement is still false.

Edit: Technically, "It's getting..." is in the present tense, not the future tense. But the implication is that we are presently approaching an event in the future, so my point stands.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 08, 2017, 10:58:58 PM
So if he said "It's getting to the point," instead of "It's gotten to the point," all would be well in the world?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 08, 2017, 11:10:28 PM
So if he said "It's getting to the point," instead of "It's gotten to the point," all would be well in the world?

No. You were the one that implied that it makes a difference. If he thinks it's already happening, then he is lying, because it isn't. If he thinks it is going to happen in the future, then why is he accusing the media of something that hasn't happened yet, and why did they provide a list of past events in an attempt to back up the statement?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 09, 2017, 12:15:58 AM
https://twitter.com/BillWeirCNN/status/829369031702540290

lol

https://twitter.com/DrNeilTyson/status/829413647231356928

also lol
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 09, 2017, 12:42:53 AM
https://twitter.com/BillWeirCNN/status/829369031702540290

lol

https://twitter.com/DrNeilTyson/status/829413647231356928

also lol

(https://anansisweb.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/jesus_facepalm-dos.jpg)
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 09, 2017, 01:29:02 AM
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-foreign-leaders-phone-calls-234770

This is a great article too.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 09, 2017, 12:21:55 PM
I'd write something but I think this video from the Late Show sums it up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLw-zd87wVk
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 09, 2017, 03:27:44 PM
To the Trump supporters, or even those of you are neutral on him - are you okay with this? Again, he used the official POTUS account to retweet this, and there's no way this could be about protecting American jobs or the economy. He was just shilling for his daughter.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Parsifal on February 09, 2017, 03:37:41 PM
To the Trump supporters, or even those of you are neutral on him - are you okay with this? Again, he used the official POTUS account to retweet this, and there's no way this could be about protecting American jobs or the economy. He was just shilling for his daughter.

Well, she is supposed to be assisting him as President. Do you also have a problem with these other tweets about members of his administration?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/825018149397463040
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/825101272982355968
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826637556787838976
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829496507841789952
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 09, 2017, 03:48:23 PM
No, but he's not trying to promote the private business interests of any of those people.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 09, 2017, 03:49:08 PM
To the Trump supporters, or even those of you are neutral on him - are you okay with this? Again, he used the official POTUS account to retweet this, and there's no way this could be about protecting American jobs or the economy. He was just shilling for his daughter.

Well, she is supposed to be assisting him as President. Do you also have a problem with these other tweets about members of his administration?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/825018149397463040
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/825101272982355968
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826637556787838976
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829496507841789952

Does selling a clothing line have anything to do with her position helping him as president? Because I don't see him commenting on whatever Jeff Sessions does in his spare time that isn't related to his job he does for Trump. Likewise, Ivanka's clothing line doesn't (or at least, shouldn't, but probably does) have anything to do with Trump as president.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 09, 2017, 05:04:09 PM
So... apparently Trump's SCOTUS pick basically told a senator how Trump's attacks on the judges who are blocking his ban was disheartening and demoralizing.
Trump accuses the senator who tweeted the words a liar.
Gorsuch's office then says "No no, that's true.  That's exactly what he said."

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/trumps-baffling-tweet-on-gorsuch/

So, Donald Trump, once again, lied in an effort to discredit someone.  How can anyone support him is beyond me.  His supporters are a cult and even if they all saw him having wild sex with a bunch of Mexican boys in church on Christmas, they would STILL support him.

It's Sad.  It's really just sad.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 09, 2017, 05:53:51 PM
It's Sad.  It's really just sad.

Please reserve your pity. What's even sadder is how butthurt you are over the whole thing. Your equally bad- if not infinitally worse- candidate lost. You would be defending all of her bullshit too. Luckily, since Trump whooped her ass, we never had to watch you make that shameful switch from your high horse to the apologist.

And please, get laid man.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 09, 2017, 05:56:54 PM
So... apparently Trump's SCOTUS pick basically told a senator how Trump's attacks on the judges who are blocking his ban was disheartening and demoralizing.
Trump accuses the senator who tweeted the words a liar.
Gorsuch's office then says "No no, that's true.  That's exactly what he said."

Incredible. Every day. Every single day he gives everyone a fresh reason to hate him.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/84/96/37/84963712dc918a16e4c11b8a4f08dc4f.jpg)

Your equally bad- if not infinitally worse- candidate lost.

Yes, Hillary lost. Stop using her as an excuse for the turds Trump lays on a daily basis.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 09, 2017, 06:51:10 PM
Your equally bad- if not infinitally worse- candidate lost.

Yes, Hillary lost. Stop using her as an excuse for the turds Trump lays on a daily basis.

As I said, luckily we don't live in that alternate reality, of course I would have loved to see how critical you guys would have been against her policies (lol)
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 09, 2017, 07:11:19 PM
It's Sad.  It's really just sad.

Please reserve your pity. What's even sadder is how butthurt you are over the whole thing. Your equally bad- if not infinitally worse- candidate lost. You would be defending all of her bullshit too. Luckily, since Trump whooped her ass, we never had to watch you make that shameful switch from your high horse to the apologist.

And please, get laid man.
You know, I'm starting to wonder if your a shill.  Or just angry.

ps. you sound like you need to get laid far more than I.  Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to have some time alone with my wife.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 09, 2017, 08:29:27 PM
It's Sad.  It's really just sad.

Please reserve your pity. What's even sadder is how butthurt you are over the whole thing. Your equally bad- if not infinitally worse- candidate lost. You would be defending all of her bullshit too. Luckily, since Trump whooped her ass, we never had to watch you make that shameful switch from your high horse to the apologist.

And please, get laid man.
You know, I'm starting to wonder if your a shill.  Or just angry.

ps. you sound like you need to get laid far more than I.  Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to have some time alone with my wife.

I'm the angry one? Please show me anywhere on anything I've typed that can be remotely interpreted as Anger. If anything I get joy from how frustrated and angry you appear. There seems to be a lot of negative energy and frustration in your words. I'm glad you realized that some time away from venting your rage and distaste for American politics on a Flat Earth message board would be good for you, and have decided to spend some quality time with another human being.

I'm sorry, I'm not sorry. No matter how much you want to shame me into changing my fundamental beliefs, I'm not ashamed. I'm not interested in hypocritical partisan faux outrage. I didn't do it with Obama and I'm not going to do it with Trump. You people are no better than the people who called Obama a Gun-grabbing Muslim Nazi Dictator.

ps. I thought you were better than "I know you are but what am I" retorts.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 09, 2017, 09:05:36 PM
I'm sorry, I'm not sorry. No matter how much you want to shame me into changing my fundamental beliefs, I'm not ashamed. I'm not interested in hypocritical partisan faux outrage. I didn't do it with Obama and I'm not going to do it with Trump. You people are no better than the people who called Obama a Gun-grabbing Muslim Nazi Dictator.

We're talking about Trump and his behavior, not your fundamental beliefs. And there's nothing "hypocritical" about the response to his hijinks. This isn't a both-sides-do-it type of deal. What Trump does is not normal, and has not been done before by presidents or presidential candidates, at least not in modern times. The frequent Twitter temper tantrums, the juvenile name-calling, the constant lying about such trivial, obvious things, the openly-hostile relationship with the press, the lambasting of a judge who made a ruling he didn't like, the inability to even handle a SNL parody of himself, etc. This is all unique to Trump. Bush and Obama didn't do it, McCain and Romney didn't do it, and Hillary wouldn't have done it.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 09, 2017, 09:16:31 PM
I'm the angry one? Please show me anywhere on anything I've typed that can be remotely interpreted as Anger. If anything I get joy from how frustrated and angry you appear. There seems to be a lot of negative energy and frustration in your words. I'm glad you realized that some time away from venting your rage and distaste for American politics on a Flat Earth message board would be good for you, and have decided to spend some quality time with another human being.
Oh it's pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain.  Every time we ask you to provide proof you dodge the question and attack us.  But you could just be a shill.
And yes, I am angry at Trump.  Am I not allowed to be angry?

Quote
I'm sorry, I'm not sorry. No matter how much you want to shame me into changing my fundamental beliefs, I'm not ashamed. I'm not interested in hypocritical partisan faux outrage. I didn't do it with Obama and I'm not going to do it with Trump. You people are no better than the people who called Obama a Gun-grabbing Muslim Nazi Dictator.
Then how the hell did someone named Barrack Hussein Obama get elected? His last name rhymed with OSAMA for Christ's sake! lol..

Ted Cruz has a lot more problems than his name. Obama showed that charm can get a lot of things overlooked. Cruz is about as likeable as a wet fart.

Of course, given that you're only a year old on this forum, there isn't much you did speak on about Obama so we only have your word and this quote.

As for your fundamental beliefs, well, see what honk said.  It's true, I don't really care about your fundamental beliefs.  Unless your fundamental beliefs is "Whatever Trump does is right" such as lying, rolling out poorly deployed EOs, insulting anyone who criticizes him, or breaking diplomatic protocols.


Quote
ps. I thought you were better than "I know you are but what am I" retorts.
???   Do you know what that retort means?
It means you insulted me and I said the same thing back at you while maintaining my own innocence.  So you admit to starting the ad hominem?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 09, 2017, 09:33:21 PM
It doesn't matter what I ever said Dave. Just as much as it doesn't matter what Trump ever does. You decided to hate us both. You decided not to value my opinions long ago. I can speak with the plainest of language, and the most direct irrefutable logic possible, and you would ignore or pull out some absurd disqualifier out of your ass.

My fundamental beliefs: Smaller government, personal liberty. From what I can tell, Trump is doing right by that. You might not like it because your core beliefs are obviously something different... I don't have time to debate whether or not socialism works (it doesn't) or disarming law abiding citizens decreases gun violence (it doesn't) but if you think I'm going to sit idly by and not laugh at your misery than you got another thing coming.

Do you really think people are getting paid to be pro-trump on the internet? Like some kind of organization committed to Correcting the Record or some lame shit like that? By the way that Obama quote was completely out of context and you know it. I don't know what anyone could accurately draw from that cherry picked excerpt. Keep digging though, maybe you'll find me getting out of character and being "angry" and throwing temper tantrums like you somewhere, most likely not though.

So if he said "It's getting to the point," instead of "It's gotten to the point," all would be well in the world?

No. You were the one that implied that it makes a difference. If he thinks it's already happening, then he is lying, because it isn't. If he thinks it is going to happen in the future, then why is he accusing the media of something that hasn't happened yet, and why did they provide a list of past events in an attempt to back up the statement?

It is your opinion that it isn't happening.

When they squeeze in a quick blurb about some terrorist plot or attack in between your local murders and the token feel good story on the 5 O' Clock news does that really count as "covering" the attack?

The same people that white washed Hillary Clinton are trying to white wash Islam.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 09, 2017, 10:04:22 PM
So if he said "It's getting to the point," instead of "It's gotten to the point," all would be well in the world?

No. You were the one that implied that it makes a difference. If he thinks it's already happening, then he is lying, because it isn't. If he thinks it is going to happen in the future, then why is he accusing the media of something that hasn't happened yet, and why did they provide a list of past events in an attempt to back up the statement?

It is your opinion that it isn't happening.

When they squeeze in a quick blurb about some terrorist plot or attack in between your local murders and the token feel good story on the 5 O' Clock news does that really count as "covering" the attack?

That's the spirit. If you don't like reality, deny it and substitute your own! Trump would be proud!

My fundamental beliefs: Smaller government, personal liberty. From what I can tell, Trump is doing right by that.

I happen to be a fan of those things too. Does that mean we should excuse anything he does as long as he generally sticks to those principles? The lying, incompetence, corruption, diplomatic damage, etc... are all completely excusable?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 09, 2017, 11:54:54 PM
When they squeeze in a quick blurb about some terrorist plot or attack in between your local murders and the token feel good story on the 5 O' Clock news does that really count as "covering" the attack?

I hate getting my news about terror attacks from local news instead of, like, every major news organization for about a month.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 10, 2017, 12:03:18 AM
The 9th Circuit decided 3-0 to continue the stay on the travel ban. Trump went all caps. (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/829836231802515457?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 10, 2017, 02:16:09 AM
On a slightly less confirmable, but much more frightening note...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-putin-idUSKBN15O2A5 (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-putin-idUSKBN15O2A5)

"Donald Trump denounced a treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads as a bad deal for the United States, according to two U.S. officials and one former U.S. official with knowledge of the call. When Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty, known as New START, Trump paused to ask his aides in an aside what the treaty was, these sources said. Trump then told Putin the treaty was one of several bad deals negotiated by the Obama administration, saying that New START favored Russia. Trump also talked about his own popularity, the sources said. "
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 10, 2017, 03:04:51 AM
On a slightly less confirmable, but much more frightening note...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-putin-idUSKBN15O2A5 (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-putin-idUSKBN15O2A5)

"Donald Trump denounced a treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads as a bad deal for the United States, according to two U.S. officials and one former U.S. official with knowledge of the call. When Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty, known as New START, Trump paused to ask his aides in an aside what the treaty was, these sources said. Trump then told Putin the treaty was one of several bad deals negotiated by the Obama administration, saying that New START favored Russia. Trump also talked about his own popularity, the sources said. "

He argued for nuclear proliferation in the campaign. I can't see why anyone would be surprised.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 10, 2017, 04:16:40 AM
On a slightly less confirmable, but much more frightening note...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-putin-idUSKBN15O2A5 (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-putin-idUSKBN15O2A5)

"Donald Trump denounced a treaty that caps U.S. and Russian deployment of nuclear warheads as a bad deal for the United States, according to two U.S. officials and one former U.S. official with knowledge of the call. When Putin raised the possibility of extending the 2010 treaty, known as New START, Trump paused to ask his aides in an aside what the treaty was, these sources said. Trump then told Putin the treaty was one of several bad deals negotiated by the Obama administration, saying that New START favored Russia. Trump also talked about his own popularity, the sources said. "

He argued for nuclear proliferation in the campaign. I can't see why anyone would be surprised.

Oh that doesn't surprise me at all. The worrisome part is that he apparently didn't even know about a major nuclear treaty with Russia, and made an immediate off the cuff declaration that it was a bad deal. The idiot is playing fast and loose with our nuclear weapons treaties...
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 10, 2017, 05:49:57 AM
"The Government contends that the district court lacked authority to enjoin enforcement of the Executive Order because the President has “unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens.” The Government does not merely argue that courts owe substantial deference to the immigration and national security policy determinations of the political branches—an uncontroversial principle that is well-grounded in our jurisprudence...Instead, the Government has taken the position that the President’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections. The Government indeed asserts that it violates separation of powers for the judiciary to entertain a constitutional challenge to executive actions such as this one.

There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy."

#legalburn
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on February 10, 2017, 06:34:53 AM
He wasn't ignoring the others, bud, he just lives in Norway.
I said he ignored my mentioning of Germany.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 10, 2017, 06:40:09 AM
He wasn't ignoring the others, bud, he just lives in Norway.
I said he ignored my mentioning of Germany.
I didn't ignore it so much as I didn't have the time to research at that moment.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 10, 2017, 01:12:00 PM
It doesn't matter what I ever said Dave. Just as much as it doesn't matter what Trump ever does. You decided to hate us both. You decided not to value my opinions long ago. I can speak with the plainest of language, and the most direct irrefutable logic possible, and you would ignore or pull out some absurd disqualifier out of your ass.
Hate you?  Meh, I just find you annoying.  Trump?  Yep.  I do like that he's getting illegals out (like the story of the women who was illegal, making regular trips to immigration to talk about it, and finally being deported.  She's been in the US for 21 years.  Not a criminal by any stretch but I'm not a fan of illegals.
I'm also happy he kept the LGBT protections in place for federal workers.  I just hate his personality, mannerisms, speech, and other actions.

Quote
My fundamental beliefs: Smaller government, personal liberty. From what I can tell, Trump is doing right by that. You might not like it because your core beliefs are obviously something different... I don't have time to debate whether or not socialism works (it doesn't) or disarming law abiding citizens decreases gun violence (it doesn't) but if you think I'm going to sit idly by and not laugh at your misery than you got another thing coming.
I've no issue with your fundamental beliefs.
I'm not even attacking them at all, just your lack of ability to defend Trump's actions and words.
Socialism works well.  (See Roads, parks, public schools, police, fire department.  Not to mention where I live, socialized medicine works very well.)
I agree that disarming lawbiding Americans won't help but neither will Arming them.  I've seen the data.  Of course, the national average on violent crimes has dropped over the last 4 years or so.  Make whatever connection you want about that.

Quote
Do you really think people are getting paid to be pro-trump on the internet? Like some kind of organization committed to Correcting the Record or some lame shit like that?
Actually, yes.  Not Correcting the Record (Trump's own words really don't need correcting) but people who are paid to write favorable comments about him on social media.  It's actually quite common.  I know a guy who worked in the news industry and everyone does it: Politicians, companies, celebrities, the works.  There are whole companies whose job it is to write positive reviews on Yelp(and other social media/review sites) for your business. It's against most of their policies to let them but it's not easy to stop.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/11/yelp-outs-companies-that-pay-for-positive-reviews/

Quote
It is your opinion that it isn't happening.

When they squeeze in a quick blurb about some terrorist plot or attack in between your local murders and the token feel good story on the 5 O' Clock news does that really count as "covering" the attack?

The same people that white washed Hillary Clinton are trying to white wash Islam.
What news are you watching that does that?  Because so far all the mass killings have made national news and had more than just a spot.  Granted, I read news websites not watch TV but still...
Also, you need to understand one very important thing:
Profit.

See, each and every news agency aside from a few are in it for profit.  Money.  The Free Market.  They must provide a product for their customers.  So they'll give them what they want.  This is what media bias is, it's about making their customers happy.  Fox does it by making things more sensational for right wingers.  CNN does it by making things more emotional for left-wingers.  If they didn't, people would just get their news from those that did and they'd lose advertising revenue and sponsors.  It's sad but that's the way it works: you can't run a news agency without money and you can't make money without getting people to read your news.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 10, 2017, 10:02:36 PM
Quote
Do you really think people are getting paid to be pro-trump on the internet? Like some kind of organization committed to Correcting the Record or some lame shit like that?
Actually, yes.  Not Correcting the Record (Trump's own words really don't need correcting) but people who are paid to write favorable comments about him on social media.  It's actually quite common.  I know a guy who worked in the news industry and everyone does it: Politicians, companies, celebrities, the works.  There are whole companies whose job it is to write positive reviews on Yelp(and other social media/review sites) for your business. It's against most of their policies to let them but it's not easy to stop.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/11/yelp-outs-companies-that-pay-for-positive-reviews/
(http://i.imgur.com/pQefZBo.png)

I know it happens. But sometimes, your product is so good you don't need to do it. Chick-Fil-A doesn't need a brigade of people online defending them. Even when they were in the midst of a liberal meltdown over the owner's pro-traditional marriage views. Chick-Fil-A didn't cave, and I never once have seen an empty drivethru at one before.

Trump is just a better product than certain other candidates that had to rely more heavily on "correcting the record" to make them appear palatable.

Also, you need to understand one very important thing:
Profit.

I get it. The entire issue is this: how much of it is an accurate representation of the opinions of their viewership, and how much of it is opinions they wish their viewership adopt. The old art imitating life and vice versa conundrum.

At the end of the day, controlling public opinion, and influencing people's minds, attitudes, and actions, is A LOT more valuable than any ad revenue you can generate from Nissan and Cialis commercials.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 10, 2017, 11:09:19 PM
Trump is just a better product than certain other candidates that had to rely more heavily on "correcting the record" to make them appear palatable.

Apparently a good enough product to get a majority of votes.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 10, 2017, 11:17:51 PM
Apparently a good enough product to get a majority of votes.
Are you one of those anti-electoral-college people, or do you acknowledge that EC results are likely more representative of the general populace?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 10, 2017, 11:51:53 PM
Hold up, I am confused by this exchange.

Trump is just a better product than certain other candidates that had to rely more heavily on "correcting the record" to make them appear palatable.
Apparently a good enough product to get a majority of votes.

But he didn't get a majority of votes, except in the electoral college...

Apparently a good enough product to get a majority of votes.
Are you one of those anti-electoral-college people, or do you acknowledge that EC results are likely more representative of the general populace?

What on earth do you mean by "EC results are likely more representative of the general populace?"
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 11, 2017, 12:01:19 AM
I forgot a word. :'(
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 11, 2017, 04:19:35 AM
Arguing about who's shilling for whom is a pointless exercise. I'm sure that both candidates had some astroturfing and shilling going on, and I'm also sure that none of those shills would be wasting their time in a debate on a sparsely-populated board like this one. Also, while I wouldn't use the word "cave" to describe Chick-fil-A's reaction to the criticism over the same-sex marriage issue, it's not accurate to imply that they stuck to their guns and weathered the storm without blinking. They made a lot of policy changes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy#Policy_changes) in response.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 11, 2017, 01:18:19 PM
So after the all-caps twitter post about going to court, it turns out that now the administration may not challenge the 9th circuit ruling, and may instead try to reword the executive order.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-court-idUSKBN15O2XS
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 11, 2017, 03:32:51 PM
So after the all-caps twitter post about going to court, it turns out that now the administration may not challenge the 9th circuit ruling, and may instead try to reword the executive order.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-court-idUSKBN15O2XS (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-court-idUSKBN15O2XS)
Well of course.

Trump probably looked at Jeff Sessions and said "I wanna sue those assholes who blocked my bill!" 
To which Jeff replied: "That would be the federal government."
"Fine.  Sue'em."
"You are the federal government, sir.  You can't sue yourself."
"... I'm what?"
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 11, 2017, 03:59:12 PM
Hold up, I am confused by this exchange.

Trump is just a better product than certain other candidates that had to rely more heavily on "correcting the record" to make them appear palatable.
Apparently a good enough product to get a majority of votes.

But he didn't get a majority of votes, except in the electoral college...

Apparently a good enough product to get a majority of votes.
Are you one of those anti-electoral-college people, or do you acknowledge that EC results are likely more representative of the general populace?

What on earth do you mean by "EC results are likely more representative of the general populace?"

The EC helps make sure that three or four states with the largest populations can't just enforce their wills on the rest of the nation with impunity.

Otherwise we might as well just let California and New York appoint their dictator and end elections altogether.

I'm more in favor of breaking the electoral college down into more districts than I am in just going straight popular vote. I live in a perpetually blue state and a Republican voters see casting a vote as futile. The winner take all system effectually disanfranchises people who find themselves in the minority in their states.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 11, 2017, 04:08:08 PM
What on earth do you mean by "EC results are likely more representative of the general populace?"
*sigh*

Okay, let's write it out, then. Generalising hugely for the sake of brevity (though I invite you to Google "why is the electoral college a thing? (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+is+the+electoral+college+a+thing%3F)" for answers which are both more detailed and nuanced than my back-of-the-envelope scribble), here's the common case for the Electoral College:

The USA is a federation of states with some degree of self-determination. These states are often different in many ways, the most relevant of which being population (and population density), economic development, dominant religion, culture, education, probably a few other things I'm forgetting. Now, since population, population density and economic well-being are all factors, certain states are bound to be under- or over-represented in a nationwide election. And since education, culture, and religion are all factors, different states can be assumed to vote differently (and we know this to be true since the USA held a few elections to date).

To give you some idea: the population of Indiana (6.5M in 2012) and Minnesota (5.4M) are roughly comparable. In 2012, 76.1% of Minnesotans and 56% of Indianans voted. Looking at the "popular vote", the voice of Minnesota would have to count as more, purely because more people turned up to represent it. Even though every voter set out to represent their state, you would give the state that can afford more representatives to hold more power. This would be particularly egregious in the USA, since it's a nation suffering from constant attempts at alienating voter groups.

The EC system as it stands is not perfect. In particular, the "winner takes all" rule strongly lowers its representative power. The electoral votes per states should also be recalculated to reflect the changes in relative populations over time. However, to throw it out entirely would mean to disempower states which, for whatever reason, cannot attain a higher voter turnout. In other words - you're giving power to the rich (or at least taking it away from the poor) - something the Democratic Party has had an affinity for recently.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 05:07:19 PM
What on earth do you mean by "EC results are likely more representative of the general populace?"
*sigh*

*eyeroll*

Quote
Okay, let's write it out, then. Generalising hugely for the sake of brevity (though I invite you to Google "why is the electoral college a thing? (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+is+the+electoral+college+a+thing%3F)" for answers which are both more detailed and nuanced than my back-of-the-envelope scribble), here's the common case for the Electoral College:

The USA is a federation of states with some degree of self-determination. These states are often different in many ways, the most relevant of which being population (and population density), economic development, dominant religion, culture, education, probably a few other things I'm forgetting. Now, since population, population density and economic well-being are all factors, certain states are bound to be under- or over-represented in a nationwide election. And since education, culture, and religion are all factors, different states can be assumed to vote differently (and we know this to be true since the USA held a few elections to date).

Yes, I too passed high school history.

Quote
To give you some idea: the population of Indiana (6.5M in 2012) and Minnesota (5.4M) are roughly comparable. In 2012, 76.1% of Minnesotans and 56% of Indianans voted. Looking at the "popular vote", the voice of Minnesota would have to count as more, purely because more people turned up to represent it. Even though every voter set out to represent their state, you would give the state that can afford more representatives to hold more power. This would be particularly egregious in the USA, since it's a nation suffering from constant attempts at alienating voter groups.

Who do you think is advocating assigning the number of representatives based on the number of voters? That would be an awful idea, and has nothing to do with whether the EC represents the general populace more than a straight popular vote.

Quote
The EC system as it stands is not perfect. In particular, the "winner takes all" rule strongly lowers its representative power. The electoral votes per states should also be recalculated to reflect the changes in relative populations over time. However, to throw it out entirely would mean to disempower states which, for whatever reason, cannot attain a higher voter turnout. In other words - you're giving power to the rich (or at least taking it away from the poor) - something the Democratic Party has had an affinity for recently.

That's not what the EC was made for at all. It adds weight to voters in less populated states. It has nothing to do with making up for voter turnout. In fact, the three most populous states (CA, TX, NY) had some of the worst voter turnouts, which means it is doing the exact opposite of what you are giving it credit for.

I understand that there are pros and cons to the EC. But it certainly does not represent the general populace more accurately than a straight popular vote.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 11, 2017, 05:34:59 PM
That's not what the EC was made for at all. It adds weight to voters in less populated states.

It wasn't even made for that reason, actually. The Founders believed that a small group of electors would be able to make a more informed, rational choice than the overall population, a concern that's rendered somewhat moot by how rare and frowned-upon faithless voting is nowadays.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 11, 2017, 05:37:05 PM
To give you some idea: the population of Indiana (6.5M in 2012) and Minnesota (5.4M) are roughly comparable. In 2012, 76.1% of Minnesotans and 56% of Indianans voted. Looking at the "popular vote", the voice of Minnesota would have to count as more, purely because more people turned up to represent it.

this only really matters if indiana and minnesota are culturally and politically distinct.  if the interests of minnesotans and indianans don't diverge along state lines, then the location of the voter doesn't need to be accounted for.  the two voting blocks can be demographically equal.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 06:01:06 PM
That's not what the EC was made for at all. It adds weight to voters in less populated states.

It wasn't even made for that reason, actually. The Founders believed that a small group of electors would be able to make a more informed, rational choice than the overall population, a concern that's rendered somewhat moot by how rare and frowned-upon faithless voting is nowadays.

That too.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 11, 2017, 06:17:19 PM
Yes, I too passed high school history.
I know that answering it boils down to high school stats and early junior high world history (I guess the schooling system where you lived must have been a bit slower than that of my backwater second-world home nation), but you wanted it explained. Don't complain that I'm giving you the information you explicitly requested.

Who do you think is advocating assigning the number of representatives based on the number of voters?
The voter, in this case, is the representative. Tautologies don't really need advocates, they remain tautologies nonetheless.

That would be an awful idea, and has nothing to do with whether the EC represents the general populace more than a straight popular vote.
It sounds like you misunderstood my use of "representative", even though I stated it explicitly in my post.

It adds weight to voters in less populated states.
That is simply mathematically incorrect. The weights were applied proportionally to the populations, if only indirectly.

It has nothing to do with making up for voter turnout. In fact, the three most populous states (CA, TX, NY) had some of the worst voter turnouts, which means it is doing the exact opposite of what you are giving it credit for.
I deliberately picked examples of two states of similar populations, and explained how using a popular vote would unbalance the power between them based on their wealth and privilege. I'm not sure why you're bringing more populous states into it, but the same comparison can be made between any pair of states of similar populations. The point is that the voting populace of a certain state is the best representation of the views of the entire state that we can currently produce.

I understand that there are pros and cons to the EC.
So far you've demonstrated the opposite.

But it certainly does not represent the general populace more accurately than a straight popular vote.
We'll have to agree to disagree. Luckily, the people that actually need to understand the benefits understand them well enough not to mess with the system.

If you ask 0.1% of each state what they think about an issue, you might have a (weak) claim to having an answer that's representative for the USA. If you ask 0.1% of the USA's population about the same issue, but you source all your respondents from Texas, your claim will be close to non-existent. This principle remains true, although to a lesser extent, if you adjust the numbers to be more akin to a general election.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 11, 2017, 06:23:49 PM
this only really matters if indiana and minnesota are culturally and politically distinct.  if the interests of minnesotans and indianans don't diverge along state lines, then the location of the voter doesn't need to be accounted for.  the two voting blocks can be demographically equal.
Yes, this is why I presented these facts in the introduction to my post. And unless you make the case that none of the states are culturally and politically distinct (which I believe not even you would do), then your point boils down to "SexWarrior might not have picked the best states for his example case"
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 11, 2017, 06:36:38 PM
Well, the EC had a good role but it assumed that there would be more than 2 candidates.  And that the VP was elected separate.

Neither is really true these days.  Most people (and states) vote one party or the other.(  Those in states who vote different from their state's normal voting pattern (NY, TX, CA, UT, etc...) are going to feel disenfranchised.  Why bother voting Republican in NY when you'll never get the state to go Red?

The big downside isn't disenfranchised states who get crowded out (cause that already happens) but candidates would have to campaign in EVERY state.  Instead of the 11 that swing, they'd have to be more national in their approach, which could be more diluting and make winning harder.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 11, 2017, 06:40:34 PM
Why bother voting Republican in NY when you'll never get the state to go Red?
I agree. I'm firmly opposed to the "winner takes all" rule. It would be much better if the votes were distributed proportionally.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 11, 2017, 06:45:59 PM
Why bother voting Republican in NY when you'll never get the state to go Red?
I agree. I'm firmly opposed to the "winner takes all" rule. It would be much better if the votes were distributed proportionally.
Well, part of that is also gerrymandering.  If ya win enough, you can make sure you always win.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 07:01:38 PM
Who do you think is advocating assigning the number of representatives based on the number of voters?
The voter, in this case, is the representative. Tautologies don't really need advocates, they remain tautologies nonetheless.

Oh, I thought you were arguing against some type of winner-takes-all system with electors proportional to the number of voters instead of population. Your wording was confusing, especially with the odd use of the word "representative".

Quote
It adds weight to voters in less populated states.
That is simply mathematically incorrect. The weights were applied proportionally to the populations, if only indirectly.

The number of EC's a state gets are based on population + 2, which favors voters in less populous states and in states with lower voter turnout, although the effect on less populous states is much more significant. However, the electoral college does absolutely nothing to promote the representation of those not turning out to vote. There is no reason to suspect that those non-voters are accurately represented by the majority of voters in their state, ESPECIALLY if they are being unfairly pressured into not voting. Who else has the power to pressure them into not voting except the majority party in that state?

Quote
The point is that the voting populace of a certain state is the best representation of the views of the entire state that we can currently produce.

And the voting populace of the nation as a whole is the best representation of the views of the entire nation that we can currently produce. Artificially breaking the voters up into blocks does not make it more reliable. If you want to weight the votes based on known demographic and geographic spread, fine. The EC does not do that effectively.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 11, 2017, 07:14:11 PM
However, the electoral college does absolutely nothing to promote the representation of those not turning out to vote.
It provides us with the best approximation currently available, as opposed to your proposal, which is to provide us with no approximation at all.

There is no reason to suspect that those non-voters are accurately represented by the majority of voters in their state
Agreed, it's just much more likely to be accurate than your alternative.

ESPECIALLY if they are being unfairly pressured into not voting. Who else has the power to pressure them into not voting except the majority party in that state?
Free markets.

And the voting populace of the nation as a whole is the best representation of the views of the entire nation that we can currently produce.
This is incorrect, it provides you with a locally skewed representation, something that can be easily avoided.

Artificially breaking the voters up into blocks does not make it more reliable. If you want to weight the votes based on known demographic and geographic spread, fine. The EC does not do that effectively.
I am not claiming that the EC is effective. I'm claiming that it's a world of improvement over your proposal. I already pointed out a few factors that I'd prefer to see refined, so trying to convince me that the system isn't perfect as-is is a bit of a trivial task.

If you were advocating for anything else than the "popular vote", you'd have an easy time steamrolling over the arguments for EC. But you chose to back the worst of all options.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 07:32:37 PM
However, the electoral college does absolutely nothing to promote the representation of those not turning out to vote.
It provides us with the best approximation currently available, as opposed to your proposal, which is to provide us with no approximation at all.

There is no reason to suspect that those non-voters are accurately represented by the majority of voters in their state
Agreed, it's just much more likely to be accurate than your alternative.

ESPECIALLY if they are being unfairly pressured into not voting. Who else has the power to pressure them into not voting except the majority party in that state?
Free markets.

And the voting populace of the nation as a whole is the best representation of the views of the entire nation that we can currently produce.
This is incorrect, it provides you with a locally skewed representation, something that can be easily avoided.

Every single one of these statements is incorrect. I'm not going to bother arguing them further though, since your short, blunt, responses devoid of reasoning indicates that it would be tedious and fruitless process.

Quote
Artificially breaking the voters up into blocks does not make it more reliable. If you want to weight the votes based on known demographic and geographic spread, fine. The EC does not do that effectively.
I am not claiming that the EC is effective. I'm claiming that it's a world of improvement over your proposal. I already pointed out a few factors that I'd prefer to see refined, so trying to convince me that the system isn't perfect as-is is a bit of a trivial task.

If you were advocating for anything else than the "popular vote", you'd have an easy time steamrolling over the arguments for EC. But you chose to back the worst of all options.

I didn't propose/advocate anything. You were the one who stated "EC results are likely more representative of the general populace". Since you didn't specify what it was more representative than, I assumed you meant a straight popular vote. I wouldn't advocate a straight popular vote either, but at least it is "more representative of the general populace" than the EC. Yes, I agree that removing the "winner-takes-all" rule is at least a step in the right direction.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 11, 2017, 07:42:45 PM
Since you didn't specify what it was more representative than
Have you ever tried reading posts before responding to them? It's a revolutionary step away from constant embarrassment!

Apparently a good enough product to get a majority of votes.
Are you one of those anti-electoral-college people, or do you acknowledge that EC results are likely more representative of the general populace?

I assumed you meant a straight popular vote
At least you managed to guess correctly, but seriously, reading your opponents' points is a much better way to debate than guessing them.

Every single one of these statements is incorrect. I'm not going to bother arguing them further though, since your short, blunt, responses devoid of reasoning indicates that it would be tedious and fruitless process.
I presented my reasoning. You didn't present yours because you don't have any. That's why throughout this discussion you had to go from "explain!" to "haha, I knew all this, I went to school!" to "I agree that distributing the vote is a good idea, but EC isn't the best way of doing this" (i.e. a complete agreement with my position), to "you're wrong but UHHH I WON'T TELL YOU WHY!"

Yes, I agree that removing the "winner-takes-all" rule is at least a step in the right direction.
Yes, at this stage you've pretty much forced yourself to concede this.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 11, 2017, 07:43:57 PM
this only really matters if indiana and minnesota are culturally and politically distinct.  if the interests of minnesotans and indianans don't diverge along state lines, then the location of the voter doesn't need to be accounted for.  the two voting blocks can be demographically equal.
Yes, this is why I presented these facts in the introduction to my post. And unless you make the case that none of the states are culturally and politically distinct (which I believe not even you would do), then your point boils down to "SexWarrior might not have picked the best states for his example case"

i named those two states only because they were in your example.  the principle applies generally, though.  i wouldn't say that there are no states that are politically and culturally distinct; but, i would say that there aren't very many of them, and the distinctions divide along much larger regions than those encompassed by a single state border.  california isn't very distinct from oregon or washington, nor is texas from oklahoma or louisiana.  i'm not saying you picked the wrong states to use as an example; i'm saying that most states are pretty much just like their neighbors.  i don't think we have anywhere close to 50 distinct cultural/political reservoirs.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 11, 2017, 07:47:39 PM
[...] i don't think we have anywhere close to 50 distinct cultural/political reservoirs.
While I don't disagree, I do not see how that affects the discussion at hand. Whether we're looking at 2 states, say, one with 30 votes and one with 40, or a two-state arbitrary unit with 70 votes, if they're not distinct, the result will be identical either way; if they are distinct, the result may change depending on scenario picked. This, if anything, does a great job at illustrating the difference between a popular vote (the assumption that it's just one giant arbitrary block) and the EC (a large number of somewhat arbitrary blocks)
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 11, 2017, 07:55:14 PM
<words>

Meh. I don't really feel like further engaging your troll bait into a never ending argument right now. Maybe some other time.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 11, 2017, 08:02:07 PM
"It's not that I don't have any arguments to present, it's just that it would be so much effort to present them when you're saying words at me."

10/10, keep going.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 11, 2017, 08:03:48 PM
I think this thread is about Trump.  He must have done something more interesting than this today.

EDIT: Here we go!  Apparently Trump is convinced he will bring the price of the wall down because he is an amazing negotiator and deal maker.  We all know the truth is he will use Chinese steel to drive the price down.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/02/11/trump-insists-he-can-bring-the-cost-of-21-6-billion-border-wall-way-down/?utm_term=.4f7a50ccd6d3
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 11, 2017, 08:11:27 PM
I think this thread is about Trump.  He must have done something more interesting than this today.

EDIT: Here we go!  Apparently Trump is convinced he will bring the price of the wall down because he is an amazing negotiator and deal maker.  We all know the truth is he will use Chinese steel to drive the price down.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/02/11/trump-insists-he-can-bring-the-cost-of-21-6-billion-border-wall-way-down/?utm_term=.4f7a50ccd6d3 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/02/11/trump-insists-he-can-bring-the-cost-of-21-6-billion-border-wall-way-down/?utm_term=.4f7a50ccd6d3)
Chineese steel and Illegal immigrants.


There we go. 
"Work on the wall or I'll deport you."






But why does he care?  Mexico will pay for it.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 11, 2017, 09:49:39 PM
And the voting populace of the nation as a whole is the best representation of the views of the entire nation that we can currently produce.
This is incorrect, it provides you with a locally skewed representation, something that can be easily avoided.

Artificially breaking the voters up into blocks does not make it more reliable. If you want to weight the votes based on known demographic and geographic spread, fine. The EC does not do that effectively.
I am not claiming that the EC is effective. I'm claiming that it's a world of improvement over your proposal. I already pointed out a few factors that I'd prefer to see refined, so trying to convince me that the system isn't perfect as-is is a bit of a trivial task.

If you were advocating for anything else than the "popular vote", you'd have an easy time steamrolling over the arguments for EC. But you chose to back the worst of all options.

Literally everything you said about the electoral college in this thread has been wrong. It does not take into account anything about active voters or percentage of the population who voted. It only gives more representation to people who live in states that are less populous. None of this other stuff matters at all.

And objectively, it is worse than the popular vote at representing the people as a whole fairly. It does not meet the majority criterion, so a candidate liked by more than 50% of the populace is not guaranteed to win. The popular vote does meet this criteria, a criteria used by voting theorists to measure the fairness in a voting system. In fact, the electoral college meets none of the criterion used to evaluate a fair voting method. And I don't think I've heard any proponent say that it does, either. Most concede that it represents small states more, and then proceed to defend that. It does not ensure that most Americans support the president, obviously; it does not equalize representation among states, since they are still based on population, and because of the current winner-take-all system, it causes candidates to focus on swing states; it does not ensure diverse support for the president.

I can't see anywhere where it would do better than a first-past-the-post voting system, and this weird argument about representing states with less active voters more is crazy. And this:

Quote
That is simply mathematically incorrect. The weights were applied proportionally to the populations, if only indirectly.

is the craziest of all the claims. No, mathematically, it DOES represent voters in small states more by giving every state 2 votes, then distributing votes proportionally. The total votes represent a fewer amount of voters in small states, and therefore mathematically weights voters in small states more. The only thing I think you are trying to claim is that it gives equal representation to states of equal population regardless of how many of them actually voted, but I do not know why that should be considered a good thing, nor does that address the issue of disproportionate representation among the states.

As it stands, a majority of states can support a candidate and he would not win, and a majority of people can support a candidate and he would not win. I fail to see how that system is in any way a fair voting system, whether you value the U.S. as a collection of states or as a collection of people.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 12, 2017, 12:50:34 AM
As it stands, a majority of states can support a candidate and he would not win, and a majority of people can support a candidate and he would not win.
Well, yes, if you go out of your way to ask the wrong questions, you're going to get the wrong answer. Neither the majority of states nor the majority of voters should be the relevant metric. That's why the metric actually used is a sum of weights of states.

It does not take into account anything about active voters or percentage of the population who voted. It only gives more representation to people who live in states that are less populous. None of this other stuff matters at all.
If you think I said anything even remotely to this effect (hint: I absolutely didn't), you need to take a step back and ask me to clarify the things that I didn't already make sufficiently clear. You're doing the thing again.

I'll ignore your claims of "objective truth", since they're not rooted in anything remotely objective. You've voiced a very emphatic opinion, which essentially boils down to you being a majoritarian (to my surprise), while I'm a utilitarian. You also chose to double-down on criticising the same parts of EC as me. I really don't know what people try to achieve when they do that. "What? You said you support this system but with changes X, Y and Z? That's terrible, this system would only work if X, Y and Z were considered!!!!" Like, yes, I'm glad we agree.

As to why balancing voter turnout is a good thing: I sincerely hope you're never poor enough to not be able to vote. The lack of empathy from Democrats on this issue is absolutely shocking.

Also, not trying to attack you over this, but I think you're the kind of person who would like to know: "criteria" is the plural of "criterion". Don't use them interchangeably.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 12, 2017, 02:42:36 AM
As it stands, a majority of states can support a candidate and he would not win, and a majority of people can support a candidate and he would not win.
Well, yes, if you go out of your way to ask the wrong questions, you're going to get the wrong answer. Neither the majority of states nor the majority of voters should be the relevant metric. That's why the metric actually used is a sum of weights of states.

And the weight gives more representation to those in smaller states.

You've voiced a very emphatic opinion, which essentially boils down to you being a majoritarian (to my surprise), while I'm a utilitarian.

Why does the electoral college have more utility than other systems? I fail to see how there is any more utility in awarding votes per state, especially in a system that currently fails to address even a single aspect of mathematically fair elections, whether we're talking about states or people.

You also claim it "balances voter turnout", as if that is inherently good, and I have no idea why it should be. Why should a state where less people voted inherently have the same say as a state where more people voted? Even if you view the United States more as a collection of sovereign states, state representation is at the Legislative level, in the House and Senate. There's no inherent reason for the Executive to be voted in using a system that gives the same value to 1 Alabaman as 4 million Alabamans.

You also chose to double-down on criticising the same parts of EC as me. I really don't know what people try to achieve when they do that. "What? You said you support this system but with changes X, Y and Z? That's terrible, this system would only work if X, Y and Z were considered!!!!" Like, yes, I'm glad we agree.

That's good that you think the Electoral College has issues, but that's the problem. The Electoral College has problems X, Y, and Z. It'd be great if it were proportional, and if it wasn't winner take all, and most importantly, if there were no electors at all, but those things aren't going to change. To do so would involve a state choosing to purposefully decrease its influence in presidential elections.

What's worse, those problems are decreasing voter turnout in non-swing states, which would seem to cause a far greater problem than you're trying to fix by giving states with equal populations equal say.

As to why balancing voter turnout is a good thing: I sincerely hope you're never poor enough to not be able to vote. The lack of empathy from Democrats on this issue is absolutely shocking.

The electoral college doesn't voice the opinions of the people who don't vote, so I fail to see what this has to do with anything. A person who does not vote, electoral college or no, has no voice in the election. All you've done is move that issue down to the state level. A person "too poor to vote" still has no influence on the outcome of their state's election, and as such, has no voice in the electoral college either. You are confusing phantom voices of non-voters with artificially inflating the value of those that do vote.

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 12, 2017, 02:59:25 AM
And the weight gives more representation to those in smaller states.
Which I already said I'd be in favour of fixing. Y'know, before you pointed it out.

Why does the electoral college have more utility than other systems?
I can only refer you to my previous post.

Why should a state where less people voted inherently have the same say as a state where more people voted?
Because the alternative is to penalise people for circumstances outside of their own control.

There's no inherent reason for the Executive to be voted in using a system that gives the same value to 1 Alabaman as 4 million Alabamans.
I admit that the system wouldn't work very well if only one Alabaman voted. However, I don't think you have much reason to worry about such a scenario any more than you have to worry about 1 American deciding the entire election in a "popular vote" scenario. It's a nice thought experiment, but one that will never be reflected in reality.

That's good that you think the Electoral College has issues, but that's the problem. The Electoral College has problems X, Y, and Z. It'd be great if it were proportional, and if it wasn't winner take all, and most importantly, if there were no electors at all, but those things aren't going to change.
Correct, but, once again, irrelevant to anything I said.

What's worse, those problems are decreasing voter turnout in non-swing states, which would seem to cause a far greater problem than you're trying to fix by giving states with equal populations equal say.
Again, your main sources of outrage are the very problems I've already highlighted.

The electoral college doesn't voice the opinions of the people who don't vote, so I fail to see what this has to do with anything. A person who does not vote, electoral college or no, has no voice in the election. All you've done is move that issue down to the state level.
Which is much more likely to be representative of that locality's non-voters.

  • The electoral college fails to pick a president who represents the majority of Americans.
This statement is false.

  • The electoral college fails to pick a president who represents the majority of states.
This statement is correct, and that's a good thing.

  • The electoral college fails to account for people who don't vote. There is no election system that can do this, and claiming it exists is ridiculous.
This statement is correct, but nobody has made the claim that you're expressing frustration with.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 12, 2017, 03:41:38 AM
In other news, this is happening right now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oW_LPx3ts0

Looks like they're about to threaten North Korea in response to their missile test

edit: Welp, that was disappointing. They hardly said anything and then they fucked off.
edit2: A better version of the recording is now available:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntlqA33SL-k
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 12, 2017, 04:40:10 PM
[...] i don't think we have anywhere close to 50 distinct cultural/political reservoirs.
While I don't disagree, I do not see how that affects the discussion at hand.

i'm not well-read on how the founders viewed the ec, but i've always seen its justification along these lines:

let's pretend that there are 1,000 citizens in california and only three citizens in each of the other 49 states.  california thinks the popular vote is perfectly fair, but the other states disagree.  their territories are part of the union, too, and their interests are as much dictated by their geography as that of californians.  why should the citizens of florida get no say in the executive and be ruled by california and california's interests?  thus, there should be a weight that accounts for the distribution of citizens in space to ensure that the election represents territory and population.

i think this makes a good deal of sense to the extent that state boundaries encapsulate unique interests/culture/politics; but, i don't think state boundaries do that well, if at all.  put another way, i think the commonalities in interests/culture/politics between states vastly outweighs the differences.

so i guess ultimately i have two thoughts: 1) i disagree with your original assessment that the ec is a better representation of the general populace.  i think the converse is true and its purpose is to adjust away from perfect representation of population by weighting votes along spacial lines.  2) personally i think it's a bad idea to start throwing weights around data sets without being able to precisely quantify their origins and effects.  even if each state is a truly random sample of a culturally unique region, applying weights can have the effect of merely magnifying variance between samples.  we certainly don't want to be ruled by variance.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 12, 2017, 10:06:56 PM
  • The electoral college fails to pick a president who represents the majority of Americans.
This statement is false.

Do you have any evidence to back this up, or is it just based on the intuition that giving states of equal population equal say represents Americans better than another voting system? And what metric are we using to measure this, since we have seemingly discounted one where if more than 50% of people want a certain person to be president, then that is the person most representative of the population.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 12, 2017, 11:48:08 PM
is it just based on the intuition that giving states of equal population equal say represents Americans better than another voting system?
I didn't suggest that another voting system wouldn't be better, merely that the main alternative proposed would be much worse.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 13, 2017, 12:58:20 AM
is it just based on the intuition that giving states of equal population equal say represents Americans better than another voting system?
I didn't suggest that another voting system wouldn't be better, merely that the main alternative proposed would be much worse.

Again, I'm asking how you're measuring how much the electoral college represents Americans, since you said my claim that it failed at that by not guaranteeing a winner for the candidate with >50% American support (http://www.ctl.ua.edu/math103/Voting/whatdowe.htm) was false. Obviously if you're saying that that's wrong, even though it fails every fairness criterion, you have some other sort of measure.  I'm not sure how you can claim it's better than a popular vote without this. I've heard the argument about states, but it sounds like you're just guessing it's better. I'm asking if you have any source for those claims.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 13, 2017, 12:01:19 PM
you said my claim that it failed at that by not guaranteeing a winner for the candidate with >50% American support (http://www.ctl.ua.edu/math103/Voting/whatdowe.htm) was false
I said no such thing.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 13, 2017, 12:13:10 PM
Oh look, more fallout from the ban.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-moves-spark-iraqi-anger-calls-against-future-071015858.html

It's ok.  Trump says "America First" so obviously Iraq would be way down the list, especially since we didn't take their oil like he thinks we should have.  And really, does America really need anyone's help taking down ISIL/ISIS?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 13, 2017, 04:33:33 PM
I understand that there are pros and cons to the EC. But it certainly does not represent the general populace more accurately than a straight popular vote.
That's your opinion, if you want to elaborate how allowing only the major metropolitan areas decide the President is more representative than what we have now please do.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 13, 2017, 04:36:48 PM
I understand that there are pros and cons to the EC. But it certainly does not represent the general populace more accurately than a straight popular vote.
That's your opinion, if you want to elaborate how allowing only the major metropolitan areas decide the President is more representative than what we have now please do.

Yeah, elaborate on how the majority of people can represent the majority of people please.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 13, 2017, 04:43:30 PM
I understand that there are pros and cons to the EC. But it certainly does not represent the general populace more accurately than a straight popular vote.
That's your opinion, if you want to elaborate how allowing only the major metropolitan areas decide the President is more representative than what we have now please do.

Yeah, elaborate on how the majority of people can represent the majority of people please.

Just because 40 million people subjected themselves to the misery of Californian taxation and repression through feeling-based voting doesn't mean I should be penalized, across the country, with the same failed policies that the morons can't seem to stop voting for.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 13, 2017, 04:50:35 PM
I understand that there are pros and cons to the EC. But it certainly does not represent the general populace more accurately than a straight popular vote.
That's your opinion, if you want to elaborate how allowing only the major metropolitan areas decide the President is more representative than what we have now please do.

You realize that's how the EC works now, right?

Just because 40 million people subjected themselves to the misery of Californian taxation and repression through feeling-based voting doesn't mean I should be penalized, across the country, with the same failed policies that the morons can't seem to stop voting for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states_and_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

Yes, I can see that 2.4 Trillion dollars of GDP is totally failed policy...
You realize that here in Norway, where we're like 8 million people, we have even more strict "feeling-based voting" and we're kicking ass.  Like we have a livable minimum wage, socialism that is amazing, AND a national religion.  Oh and super high environmental rules.  Like every major town and city recycles.

See, it's based on the idea that nature is kinda important. 
If we dump crap in the river, we'll be drinking crap. 
If we dump crap in the air, we're breathing crap.
If we dump crap on the ground, we'll be stepping in crap when we take a walk.

So why not just not let people dump crap anywhere they want?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 13, 2017, 05:27:40 PM
A Trump supporter mocking "feeling-based voting" is rich. As if Trump was elected on the basis of cold, hard logic and empirical reasoning. We have plenty of evidence (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/) pointing to Trump being an enormous liar who'll fudge anything from the trivial to the serious - but gosh, he sure feels like he's a bluff, honest straight-shooter who tells it like it is! And Trump's repeated refusal to release his tax records and divest from his holdings (not to mention his recent shilling for his daughter) clearly indicate the potential for major corruption - but gosh, Trump is far too rich to be corrupted by the lure of illicit money-making! And basic common sense, along with much of human history, tells us that making a temperamental, thin-skinned, immature, ignorant, vulgar, unpleasant, and grossly unqualified asshole with a million skeletons in his closet the most powerful person on the planet is a catastrophically bad idea, but gosh, my gut is telling me that this would be a nice breath of fresh air for our country!
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: andruszkow on February 13, 2017, 05:42:46 PM
I understand that there are pros and cons to the EC. But it certainly does not represent the general populace more accurately than a straight popular vote.
That's your opinion, if you want to elaborate how allowing only the major metropolitan areas decide the President is more representative than what we have now please do.

Yeah, elaborate on how the majority of people can represent the majority of people please.

Just because 40 million people subjected themselves to the misery of Californian taxation and repression through feeling-based voting doesn't mean I should be penalized, across the country, with the same failed policies that the morons can't seem to stop voting for.
Well, no matter what attributes you put on people's votes, you just described democracy.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 13, 2017, 05:45:00 PM
I understand that there are pros and cons to the EC. But it certainly does not represent the general populace more accurately than a straight popular vote.
That's your opinion, if you want to elaborate how allowing only the major metropolitan areas decide the President is more representative than what we have now please do.

You realize that's how the EC works now, right?

Just because 40 million people subjected themselves to the misery of Californian taxation and repression through feeling-based voting doesn't mean I should be penalized, across the country, with the same failed policies that the morons can't seem to stop voting for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states_and_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

Yes, I can see that 2.4 Trillion dollars of GDP is totally failed policy...
You realize that here in Norway, where we're like 8 million people, we have even more strict "feeling-based voting" and we're kicking ass.  Like we have a livable minimum wage, socialism that is amazing, AND a national religion.  Oh and super high environmental rules.  Like every major town and city recycles.

See, it's based on the idea that nature is kinda important. 
If we dump crap in the river, we'll be drinking crap. 
If we dump crap in the air, we're breathing crap.
If we dump crap on the ground, we'll be stepping in crap when we take a walk.

So why not just not let people dump crap anywhere they want?

Just because it works in Scandinavia is no indication that it works in America. Two completely different cultures and different fundamental ideals.

When was the last time California had a balanced budget? As much as the people that live there seem to understand the importance of sustainability for the environment, they don't seem to have any concept of sustainability when it comes to economics. Do you honestly think taxing people ridiculous rates on stuff like Gasoline and Cigarettes actually makes the environment better or people healthier? No. You're robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 13, 2017, 05:54:51 PM
Just because 40 million people subjected themselves to the misery of Californian taxation and repression through feeling-based voting doesn't mean I should be penalized, across the country, with the same failed policies that the morons can't seem to stop voting for.

Much better to let the minority dictate to everyone else, right? I mean because that's how it works now. You're concerned about cities controlling the election (even though they don't have enough population to do so), and rather than try and get a consensus from more than just the cities, the electoral college currently just says "we'll just value the cities less", allowing a minority of people to decide what happens to the country.

If this was truly a concern, we'd want to have an election that requires a supermajority. That'd fix the problem you're espousing by making a simple majority not enough. But the electoral college is not the solution.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 13, 2017, 06:27:24 PM
Just because it works in Scandinavia is no indication that it works in America. Two completely different cultures and different fundamental ideals.
Oh I'm aware.  American culture is chock full of selfish, short sighted jackasses who take what they want.  It might as well be the American Motto: All for Me.

Quote
When was the last time California had a balanced budget? As much as the people that live there seem to understand the importance of sustainability for the environment, they don't seem to have any concept of sustainability when it comes to economics. Do you honestly think taxing people ridiculous rates on stuff like Gasoline and Cigarettes actually makes the environment better or people healthier? No. You're robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Last year/this year.
Well... that's not true.  They have a surplus.
2015-2016
2014-2015
2013-2014
2012-2013
2011-2012


They had a deficit in 2010-2011 by $1.2 Bilion. (of $90 Billion)


Sssooo.... What's your point again?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 13, 2017, 06:42:25 PM
Also..
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-turns-mar-a-lago-club-terrace-into-open-air-situation-room/2017/02/13/c5525096-f20d-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html?utm_term=.1c29058c9e7c

Trump golfs on weekends, has meetings in insecure clubs full of people who pay lots of money to go, and could literally be killed by a boat and a sniper since the totally unprotected and open air terrace was overlooking the waterway.

Oh and anyone with a listening device could overhear every single word he said.

Yeah...
He's not gonna last to December.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 13, 2017, 07:10:34 PM
So you think.

So god damn funny seeing people so irrationally angry and butthurt that they are literally begging for a Presidential assassination. What's scary though, is that the "left" is so fucking delusional and brainwashed it might actually happen. Strange how no radical White supremacy group took out Obama, even though they are constantly portrayed as the most violent and heavily armed group in America.

I am so glad you have no say what happens over here.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 13, 2017, 07:41:12 PM
So you think.
About California not having a budget deficit since 2011?

Quote
So god damn funny seeing people so irrationally angry and butthurt that they are literally begging for a Presidential assassination. What's scary though, is that the "left" is so fucking delusional and brainwashed it might actually happen. Strange how no radical White supremacy group took out Obama, even though they are constantly portrayed as the most violent and heavily armed group in America.

I am so glad you have no say what happens over here.
Oh you misunderstand.  I don't want him assassinated.  God knows we don't need that guy as a martyr.  But I am pointing out that he's ignoring security for his luxuries.  I mean, the right crucified Obama for every golf outing yet Mr. Trump took a vacation with golfing in less than a month.  And to a place that's about as insecure as you can get.  Hell, knowing he goes there, if I got $200,000 I could become a member, meet him, and blow him up.  And so could every single terrorist from here to China.  And being near the waterfront well... anyone with a boat could just go from Syria to Florida, avoid any and all security, and just "boom".  Easy.


Also, need I remind you of guy who actually went into comet pizza with a gun?

Also...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_threats_against_Barack_Obama

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 13, 2017, 08:02:40 PM
Also, need I remind you of guy who actually went into comet pizza with a gun?

Oh, you mean the false flag perpetrated by the guy who is the son of someone who works for the organization in Haiti that is suspected of being implicit in child human trafficking that managed to literally only shoot one shot that coincidentally completely destroyed one of the hard drives on the property and thrusting the whole spectre of Fake News onto the general population?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 13, 2017, 08:28:01 PM
I understand that there are pros and cons to the EC. But it certainly does not represent the general populace more accurately than a straight popular vote.
That's your opinion, if you want to elaborate how allowing only the major metropolitan areas decide the President is more representative than what we have now please do.

Depends on what you mean by "represents the general populace". A simple definition would be, given two possible results/candidates, the result that is favored by the majority of voters. By this definition, obviously a popular vote is going to be best. The electoral college allows for the possibility that the popular candidate doesn't win the election by giving increased weight to voters in low population states, gerrymandering, and winner-takes-all in voting districts.

There are other criteria that you could judge what best "represents the general populace", but I don't know of any good criteria that favors an electoral college.

Here is a great introduction to various voting systems by CGP Grey. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&list=PLNCHVwtpeBY4mybPkHEnRxSOb7FQ2vF9c)
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 13, 2017, 09:24:13 PM
who is the son of someone who works for the organization in Haiti that is suspected of being implicit in child human trafficking

Citation needed.

Quote
that managed to literally only shoot one shot

Citation needed.

Quote
that coincidentally completely destroyed one of the hard drives on the property

Citation needed. I've read that one of the (several) bullets he fired happened to hit a computer.

Quote
and thrusting the whole spectre of Fake News onto the general population?

Fake news was something being discussed by the media long before this happened. We even talked about it right here on FES.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 13, 2017, 10:19:24 PM
Also, need I remind you of guy who actually went into comet pizza with a gun?

Oh, you mean the false flag perpetrated by the guy who is the son of someone who works for the organization in Haiti that is suspected of being implicit in child human trafficking that
Citation needed.

Quote
managed to literally only shoot one shot
It was 4 shots.
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Man-With-Assault-Rifle-Arrested-at-Comet-Ping-Pong-in-NW-DC-404634716.html

Quote
that coincidentally completely destroyed one of the hard drives
Citation needed.  Also.. LOL!  It destroyed the Hard drive.  lol. 
Could a bullet shoot a hard drive?  Yep!
Could it destroy it so beyond repair that all the data is lost?
Not one.  Not unless it was a sniper round or something armor piercing.  And even then, unlikely.  While the drive is likely your typical HDD with platters, the platters are encased in a metal shell, which is inside a computer case that is both metal and plastic, depending on the model and brand.

AIMING for the HDD would require knowing exactly where it is.  And one bullet probably wouldn't be enough.  Might shatter a platter or get stuck but not enough to make all of the data unrecoverable.  Some, sure, but not all of it.  (And by unrecoverable I mean using forensic tools, not just plugging it in and looking at it.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5OI5ZJRQOY
So that's a video of a guy shooting a hard drive with his AR-15 which is an assault rifle.  Dunno what the shooter had but he is reported to have had an assault rifle so we'll go with a common one.
And if you'll note the bullets went through without doing more than just a hole worth of damage.  Data is recoverable.  Especially if he shot it only once.

So that's just as believable as Comet Pizza having a basement full of children being molested.

Quote
on the property and thrusting the whole spectre of Fake News onto the general population?
It existed long before that.  Or did those rumors circulate AFTER the guy came down to the pizza place after reading the rumors...
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 14, 2017, 02:46:58 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/RfWr5vv.jpg)
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 14, 2017, 03:51:01 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/RfWr5vv.jpg)

You don't understand. Obama played golf because he was lazy and doesn't care about America. When Trump plays golf, he is also taking care of business. Like making deals with Japan's PM. And promoting his golf courses.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 14, 2017, 05:32:32 AM
Michael Flynn just resigned over the Russia stuff. And according to the Washington Post, the Trump administration was informed of Flynn lying. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-department-warned-white-house-that-flynn-could-be-vulnerable-to-russian-blackmail-officials-say/2017/02/13/fc5dab88-f228-11e6-8d72-263470bf0401_story.html)
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 14, 2017, 05:40:36 AM
Michael Flynn just resigned over the Russia stuff. And according to the Washington Post, the Trump administration was informed of Flynn lying. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-department-warned-white-house-that-flynn-could-be-vulnerable-to-russian-blackmail-officials-say/2017/02/13/fc5dab88-f228-11e6-8d72-263470bf0401_story.html)


Obviously fake news.


Notice fox never says anything bad about Trump.  Clearly everyone but them are fake news.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 14, 2017, 07:16:14 AM
Michael Flynn just resigned over the Russia stuff. And according to the Washington Post, the Trump administration was informed of Flynn lying. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-department-warned-white-house-that-flynn-could-be-vulnerable-to-russian-blackmail-officials-say/2017/02/13/fc5dab88-f228-11e6-8d72-263470bf0401_story.html)

drip... drip...

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: crutonius on February 14, 2017, 09:49:47 AM
Michael Flynn just resigned over the Russia stuff. And according to the Washington Post, the Trump administration was informed of Flynn lying. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-department-warned-white-house-that-flynn-could-be-vulnerable-to-russian-blackmail-officials-say/2017/02/13/fc5dab88-f228-11e6-8d72-263470bf0401_story.html)

This Trump... He is not sending over his best people to the cabinet.  He's sending over Russian spies, he's sending over creationists.  And a few of them are good people I assume.  We need to shut down immigration to the White House until we can figure out what's going on.  I think American's need extreme vetting now more than ever.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 14, 2017, 03:49:01 PM
i'm not well-read on all the details of the flynn thing, but assuming i'm not missing something major, i actually don't really get why him talking to russia about sanctions is such a big deal.  i get that he technically was a private citizen when he had those conversations, but c'mon, he was a member of the president-elect's national security team.  we should want incoming governments to be in contact with foreign leaders to communicate their intentions and signal upcoming policy changes.  predictability in foreign affairs is a good thing.

if he lied to folks about it, then that's obviously fucked up, but i dunno what he told to whom.

You don't understand. Obama played golf because he was lazy and doesn't care about America. When Trump plays golf, he is also taking care of business. Like making deals with Japan's PM. And promoting his golf courses.

lol i do love the irony of trump making money for himself at mar-a-lago simultaneous to taxpayers shelling out the expense of keeping him safe while he does it.  all so he can show off to his guests.  can't do that at the white house.

i have a sneaking suspicion that trump isn't gonna spend much time in places he can't charge people to see him.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 14, 2017, 04:02:06 PM
i'm not well-read on all the details of the flynn thing, but assuming i'm not missing something major, i actually don't really get why him talking to russia about sanctions is such a big deal.  i get that he technically was a private citizen when he had those conversations, but c'mon, he was a member of the president-elect's national security team.  we should want incoming governments to be in contact with foreign leaders to communicate their intentions and signal upcoming policy changes.  predictability in foreign affairs is a good thing.

if he lied to folks about it, then that's obviously fucked up, but i dunno what he told to whom.

You don't understand. Obama played golf because he was lazy and doesn't care about America. When Trump plays golf, he is also taking care of business. Like making deals with Japan's PM. And promoting his golf courses.

lol i do love the irony of trump making money for himself at mar-a-lago simultaneous to taxpayers shelling out the expense of keeping him safe while he does it.  all so he can show off to his guests.  can't do that at the white house.

i have a sneaking suspicion that trump isn't gonna spend much time in places he can't charge people to see him.
It's a federal crime to engage in diplomatic relations on behalf the US if you aren't in a position to which that's your job.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 14, 2017, 04:48:45 PM
Apparently Flynn is now a scapegoat or something, according to him. (https://mobile.twitter.com/GenMikeFlynn/status/831397552763211776)

i'm not well-read on all the details of the flynn thing, but assuming i'm not missing something major, i actually don't really get why him talking to russia about sanctions is such a big deal.  i get that he technically was a private citizen when he had those conversations, but c'mon, he was a member of the president-elect's national security team.  we should want incoming governments to be in contact with foreign leaders to communicate their intentions and signal upcoming policy changes.  predictability in foreign affairs is a good thing.

Well, what he did was technically a crime. And then he lied about it. And what's more, the intelligence community informed the administration that Flynn had lied and that he may be a risk, and they either didn't believe them or just didn't care.

And, this is all speculation, but Flynn talking with the Russian ambassador also opens back up the whole can of worms about the Russia dossier and the possibility of the Trump administration talking to Russian officials during the election, specifically about sanctions. The dropping of Russia sanctions was one of the only big things the Trump campaign pushed for in the GOP platform.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 14, 2017, 05:50:19 PM
What Flynn is really saying is "I'm TRUMP'S Scapegoat".  You know, so we don't start investigating him.

Oh wait, I guess Republicans don't care about such things:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/14/house-republicans-democrats-flynn-investigation/97889998/

Let's investigate e-mail servers and benghazi for years but totally not this.  Nope.  He was nominated by our team. 

And remember: These are "The Best People"
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 14, 2017, 08:15:49 PM
What Flynn is really saying is "I'm TRUMP'S Scapegoat".  You know, so we don't start investigating him.

Oh wait, I guess Republicans don't care about such things:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/14/house-republicans-democrats-flynn-investigation/97889998/

Let's investigate e-mail servers and benghazi for years but totally not this.  Nope.  He was nominated by our team. 

And remember: These are "The Best People"

Where there is smoke, there is fire.

Where there is widespread denial of smoke despite an obvious plume overhead, there is a really big fire that is going to implicate a lot of people when it becomes public.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 14, 2017, 10:36:43 PM
What Flynn is really saying is "I'm TRUMP'S Scapegoat".  You know, so we don't start investigating him.
Well, as an Obama appointee to the DIA Director's seat, and overall a person appreciated by the previous administration, he'd be one of the first in line on the swamp-draining train. It's not surprising that he'd try to play the scapegoat card. He was super-good and everyone loved him under Obama's administration, but suddenly the Big Bad Trump is in power and he's in trouble. Clearly a scapegoat.

Oh, wait, we're ignoring that he's an Obama person. Sorry, I forgot, forget everything I said. He's a bad, bad person that Trump picked out of nowhere. Bad Trump, no cookie.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 14, 2017, 11:05:44 PM
What Flynn is really saying is "I'm TRUMP'S Scapegoat".  You know, so we don't start investigating him.
Well, as an Obama appointee to the DIA Director's seat, and overall a person appreciated by the previous administration, he'd be one of the first in line on the swamp-draining train. It's not surprising that he'd try to play the scapegoat card. He was super-good and everyone loved him under Obama's administration, but suddenly the Big Bad Trump is in power and he's in trouble. Clearly a scapegoat.

Oh, wait, we're ignoring that he's an Obama person. Sorry, I forgot, forget everything I said. He's a bad, bad person that Trump picked out of nowhere. Bad Trump, no cookie.

One of these days, Trump supporters are going to have to stop using Obama as a scapegoat for everything.

Flynn only lasted 2 years under Obama before "retiring" after a "mutual agreement that there needed to be a change in leadership" (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/01/us/director-and-deputy-of-intelligence-agency-are-to-retire-by-fall.html?_r=0), though no one made a big deal out of it at the time. (In other words, "retire before we fire you"). He was a big part of Trump's campaign, especially his stance on border security and Islamic Terrorism. He was appointed to his position by Trump. He was not leftovers from the Obama administration.

Also, I think you misunderstood Lord Dave's comment. Flynn didn't "play the scapegoat card". Dave was implying that Flynn's letter was an attempt to draw the blame to himself to deflect blame from Trump. He was trying to be the scapegoat, not complaining about being the scapegoat. Edit: Ok, that wasn't very clear. Let me try again. Flynn was implying that this scandal wasn't a significant issue, but the left is making a bigger deal out of it than they should. And he was happy to take the blame for it if that is what it takes to keep Trump in the clear.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 14, 2017, 11:18:18 PM
One of these days, Trump supporters are going to have to stop using Obama as a scapegoat for everything.
I think this is as good a time as any to reiterate that I'm not a Trump supporter.

Flynn only lasted 2 years under Obama before "retiring"
Ah, yes, that puts it in perspective in comparison to his 24 days of working with Trump before "resigning". We can now calculate the TotesNotReptilian-Obama Leniency Factor [TNR-OLF] given the following information:

Number of days for which it is TotesOK for Flynn to work under Obama: 744
Days for which it is TotesTerrible for Flynn to work under Trump: 24
TNR-OLF: 744/24=31

To conclude: Obama can do things 31 times as TotesTerrible as Trump without getting any TotesFlak. At 32 times, however, all bets are off!

(In other words, "retire before we fire you")
So, exactly what happened this time too?

He was a big part of Trump's campaign, especially his stance on border security and Islamic Terrorism. He was appointed to his position by Trump. He was not leftovers from the Obama administration.
He was also a major part of Fiorina's, Cruz's and Carson's campaigns. It's almost as if he was overall regarded as a good old school military guy, the kind of person that makes a Republican happy in the crotch area.

Also, I think you misunderstood Lord Dave's comment. Flynn didn't "play the scapegoat card". Dave was implying that Flynn's letter
What letter? I thought he was referring to the tweet (https://mobile.twitter.com/GenMikeFlynn/status/831397552763211776) that Trekky brought up in the post directly preceding that of Dave's.

He was trying to be the scapegoat, not complaining about being the scapegoat.
He did complain, though, and we have it in writing (https://twitter.com/GenMikeFlynn/status/831397129570488320). [EDIT: turns out this tweet was fake, nevermind lol]
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 14, 2017, 11:21:00 PM
Well, as an Obama appointee to the DIA Director's seat, and overall a person appreciated by the previous administration, he'd be one of the first in line on the swamp-draining train.

lol.  so you think that being appointed national security advisor counts as being "one of the first in line on the swamp-draining train"?  are you serious?

also flynn was forced out of the dia in 2014, not "appreciated by the previous administration." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/head-of-pentagon-intelligence-agency-forced-out-officials-say/2014/04/30/ec15a366-d09d-11e3-9e25-188ebe1fa93b_story.html?utm_term=.76e531f21ba0)

Quote
Critics said that his management style could be chaotic and that the scope of his plans met resistance from both superiors and subordinates. At the same time, his tenure was marked by significant turbulence, including the fallout from the classified intelligence files leaked by former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, as well as other emerging crises.

“His vision in DIA was seen as disruptive,” said a former Pentagon official who worked closely with Flynn. At the DIA, Flynn sought to push DIA analysts and operators “up and out of their cubicles into the field to support war fighters or high-intensity operations,” the former official said. “I’m not sure DIA sees itself as that.”
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 14, 2017, 11:48:07 PM
lol.  so you think that being appointed national security advisor counts as being "one of the first in line on the swamp-draining train"?
Of course not, but you knew that much before you started typing. I think he was appointed because it seemed like a convenient thing to do (past popularity + lots of current Republican support = good if you're trying to get in bed with the Republicans), but he was also under more scrutiny than other Trump appointees (because he was an Obama person). Hence the rapid discovery of his controversial dealings and his prompt firing.

are you serious?
Always. Just stop putting words in my mouth and try to respond to what I'm saying. It's perfectly possible that I'm wrong, but I put more thought into what I say than you do into your strawman dismissals.

also flynn was forced out of the dia in 2014, not "appreciated by the previous administration." (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/head-of-pentagon-intelligence-agency-forced-out-officials-say/2014/04/30/ec15a366-d09d-11e3-9e25-188ebe1fa93b_story.html?utm_term=.76e531f21ba0)
Pointing out that he was being being kept afloat for 2 years among widespread criticism until the administration realised that they simply can't keep it going is definitely gonna give me what for. You go, Gary!
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 15, 2017, 12:00:35 AM
One of these days, Trump supporters are going to have to stop using Obama as a scapegoat for everything.
I think this is as good a time as any to reiterate that I'm not a Trump supporter.

Then why are you trying to deflect the blame onto Obama? Flynn was not where he was because of Obama. He hadn't worked under Obama for 2 years. Trump put him where he was. Not Obama.

Quote
Also, I think you misunderstood Lord Dave's comment. Flynn didn't "play the scapegoat card". Dave was implying that Flynn's letter
What letter? I thought he was referring to the tweet (https://mobile.twitter.com/GenMikeFlynn/status/831397552763211776) that Trekky brought up in the post directly preceding that of Dave's.

Yes, I was referring to the Tweet. I was contemplating the resignation letter at the same time, my mistake.

Quote
He was trying to be the scapegoat, not complaining about being the scapegoat.
He did complain, though, and we have it in writing (https://twitter.com/GenMikeFlynn/status/831397129570488320).

See my edit. It was made before you posted your comment, but perhaps you didn't notice it before posting.

...Hence the rapid discovery of his controversial dealings and his prompt firing.

There wasn't a "rapid discovery and prompt firing". The administration was warned a month ago and did nothing. He only "retired" when the administration realized they couldn't keep it under wraps after a torrent of leaks. He had the full support of the administration right up until the point the leaks started poring in.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 15, 2017, 12:11:12 AM
Then why are you trying to deflect the blame onto Obama?
I'm not. The blame is on Flynn and Flynn only. But Democratic fanboys are trying to deflect it onto Trump, and it's so, so entertaining to point out to them that Obama is 31 times as guilty as Trump.

Flynn was not where he was because of Obama.
Not solely, of course, but the 744 days probably helped.

He hadn't worked under Obama for 2 years.
744/365=~2.039. Yes, he had worked under Obama for 2 years.

Trump put him where he was. Not Obama.
Yes, I'm sure his history in government employment had no bearing in him being employed by the government.

See my edit. It was made before you posted your comment, but perhaps you didn't notice it before posting.
Fair enough, what you're saying now is much less nonsensical than what you were saying before. I still disagree thoroughly (if anything, it seems to me that Flynn is bringing extra attention to the scandal by blowing it out of proportion), but at least you're now not directly at odds with easily-verifiable facts.

There wasn't a "rapid discovery and prompt firing". The administration was warned a month ago and did nothing. He only "retired" when the administration realized they couldn't keep it under wraps after a torrent of leaks. He had the full support of the administration right up until the point the leaks started poring in.
So, exactly what happened under Obama, except 31 times shorter?

Look, your 31-times political tolerance factor aside, large organisations don't act quickly. 24 days is really quite good for an organisation of the White House's size to get someone fired. I realise that this is not a perfect comparison, but the timeline between the Ferguson riots and Thomas Jackson's "resignation" was something like 8 months. And that wasn't with just documents posted online, that was with crazy people looting and pillaging the streets for months. There seriously is very little precedent for more prompt firings in this context.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 15, 2017, 12:13:50 AM
Ah, yes, that puts it in perspective in comparison to his 24 days of working with Trump before "resigning". We can now calculate the TotesNotReptilian-Obama Leniency Factor [TNR-OLF] given the following information:

Number of days for which it is TotesOK for Flynn to work under Obama: 744
Days for which it is TotesTerrible for Flynn to work under Trump: 24
TNR-OLF: 744/24=31

To conclude: Obama can do things 31 times as TotesTerrible as Trump without getting any TotesFlak. At 32 times, however, all bets are off!

That's a blatant strawman. Nobody is saying that Trump shouldn't have hired Flynn at all or that he wasn't fit to serve in government. This is about what he specifically did in December of 2016. At that point in time, he was firmly part of Trump's team.

Also, the media is reporting (http://variety.com/2017/digital/news/michael-flynn-twitter-fake-1201988461/) that the Twitter account is fake.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 15, 2017, 12:20:34 AM
ninja edit: i didn't read your reply to totes, and some of this is addressed there.  i do still disagree that this isn't trump's fault.  he's the commander-in-chief.  he is responsible for every decision he makes and the decisions of his subordinates.  that's like, leadership 101.

personally the thing i hate most about trump is that he will never, ever, ever take responsibility for his actions.  he's gonna be the president of "the buck stops literally anywhere but here."

lol.  so you think that being appointed national security advisor counts as being "one of the first in line on the swamp-draining train"?
Of course not, but you knew that much before you started typing. I think he was appointed because it seemed like a convenient thing to do (past popularity + lots of current Republican support = good if you're trying to get in bed with the Republicans), but he was also under more scrutiny than other Trump appointees (because he was an Obama person). Hence the rapid discovery of his controversial dealings and his prompt firing.

are you serious?
Always. Just stop putting words in my mouth and try to listen to what I'm saying. It's perfectly possible that I'm wrong, but I put more thought into what I say than you do into your strawman dismissals.

fair enough, i was being a bit of a dick, and fwiw i do presume you've put thought into what you're saying; but, c'mon, i'm not making up "first in line on the swamp-draining train."  you're making it sound like flynn was some beloved obama holdover trump was just waiting to fuck up so trump could get rid of him. 

but obama fired flynn.  trump personally selected him.  as you say, flynn was a conservative darling during the primaries, consulting for other gop primary candidates, too.  i don't believe flynn was even a government official at the time of his selection.  i mean, if flynn wasn't in the swamp, how could be be first in line to be removed from it?

i just think it's a little ridiculous to pin flynn on the democrats and spin it like 'oh thank god trump finally got rid of that obama guy.'

Pointing out that he was being being kept afloat for 2 years among widespread criticism until the administration realised that they simply can't keep it going is definitely gonna give me what for. You go, Gary!

so now the problem is that obama didn't fire him fast enough?  how was the administration 'keeping him afloat'?  he had a three year service contract and they terminated it a year early because they didn't like the job he was doing.

i'm also not making up "a person appreciated by the previous administration."  or "the administration realised that they simply can't keep it going."  sorry if you think it's a strawman, but you're the one using language that implies this is someone the obama administration liked and supported and wanted to do the job in spite of widespread criticism.  btw i'm not sure how that jives with "He was [considered] super-good [by democrats] and everyone loved him under Obama's administration," but whatever.

the actual fact is that obama fired him and trump hired him.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 15, 2017, 12:33:01 AM
... blah blah I'm so smart because I can utilize ambiguities in language to intentionally misinterpret what you are saying and then be smug and superior about it blah blah blah...

Do you have a setting for something besides peevish dick? Just curious.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 15, 2017, 12:39:55 AM
I'm not. The blame is on Flynn and Flynn only. But Democratic fanboys are trying to deflect it onto Trump, and it's so, so entertaining to point out to them that Obama is 31 times as guilty as Trump.

It's possible that Flynn is the only responsible party here, which you seem to be taking for granted. When his boss is the President of the United States, though, people are understandably going to be skeptical about how much he was really in the dark about it. That's why further investigation is needed. And unless Flynn was accused of this same thing when he worked for Obama, bringing up the prior administration is irrelevant.

Quote
He hadn't worked under Obama for 2 years.
744/365=~2.039. Yes, he had worked under Obama for 2 years.

I believe what he means in this context is that it had been two years since Flynn had worked for Obama, discrediting the idea that he was a holdover from that administration.

Quote
large organisations don't act quickly. 24 days is really quite good for an organisation of the White House's size to get someone fired.

The National Security Advisor serves at the President's pleasure. He doesn't have to dive through hoops if he wants him gone.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 15, 2017, 12:41:33 AM
Flynn only lasted 2 years under Obama before "retiring"
Ah, yes, that puts it in perspective in comparison to his 24 days of working with Trump before "resigning". We can now calculate the TotesNotReptilian-Obama Leniency Factor [TNR-OLF] given the following information:

Number of days for which it is TotesOK for Flynn to work under Obama: 744
Days for which it is TotesTerrible for Flynn to work under Trump: 24
TNR-OLF: 744/24=31

To conclude: Obama can do things 31 times as TotesTerrible as Trump without getting any TotesFlak. At 32 times, however, all bets are off!

The TNR-OLF could have been infinity, but unfortunately Trump picked him, and then only a week after Trump was informed of his communication with the Russian ambassador. (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/mike-pence-told-about-flynn-warning-11-days-after-trump-n720836) There's no one to blame for this except Trump.

(In other words, "retire before we fire you")
So, exactly what happened this time too?

It's almost like he shouldn't have been rehired.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 15, 2017, 12:59:32 AM
It's almost like he shouldn't have been rehired.
I agree. He was only hired because Trump thought it would earn him some brownie points with the establishment. It backfired, but it's still ridiculous that Trump gets flak for it when Obama didn't.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 15, 2017, 01:09:48 AM
It's almost like he shouldn't have been rehired.
I agree. He was only hired because Trump thought it would earn him some brownie points with the establishment. It backfired, but it's still ridiculous that Trump gets flak for it when Obama didn't.

Flynn hadn't been let go by the previous administration when Obama hired him. Obama hired him, yes, and then he was let go for insubordination 2 years later. It was all on Trump to make the decision to rehire him, and even worse, it was on Trump to not renege on that or take any sort of action after finding out that Flynn communicated with the Russian ambassador and lied about it.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 15, 2017, 02:14:45 AM
"Trump's National Security Advisor Michael Flynn resigns after destabilization campaign by US spies, Democrats, press"

OK, Wikileaks. We're sorry you're sad.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/831468455413030912
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 15, 2017, 04:17:07 AM
According to the New York Times, the FBI has uncovered multiple communications between Trump aides and Russian intelligence during the campaign.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html

Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 15, 2017, 05:24:15 AM
So, to clarify my statement: Flynn resigned (or was fired if you follow what Spicer says) so people would not look too deep at Trump on the subject.


I had forgotten he was an Obama appointee but that makes it even weirder Trump picked him.  At least to me.


The real question,then,is why he spoke to a Russian official in an illegal manner?  Maybe his boss told him to?  Or maybe he was just careless.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 15, 2017, 07:50:19 AM
Flynn hadn't been let go by the previous administration when Obama hired him. [...] Obama hired him [...] he was let go [...] 2 years later.
Unless I missed an entire presidency, Obama's administration and the previous administration are one and the same. If I did miss a presidency in 2014 - my apologies, it was my intention for the two to be synonymous.

It was all on Trump to make the decision to rehire him
What is it with you and stating things which are both obvious and irrelevant?

even worse, it was on Trump to not renege on that or take any sort of action after finding out that Flynn communicated with the Russian ambassador and lied about it.
He literally booted him and now Flynn's likely going to be investigated. What more do you expect? What is your standard of action that should be taken? Am I right in suspecting that the same standard would be approximately 31 times more lenient when it comes to Obama?

I had forgotten he was an Obama appointee
The media did a great job at helping people forget. I wonder why that might be.

but that makes it even weirder Trump picked him.  At least to me.
If you look at the presidency through the prism of "Trump's some sort of crazy person with a personal vendetta against Obama", then yeah, it would seem that way. Once you discard the WaPo narrative, it's really not that surprising. Clearly a bad decision, yes, but not a surprising one. Good thing he corrected it so quickly, imagine the consequences if he let the guy stay for 2 years.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: trekky0623 on February 15, 2017, 11:57:25 AM
Flynn hadn't been let go by the previous administration when Obama hired him. [...] Obama hired him [...] he was let go [...] 2 years later.
Unless I missed an entire presidency, Obama's administration and the previous administration are one and the same. If I did miss a presidency in 2014 - my apologies, it was my intention for the two to be synonymous.

When Obama hired Flynn, he had not been let go by the administration that had been in office before Obama.
When Trump hired Flynn, he had been let go by the administration that had been in office before Trump.

I thought my language was real easy to understand, but apologies if it was confusing.


even worse, it was on Trump to not renege on that or take any sort of action after finding out that Flynn communicated with the Russian ambassador and lied about it.
He literally booted him and now Flynn's likely going to be investigated. What more do you expect? What is your standard of action that should be taken? Am I right in suspecting that the same standard would be approximately 31 times more lenient when it comes to Obama?

He booted him one hour after the Washington Post published their article about Flynn's communication with the Russian ambassador, when his activities could no longer be hidden. And even then, there's no evidence the White House asked for his resignation. Flynn says he delivered it himself. Further, I don't see what this whole comparison between Obama and Trump has to do with anything since, again, when Obama hired Flynn, Flynn did not have a history of insubordination, and Flynn did not communicate with the Russian ambassador, so what "31 times more lenient" are you even talking about? Where is the point of comparison?

It's like you're looking at a company that hired an employee who was fired from their previous job, and then when that employee steals, the company covers it up, and later fires him once the newspaper publishes a story on it, you claim we should also be mad at the previous employer for hiring him in the first place? What? That makes literally no sense.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 15, 2017, 12:15:34 PM
I had forgotten he was an Obama appointee
The media did a great job at helping people forget. I wonder why that might be.
I wouldn't blame the media.  My memory is shit.

Quote
but that makes it even weirder Trump picked him.  At least to me.
If you look at the presidency through the prism of "Trump's some sort of crazy person with a personal vendetta against Obama", then yeah, it would seem that way. Once you discard the WaPo narrative, it's really not that surprising. Clearly a bad decision, yes, but not a surprising one. Good thing he corrected it so quickly, imagine the consequences if he let the guy stay for 2 years.
Ok, so I just did some reading up on the guy when he got removed by Obama and now I understand.  You're right, it does make sense.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 15, 2017, 12:47:32 PM
Good thing he corrected it so quickly...

You mentioned before that this dismissal happened quickly considering the size of the organization, but considering Trump fired the Attorney General within 24hrs of expressing dissent, it appears Trump did sit on this for reasons other than red tape.  It is still good that Flynn is gone, but this was not a decisive move.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 15, 2017, 03:13:30 PM
In other news, Senior policy advisor and Sean Spicer replacement Steve Miller has confirmed that Donald Trump is a dictator.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/12/trump-administration-considering-narrower-travel-ban

“Our opponents, the media and the whole world will soon see as we begin to take further actions, that the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned.”

This isn't out of context.  This isn't some cherry-picking word play.  This is real.  Every dictator, in the history of the world, has supporters.  And every dictator has said some form of that line: that they will protect their country and you will not question them.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 15, 2017, 03:43:17 PM
You mentioned before that this dismissal happened quickly considering the size of the organization, but considering Trump fired the Attorney General within 24hrs of expressing dissent, it appears Trump did sit on this for reasons other than red tape.  It is still good that Flynn is gone, but this was not a decisive move.
I don't know whether I've voiced this before, but I thought firing the Attorney General happened outrageously quickly. I'm on the fence about whether or not Trump's reasoning for it was sound, but the timescale was downright scary.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Rama Set on February 15, 2017, 05:39:12 PM
You mentioned before that this dismissal happened quickly considering the size of the organization, but considering Trump fired the Attorney General within 24hrs of expressing dissent, it appears Trump did sit on this for reasons other than red tape.  It is still good that Flynn is gone, but this was not a decisive move.
I don't know whether I've voiced this before, but I thought firing the Attorney General happened outrageously quickly. I'm on the fence about whether or not Trump's reasoning for it was sound, but the timescale was downright scary.

True. Considering that timescale, it could be possible her firing was already in motion and her dissent was merely a perfect opportunity to fulfill that plan.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 15, 2017, 09:52:04 PM
True. Considering that timescale, it could be possible her firing was already in motion and her dissent was merely a perfect opportunity to fulfill that plan.
Agreed.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 15, 2017, 10:03:30 PM
Side note: We've been duped. The Flynn tweet that Trekky linked (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg111857#msg111857) and another tweet from the same thread that I linked (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg111874#msg111874) were both made by a parody account which has now revealed itself as one. In retrospect, shit was obvious and we really should have noticed sooner, but hindsight is 20/20

F A K E   N E W S
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 15, 2017, 10:17:16 PM
Side note: We've been duped. The Flynn tweet that Trekky linked (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg111857#msg111857) and another tweet from the same thread that I linked (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg111874#msg111874) were both made by a parody account which has now revealed itself as one. In retrospect, shit was obvious and we really should have noticed sooner, but hindsight is 20/20

F A K E   N E W S

This might be the first time I've heard the words "fake news" used correctly since the election... thank you.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 15, 2017, 10:18:31 PM
Side note: We've been duped. The Flynn tweet that Trekky linked (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg111857#msg111857) and another tweet from the same thread that I linked (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5536.msg111874#msg111874) were both made by a parody account which has now revealed itself as one. In retrospect, shit was obvious and we really should have noticed sooner, but hindsight is 20/20

F A K E   N E W S

Huh...
How do we KNOW it's fake?
I mean, it says it's fake but even Donald Trump's "official" twitter account could just write "fake" on itself.

Fake Fake is Fake.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: honk on February 16, 2017, 12:20:08 AM
>mfw I already pointed this out:

Also, the media is reporting (http://variety.com/2017/digital/news/michael-flynn-twitter-fake-1201988461/) that the Twitter account is fake.

As for Sally Yates, she was going to be replaced when Sessions was confirmed as the new AG, so it's highly unlikely that there was any plan to fire her prior to her taking a stand against the travel ban.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 16, 2017, 03:41:55 PM
it only took a month for trump to become a parody of himself

(http://i.imgur.com/iIK2mL6.png)
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 16, 2017, 04:12:44 PM
Donald wants it both ways.  He wants it to be fake news AND Real Leaks.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: garygreen on February 16, 2017, 04:45:07 PM
Donald wants it both ways.  He wants it to be fake news AND Real Leaks.

i can't get over the irony that he was basically elected on leaked information stolen from the dnc.  good thing that nfo got out tho because otherwise we'd never have uncovered that hillary was a well-connected politician.
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 16, 2017, 05:02:23 PM
Does anyone think it is acceptable for an unelected and unimpeachable government body to actively undermine and engage in espionage against our elected officials for political reasons?

If anyone thinks that the CIA doesn't like Trump because he is a "bad guy" obviously doesn't have a clue what the CIA actually is or does. This is a power struggle, plain and simple, between the Deep State and our Democratically Elected President.

Either Trump will have to strike a deal with them to get them to stop their smear campaign or we may eventually get a reminder what happens when a President doesn't play ball with the powers that be. 
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: TotesNotReptilian on February 16, 2017, 05:13:47 PM
Does anyone think it is acceptable for an unelected and unimpeachable government body to actively undermine and engage in espionage against our elected officials for political reasons?

I'm confused. Is making them an elected body supposed to make them LESS political?
Title: Re: Trump
Post by: Lord Dave on February 16, 2017, 05:18:14 PM
Does anyone think it is acceptable for an unelected and unimpeachable government body to actively undermine and engage in espionage against our elected officials for political reasons?