Trump Thread

[HopAlongBunny]

Original Thread title: Rising to Greatness Again or America's Sicily Moment?

Good luck my Southern friends :)
My vote:


https://youtu.be/JSUIQgEVDM4

melodrama:


https://youtu.be/MgEqCzWhbYI

[Major Robert Dump]

You spelled SILLY wrong. If you are going to toss about your intellectual, maple-tainted sarcasm the least you can do is get the spelling corect.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You spelled SILLY wrong. If you are going to toss about your intellectual, maple-tainted sarcasm the least you can do is get the spelling corect.

[SF writes down "maple-tainted" to use later. Smiles a rather "Snively Whiplash" sort of smile.]

[Kagemusha]

This just in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGTznIy6i4w

[Strike For The South]

You spelled SILLY wrong. If you are going to toss about your intellectual, maple-tainted sarcasm the least you can do is get the spelling corect.
You never called

[Major Robert Dump]

You never called

Don't give me that crap. I offered to shirtless-broSkype with you so many times but always an excuse. I WANT MY BOOK BACK

[Strike For The South]

Don't give me that crap. I offered to shirtless-broSkype with you so many times but always an excuse. I WANT MY BOOK BACK

I DONT KNOW WHERE THE BOOK IS, IM SORRY. IT MAY BE IN STORAGE. I WAS TOO EMBRASSED TO SAY ANYTHING.

FORGIVE ME.

:(

[edyzmedieval]

Well that turned down south quickly. From... uhm... what's this thread about... to shirtless bro Skyping. :inquisitive:

[Sarmatian]

So, all we needed for some of the Old Guard to check back was Trump winning the election.

[Greyblades]

He's been in power three days and he's allready making the org great again.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well that turned down south quickly. From... uhm... what's this thread about... to shirtless bro Skyping. :inquisitive:

"down South?"

As a resident of the southernmost of the continental United States, I mis-admire your use of that phrase as belittling of the nobility of the Southlands.

Moreover, even the Spartans thought it seemly to have a younger man, rippled from his noble efforts at the gymnasium and enlightened by his studies of philosophy and the law, taken "under the wing" of an older veteran to ensure the proper development of his manliness. How can you think less of this?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So, all we needed for some of the Old Guard to check back was Trump winning the election.

To be fair to MRD, I actually use this site to gauge some of the sensibilities of those of you folks "cross the pond." It isn't reported upon here with much depth in the mainstream media.

[HopAlongBunny]

Thank you Seamus for getting the thread somewhat back on the rails :)
Particularly since, "Sicily Moment" refers to Athens fatal error of sending the fleet to loot Sicily during the winter "downtime", and before the resumption of Spartan hostilities in campaign season.
The price of pride and greed was to lose Athens; it would rise again...but..

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Thank you Seamus for getting the thread somewhat back on the rails :)
Particularly since, "Sicily Moment" refers to Athens fatal error of sending the fleet to loot Sicily during the winter "downtime", and before the resumption of Spartan hostilities in campaign season.
The price of pride and greed was to lose Athens; it would rise again...but..

The Peleponnesian War always seemed such a disconnected sort of affair. As though the whole thing happened in fits and starts without any strategic plan by anyone.

[Montmorency]

The Peleponnesian War always seemed such a disconnected sort of affair. As though the whole thing happened in fits and starts without any strategic plan by anyone.

Well, it did involve many leading figures over several decades. There's no one "administration" to point to.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Peleponnesian War always seemed such a disconnected sort of affair. As though the whole thing happened in fits and starts without any strategic plan by anyone.

That seems an accurate assessment.

[HopAlongBunny]

I admit my study of it is not thorough; outside of Thucydides book I know very little; but the Sicilian expedition marks a turning point.
My proposition is that Trump also marks a turning point.

I would go so far as to call Trump "Americas' Pivot Man"

[Idaho]

A thread for posting about Trump's progress, announcements, policy decisions, and controversies.

Day one: the day of national devotion.

[Gilrandir]

19407

[Seamus Fermanagh]

U.S. Presidents do not "reign." Some of them haven't even presided all that well.

[Pannonian]

I admit my study of it is not thorough; outside of Thucydides book I know very little; but the Sicilian expedition marks a turning point.
My proposition is that Trump also marks a turning point.

I would go so far as to call Trump "Americas' Pivot Man"

I've thought of it as Athens' Barbarossa: needlessly restarting and expanding the war when they had achieved an advantageous peace from the previous bout of campaigning.

[AntiDamascus]

I think that may have been the joke

[Husar]

U.S. Presidents do not "reign." Some of them haven't even presided all that well.

I'm not sure Trump knows that given his rhetoric and behavior. ~;)

[Beskar]

Trump thread merged with other Trump thread. He is not important enough for two.

Renamed it to make it more obvious.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I'm not sure Trump knows that given his rhetoric and behavior. ~;)

He's just used to being "The Boss." Right now, it is all confirmations while his party (more or less his anyway) holds the majority and executive orders. He has NOT faced Washington gridlock or a true crisis. We will not know his mettle for a while yet, and his "I am an executive" approach will work fine for this easy part. The rest remains to be seen.

[Pannonian]

He's just used to being "The Boss." Right now, it is all confirmations while his party (more or less his anyway) holds the majority and executive orders. He has NOT faced Washington gridlock or a true crisis. We will not know his mettle for a while yet, and his "I am an executive" approach will work fine for this easy part. The rest remains to be seen.

What happened the last time the same party held the majority in all branches of government? I'm not too familiar with the details of US politics, but it's my impression that the system was designed to have contrary and competing opinions in different branches.

[Husar]

He's just used to being "The Boss." Right now, it is all confirmations while his party (more or less his anyway) holds the majority and executive orders. He has NOT faced Washington gridlock or a true crisis. We will not know his mettle for a while yet, and his "I am an executive" approach will work fine for this easy part. The rest remains to be seen.

That sounds a lot like a king/son of a nobleman. :sweatdrop:

[CrossLOPER]

He's just used to being "The Boss." Right now, it is all confirmations while his party (more or less his anyway) holds the majority and executive orders. He has NOT faced Washington gridlock or a true crisis. We will not know his mettle for a while yet, and his "I am an executive" approach will work fine for this easy part. The rest remains to be seen.
I don't think we are going to see a change in behavior, because Trump doesn't know any other way to act.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't think we are going to see a change in behavior, because Trump doesn't know any other way to act.

We don't know that.

Obama had zero executive experience before he became President but relatively few people seemed worried about that.

People just don't like Trump.

[Major Robert Dump]

I came back because I got an email. I didn't even know there was an election, I missed my own birthday and I forgot Christmas because the Philippines is awesome

[Idaho]

I came back because I got an email. I didn't even know there was an election, I missed my own birthday and I forgot Christmas because the Philippines is awesome

Isn't that where all the nonces go on holiday?

[Greyblades]

I came back because I got an email. I didn't even know there was an election, I missed my own birthday and I forgot Christmas because the Philippines is awesome

Huh, and he're I thought you were back because the state executed your dealer.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I don't think we are going to see a change in behavior, because Trump doesn't know any other way to act.

This executive approach is certainly his "comfort zone." It is one of his strengths. He will have to adapt because no one person is powerful enough to bend all of the bureaucracy to his or her will -- at least for any length of time. His ability to make quick and decisive choices could be a real strength if used judiciously.

I think people underestimate his intelligence. Very few unintelligent persons have ever held the office at least since the outset of the 20th century (though I have my doubts about Harding). It remains to be seen if he is adaptable as well as intelligent, as well as how skilled he will be at molding those around him to work in his preferred fashion.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Isn't that where all the nonces go on holiday?

I think that's Thailand, with Cambodia for the Pedos. As I recall, PI is stereotypically associated with the lbfm.

[CrossLOPER]

I think people underestimate his intelligence. Very few unintelligent persons have ever held the office at least since the outset of the 20th century (though I have my doubts about Harding). It remains to be seen if he is adaptable as well as intelligent, as well as how skilled he will be at molding those around him to work in his preferred fashion.
Have you ever had to work under anyone who held the title of manager? Ever? Have you been paying attention to how he behaves? He thinks with his ego.

The only reason he isn't shilling used cars right now is because he had the presence of mind to pass of his money making operations to people who actually knew what they are doing, and that his brand name is actually worth something. He is to intelligence as bitcoin is to a sustainable currency.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think that's Thailand, with Cambodia for the Pedos. As I recall, PI is stereotypically associated with the lbfm.

I don't know about the US but in the UK "nonce" is the same as paedophile.

Why Idaho wanted to bring that up I don't know.

In other news, looks like Trump will be good for the UK.

Returning the bust of Winston Churchill to the Oval Office is a significant step, as much as Obama removing it and replacing it with one of Martin Luthor King was. The fact that he wants to play "Ronnie" to May's "Maggie" is also likely to benefit us.

Not that I expect him to ever put himself out for us, the "Special Relationship" has always been one-sided in that respect.

[Greyblades]

Well, I've been using that word wrong for 10 years.

[Husar]

This executive approach is certainly his "comfort zone." It is one of his strengths. He will have to adapt because no one person is powerful enough to bend all of the bureaucracy to his or her will -- at least for any length of time. His ability to make quick and decisive choices could be a real strength if used judiciously.

Everyone has that ability, the question is whether the result is desirable.
If he had always made the right quick decisions, why did he have so many failed businesses?


I think people underestimate his intelligence.

He may have a very high social intelligence or so in the sense that he knows who to get drunk with or how to appeal to other rich white men, that does however not mean that he necessarily understands everything he does. And if he does, well, you're now being ruled by an orange Machiavelli... :sweatdrop:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, I've been using that word wrong for 10 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonce_(slang)


Everyone has that ability, the question is whether the result is desirable.
If he had always made the right quick decisions, why did he have so many failed businesses?

He may have a very high social intelligence or so in the sense that he knows who to get drunk with or how to appeal to other rich white men, that does however not mean that he necessarily understands everything he does. And if he does, well, you're now being ruled by an orange Machiavelli... :sweatdrop:

Why did he have so much money?

How did he win the Presidency?

He may not be an "Intellectual" like Obama but that doesn't mean he isn't generally Intelligent, or cunning.

[a completely inoffensive name]

At least he is doing what he said he would do.

[Montmorency]

I don't know about the US but in the UK "nonce" is the same as paedophile.

Why Idaho wanted to bring that up I don't know.

In other news, looks like Trump will be good for the UK.

Returning the bust of Winston Churchill to the Oval Office is a significant step, as much as Obama removing it and replacing it with one of Martin Luthor King was. The fact that he wants to play "Ronnie" to May's "Maggie" is also likely to benefit us.

Not that I expect him to ever put himself out for us, the "Special Relationship" has always been one-sided in that respect.

Not exactly? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/23/heres-the-real-story-about-the-churchill-bust-in-the-oval-office/?utm_term=.36263c91084b)


There was a lot of commentary on Friday that President Trump had returned a bust of Sir Winston Churchill to the Oval Office. President Obama had famously removed it. But some news reports have got the issue mixed up.

Few people seem to understand that there are actually two busts, by the same artist. The bust that Obama had returned to the British government is not the same bust that Trump now has in the Oval Office, as Trump hinted at in his remarks to the CIA.

There are two busts of Churchill, virtually identical, which for the sake of simplicity we will call Bust A and Bust B.

Bust A was made by the English sculptor Sir Jacob Epstein. It was given to President Lyndon B. Johnson on Oct. 6, 1965. (Here’s Lady Bird Johnson’s diary entry about the gift, which was facilitated by Churchill’s wartime friends, including W. Averell Harriman.) So that bust has been in the White House for more than five decades.

Bust B also was made by Epstein. It was provided in July 2001 by then Prime Minister Tony Blair, via the British ambassador, as a loan to President George W. Bush because Bust A was being repaired. Bush said he would keep it in the Oval Office, and various news reports at the time said the bust would be returned once Bush left office.

According to a 2010 interview with White House curator William Allman, the decision to return the bust had been made even before Obama arrived, as the loan was scheduled to last only as long as Bush’s presidency. That narrative was confirmed by British ambassador Sir Peter Westmacott just before stepped down in 2015: “To be honest, we always expected that to leave the Oval Office just like everything else that a president has tends to be changed,” he told The Guardian newspaper. “Even the carpet is usually changed when the president changes.”

Bust B was shipped back to the library of the British ambassador’s residence.

But for your pleasure:


“The prime minister has agreed to loan the Churchill bust [Bust B] at the request of the Trump team,” a British Embassy spokesman said. “We are working out the details on the return.” It should not be a long trip: Bust B is still in the ambassador’s residence, which is next to the vice president’s residence on Massachusetts Avenue.

Note: Trump has indicated that the British made the request first. “The prime minister is coming over to our country very shortly, and they wanted to know whether I’d like it back,” he said. “I said, ‘Absolutely.’ ”


At least he is doing what he said he would do. You knew I was a snake!

[Husar]

Why did he have so much money?

How did he win the Presidency?

He may not be an "Intellectual" like Obama but that doesn't mean he isn't generally Intelligent, or cunning.

1. From daddy and his friends. Didn't he even get new money when he was already bankrupt? Do poor people without connections get that, too?

2. Not by appealing to the most intelligent people and not by winning the popular vote either, while we're at it. I don't think intelligence is a requirement to win an election.

It is also entirely possible that he is a combination of all that as I said. He may know how to get (certain) people to support him, but that does not mean he knows how to run a country well. Otherwise every winner of "Country x has talent" would have to be a genius. If we derive intelligence from popularity, scripted reality shows have to be something we can learn a lot from. :rolleyes:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not exactly? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/23/heres-the-real-story-about-the-churchill-bust-in-the-oval-office/?utm_term=.36263c91084b)



But for your pleasure:



You knew I was a snake!

I am not suggesting it was a deliberate snub, but it was a deliberate decision to visibly replace the Churchill Bust with the King Bust. As Obama notes he had another Bust of Churchill that he could have moved to the Oval Office. Trump apparently found room for both Busts.

Rather like Obama saying the UK would "go to the back of the queue" for a trade deal behind China, it speaks to his attitude.


1. From daddy and his friends. Didn't he even get new money when he was already bankrupt? Do poor people without connections get that, too?

2. Not by appealing to the most intelligent people and not by winning the popular vote either, while we're at it. I don't think intelligence is a requirement to win an election.

It is also entirely possible that he is a combination of all that as I said. He may know how to get (certain) people to support him, but that does not mean he knows how to run a country well. Otherwise every winner of "Country x has talent" would have to be a genius. If we derive intelligence from popularity, scripted reality shows have to be something we can learn a lot from. :rolleyes:

Before Obama became President he had essentially been an academic and a Senator, not any kind of executive. So how is Trump less qualified than Obama? they're qualified in different ways.

[Husar]

Before Obama became President he had essentially been an academic and a Senator, not any kind of executive. So how is Trump less qualified than Obama? they're qualified in different ways.

Trump didn't really earn that, he was born into it. That's not a qualification, it's a privilege.
He may have learned a bit over time, but Xiahou already showed that he would be even richer now had he not touched his money with his decisions... If we're to judge his "qualification" based on that, he's a terrible executive.
Obama didn't need to prove his intelligence by pointing to his bank account because he didn't talk like a dumbass and didn't lie with every second sentence. I'm also not aware that Obama went bankrupt several times or earned less money than he would have if he had merely invested his base capital instead of squandering his profits with bad decisions.

[Montmorency]

Trump apparently found room for both Busts.

As per the article, he has temporarily moved the older bust from the private residence, where Obama kept it after it was repaired, to the Oval Office. It does not seem he will have both busts in the office at once. Meanwhile, Trump's overall design seems to be refashioning the office to mimic its appearance under W Bush, with some degree of influence from the Farage connection.


So how is Trump less qualified than Obama?

That's rather glib. Of course if we stretch our parameters wide enough we might discover many tens of thousands more or less qualified to hold high office compared to past holders. Any number of politicians, corporate executives, professors or generals. Has there ever been an unqualified candidate, in fact?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I don't know about the US but in the UK "nonce" is the same as paedophile.

Why Idaho wanted to bring that up I don't know.

In other news, looks like Trump will be good for the UK.

Returning the bust of Winston Churchill to the Oval Office is a significant step, as much as Obama removing it and replacing it with one of Martin Luthor King was. The fact that he wants to play "Ronnie" to May's "Maggie" is also likely to benefit us.

Not that I expect him to ever put himself out for us, the "Special Relationship" has always been one-sided in that respect.

Sadly it has. Once we chose to ignore Washington's advice and thereafter made the special relationship, it should have been two-ways and full tilt.

There is a segment of the American political right -- and Trumps support base overlaps this portion -- who would be fairly willing to tell the EU to sod off while maintaining closer ties with Blighty. Even our staunchest "dump NATO" types tend to add a caveat about signing a mutual defense with England.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Trump didn't really earn that, he was born into it. That's not a qualification, it's a privilege.
He may have learned a bit over time, but Xiahou already showed that he would be even richer now had he not touched his money with his decisions... If we're to judge his "qualification" based on that, he's a terrible executive.
Obama didn't need to prove his intelligence by pointing to his bank account because he didn't talk like a dumbass and didn't lie with every second sentence. I'm also not aware that Obama went bankrupt several times or earned less money than he would have if he had merely invested his base capital instead of squandering his profits with bad decisions.

Making 10B is just a touch easier with a $100M starter loan than with 100K in school debt.

[Greyblades]

Well there are plenty of opportunities for those with a degree in gender studies, assuming they can find enough rubes whose own degree has overwhelmed with white guilt and whose parents haven't yet cut them off from daddy's money.

[Gilrandir]

I don't think intelligence is a requirement to win an election.



You bet it is! Look at George W. Bush.

[CrossLOPER]

Well there are plenty of opportunities for those with a degree in gender studies, assuming they can find enough rubes whose own degree has overwhelmed with white guilt and whose parents haven't yet cut them off from daddy's money.Gender studies aren't important. Researching societal flaws are not important. Providing assistance to members of the public who are categorically disadvantaged isn't important.

Also, didn't you complain about shi!posting a while ago and get the mods to make the Org politically correct again?

[Greyblades]

Gender studies aren't important. Researching societal flaws are not important. Providing assistance to members of the public who are categorically disadvantaged isn't important.

Also, didn't you complain about shi!posting a while ago and get the mods to make the Org politically correct again?

No, I'm the person such pusilanimous weeds complain about.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As per the article, he has temporarily moved the older bust from the private residence, where Obama kept it after it was repaired, to the Oval Office. It does not seem he will have both busts in the office at once. Meanwhile, Trump's overall design seems to be refashioning the office to mimic its appearance under W Bush, with some degree of influence from the Farage connection.

I meant, unlike Obama he's found a way to fit Churchill and MLK into the Oval Office - which apparently Obama was unable to do.


That's rather glib. Of course if we stretch our parameters wide enough we might discover many tens of thousands more or less qualified to hold high office compared to past holders. Any number of politicians, corporate executives, professors or generals. Has there ever been an unqualified candidate, in fact?

Not at all

As I understand it prior to running the US the only thing Obama had run was the Harvard Law Review (was that the one?) as a student. I recall Obama's first election when it was him against John McCain and an American friend here at the time observed that people who have only been Senators, as opposed to Governors, make bad Presidents.

Being a Legislator is rather different to being the Chief Executive of the United States Corporation.

Has Trump been an unmitigated success?

No - but he has had successes as an Executive and he worked out, unlike Clinton, how to appeal to the broadest possible coalition of American voters. He shattered the "Democratic Firewall" that' was supposed to give them an in-built advantage.

Does he say some off - colour things?

Yes.

However, if you look at what he says on torture, what he actually said is Intelligence Chiefs tell him they think it's effective and therefore he thinks it should be available. As opposed to former US Presidents who would swear the US NEVER uses torture whilst in a langley basement somewhere someone is having his fingers broken.

At least he's honest.

He's also demonstrating a number of things by following the advice of his spooks:

1. Delegation of responsibility to experts.

2. Backing up your subordinates, in public.

These are usually considered positive qualities in a leader - except in this case the issue is the use of torture.

Overall, I see no evidence he's "stupid", more that he just doesn't care what he detractors think and he gives unfiltered opinions.

You know a Liberal Comedian recently said she didn't want to interview Melania Trump because she can barely speak English? She apparently speaks six languages, but she's Slovenian and therefore clearly Euro-trash.

There's a word for that sort of opinion... can't put my finger on it, though...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...You know a Liberal Comedian recently said she didn't want to interview Melania Trump because she can barely speak English? She apparently speaks six languages, but she's Slovenian and therefore clearly Euro-trash.

There's a word for that sort of opinion... can't put my finger on it, though...

Reminds me of some of my fellow undergrads complaining about professor Hung years ago in my International Relations class. Thick Vietnamese accent so they dismissed him and his opinions. I talked with him a little and his colleagues more. English was his 4th language after Vietnamese, French, and a passable Cantonese... He'd been part of the South Vietnamese national police force, acquired two degrees before leaving Vietnam ahead of "the chop," and managed both a thesis and dissertation in his 4th language.

My countrymen, as a whole, are reasonably intelligent, but the level of self-developed ignorance is cloying at times.

[Greyblades]

Ahahahaha: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pusilanimous



Ahahahaha, Greyblades can't write and if he complains that I laugh at him, he's just pusillanimous and PC, ahahahaha.... :laugh4:

Don quoi?

[Montmorency]

I meant, unlike Obama he's found a way to fit Churchill and MLK into the Oval Office - which apparently Obama was unable to do.



Not at all

As I understand it prior to running the US the only thing Obama had run was the Harvard Law Review (was that the one?) as a student. I recall Obama's first election when it was him against John McCain and an American friend here at the time observed that people who have only been Senators, as opposed to Governors, make bad Presidents.

Being a Legislator is rather different to being the Chief Executive of the United States Corporation.

Has Trump been an unmitigated success?

No - but he has had successes as an Executive and he worked out, unlike Clinton, how to appeal to the broadest possible coalition of American voters. He shattered the "Democratic Firewall" that' was supposed to give them an in-built advantage.

Does he say some off - colour things?

Yes.

However, if you look at what he says on torture, what he actually said is Intelligence Chiefs tell him they think it's effective and therefore he thinks it should be available. As opposed to former US Presidents who would swear the US NEVER uses torture whilst in a langley basement somewhere someone is having his fingers broken.

At least he's honest.

He's also demonstrating a number of things by following the advice of his spooks:

1. Delegation of responsibility to experts.

2. Backing up your subordinates, in public.

These are usually considered positive qualities in a leader - except in this case the issue is the use of torture.

Overall, I see no evidence he's "stupid", more that he just doesn't care what he detractors think and he gives unfiltered opinions.

You know a Liberal Comedian recently said she didn't want to interview Melania Trump because she can barely speak English? She apparently speaks six languages, but she's Slovenian and therefore clearly Euro-trash.

There's a word for that sort of opinion... can't put my finger on it, though...

What you speak of seems to be bare minimum, so it doesn't say much as to qualifications compared to any number of other individuals.

As for torture, your two points are confusing, leaving aside that I would be very interested to see where you get the US intelligence community vouching for torture "working". By definition, any person in office will be delegating and supporting in some way, since there is indeed government besides the POTUS and one would have to go far out of their way to publicly undermine and contradict every possible subordinate.

In other words, you don't ever actually offer concrete qualifications.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What you speak of seems to be bare minimum, so it doesn't say much as to qualifications compared to any number of other individuals.

As for torture, your two points are confusing, leaving aside that I would be very interested to see where you get the US intelligence community vouching for torture "working". By definition, any person in office will be delegating and supporting in some way, since there is indeed government besides the POTUS and one would have to go far out of their way to publicly undermine and contradict every possible subordinate.

In other words, you don't ever actually offer concrete qualifications.

I am only speaking in general terms, as I'm not an Intelligence Officer with a bug in the Oval Office.

Trump is saying his Intelligence Chiefs have told him torture works, so he is supporting it.

There are numerous examples of politicians, here and in the US, asking for expert opinions and then dismissing them.

[CrossLOPER]

No, I'm the person such pusilanimous weeds complain about.


Treat people as you are treated: easy.
Treat people as you want to be treated: hard.

We argue, but we dont respect each other very much, but the disrespect is limited. In the TWC's mudpit debators hold thier intellectual opponents in outright contempt.

Is that there some of them "alternative facts" I keep hearing about?

[Greyblades]

Do you even know what shitposting is? Hell for that matter do you know what complaining is?

[Pannonian]

Reminds me of some of my fellow undergrads complaining about professor Hung years ago in my International Relations class. Thick Vietnamese accent so they dismissed him and his opinions. I talked with him a little and his colleagues more. English was his 4th language after Vietnamese, French, and a passable Cantonese... He'd been part of the South Vietnamese national police force, acquired two degrees before leaving Vietnam ahead of "the chop," and managed both a thesis and dissertation in his 4th language.

My countrymen, as a whole, are reasonably intelligent, but the level of self-developed ignorance is cloying at times.

Are you talking solely about Americans, or do you include your Anglo-Saxon kin as well? Because your description famously fits the British as well.

[Greyblades]

It's good to see you acknowledging your flaws.

[Pannonian]

I meant, unlike Obama he's found a way to fit Churchill and MLK into the Oval Office - which apparently Obama was unable to do.



Not at all

As I understand it prior to running the US the only thing Obama had run was the Harvard Law Review (was that the one?) as a student. I recall Obama's first election when it was him against John McCain and an American friend here at the time observed that people who have only been Senators, as opposed to Governors, make bad Presidents.

Being a Legislator is rather different to being the Chief Executive of the United States Corporation.

Has Trump been an unmitigated success?

No - but he has had successes as an Executive and he worked out, unlike Clinton, how to appeal to the broadest possible coalition of American voters. He shattered the "Democratic Firewall" that' was supposed to give them an in-built advantage.

Does he say some off - colour things?

Yes.

However, if you look at what he says on torture, what he actually said is Intelligence Chiefs tell him they think it's effective and therefore he thinks it should be available. As opposed to former US Presidents who would swear the US NEVER uses torture whilst in a langley basement somewhere someone is having his fingers broken.

At least he's honest.

He's also demonstrating a number of things by following the advice of his spooks:

1. Delegation of responsibility to experts.

2. Backing up your subordinates, in public.

These are usually considered positive qualities in a leader - except in this case the issue is the use of torture.

Overall, I see no evidence he's "stupid", more that he just doesn't care what he detractors think and he gives unfiltered opinions.

You know a Liberal Comedian recently said she didn't want to interview Melania Trump because she can barely speak English? She apparently speaks six languages, but she's Slovenian and therefore clearly Euro-trash.

There's a word for that sort of opinion... can't put my finger on it, though...

You're thinking of the R-word, but I'd attribute it more to pseudo-HIGNFY "wit", that affects some kind of supposedly intelligent world weariness and cynicism, and dismisses people with one liners. The difference is, the HIGNFY crew do their research. These would be political wits don't, yet dismiss expert opinions with a single line, usually in the format: "They [insert activity here]. How can we take them seriously?". The peak of this isn't some liberal comedian, but that Tory politician, Michael Gove.

"People in this country have had enough of experts."

The problem is liberal democracy at its extreme. People assert their rights (liberalism), but accept no responsibility. They rest on the knowledge that their vote is worth as much as any expert's with decades of experience in their field (democracy). The problem isn't solely confined to the Left or the Right.

[Husar]

Don quoi?

Female ginseng?

[Montmorency]

I am only speaking in general terms, as I'm not an Intelligence Officer with a bug in the Oval Office.

Trump is saying his Intelligence Chiefs have told him torture works, so he is supporting it.

There are numerous examples of politicians, here and in the US, asking for expert opinions and then dismissing them.

I almost find it unfair to push this quibble, but I was pointing out that as an absolute the two qualities you noted while referring to torture (again putting aside what the actual intelligence community positions are or were), delegating responsibility and supporting subordinates, are not in the way you raised them qualities sought after in a leader - rather, they are qualities intrinsic to being a leader, since they only require any normal human activity in the absence of solipsism. You did not speak to degree or nature of the qualities, merely listing their presence, but as such you're only speaking in tautologies.

And to be sure, there are many expert opinions Trump is happy to dismiss. But by no means can a leader be obliged to or even hope to accommodate every opinion.

So an argument for competence or qualification has to come down to the character and the events through which it is mediated, not apparitions of the latent. For the torture example alone, this would mean arguing from the virtue or value of the specific case and not the fact that it involves the basics of living in a world with other actors.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Here is some good reading from Nate Silver on how the media dropped the ball during the election.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/tag/the-real-story-of-2016/

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Are you talking solely about Americans, or do you include your Anglo-Saxon kin as well? Because your description famously fits the British as well.

Having spent a grand total of 50 hours in "Blighty," and 16 or so of those hours having been devoted to...er...sleep whilst on my honeymoon, I do not think I can summarize my English cousins, so I pitched my comment only about my fellow yanks. I would admit to not being stunned at your concurrence for your side of the pond. Apples and trees and all that.

[CrossLOPER]

Do you even know what shitposting is? Hell for that matter do you know what complaining is?
Why don't you explain those to me in the form of tired memes and fox news punditry?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Why don't you explain those to me in the form of tired memes and fox news punditry?

How sad is it that there are people whose entire reality is built around memes.

[Dâriûsh]

It is so cool that I cannot visit my friend in the US now. But I guess that is what I deserve for being a terrorist. So thanks, whoever voted for that ridiculous pompous man.


Thanks for letting me know that nothing I ever do, will ever absolve me from being born in the wrong place.

I eagerly await to see how many of those itty-bitty European Trumps will also promise to implement this distasteful discrimination in their countries.

[Gilrandir]

Do you even know what shitposting is? Hell for that matter do you know what complaining is?


Why don't you explain those to me in the form of tired memes ?

Perhaps I can do it:
19420

[Seamus Fermanagh]

In the interest of clarity on immigration and refugee issues for the new Administration. Note herein:



BORDER SECURITY AND IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT IMPROVEMENTS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) (INA), the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Public Law 109?367) (Secure Fence Act), and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104?208 Div. C) (IIRIRA), and in order to ensure the safety and territorial integrity of the United States as well as to ensure that the Nation’s immigration laws are faithfully executed, I hereby order as follows:
Section 1. Purpose. Border security is critically important to the national security of the United States. Aliens who illegally enter the United States without inspection or admission present a significant threat to national security and public safety. Such aliens have not been identified or inspected by Federal immigration officers to determine their admissibility to the United States. The recent surge of illegal immigration at the southern border with Mexico has placed a significant strain on Federal resources and overwhelmed agencies charged with border security and immigration enforcement, as well as the local communities into which many of the aliens are placed.
Transnational criminal organizations operate sophisticated drug- and human-trafficking networks and smuggling operations on both sides of the southern border, contributing to a significant increase in violent crime and United States deaths from dangerous drugs. Among those who illegally enter are those who seek to harm Americans through acts of terror or criminal conduct. Continued illegal immigration presents a clear and present danger to the interests of the United States.
Federal immigration law both imposes the responsibility and provides the means for the Federal Government, in cooperation with border States, to secure the Nation’s southern border. Although Federal immigration law provides a robust framework for Federal-State partnership in enforcing our immigration laws ?? and the Congress has authorized and provided appropriations to secure our borders ?? the Federal Government has failed to discharge this basic sovereign responsibility. The purpose of this order is to direct executive departments and agencies (agencies) to deploy all lawful means to secure the Nation’s southern border, to prevent further illegal immigration into the United States, and to repatriate illegal aliens swiftly, consistently, and humanely.

Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the executive branch to:
(a) secure the southern border of the United States through the immediate construction of a physical wall on the southern border, monitored and supported by adequate personnel so as to prevent illegal immigration, drug and human trafficking, and acts of terrorism;
(b) detain individuals apprehended on suspicion of violating Federal or State law, including Federal immigration law, pending further proceedings regarding those violations;
(c) expedite determinations of apprehended individuals’ claims of eligibility to remain in the United States;
(d) remove promptly those individuals whose legal claims to remain in the United States have been lawfully rejected, after any appropriate civil or criminal sanctions have been imposed; and
(e) cooperate fully with States and local law enforcement in enacting Federal-State partnerships to enforce Federal immigration priorities, as well as State monitoring and detention programs that are consistent with Federal law and do not undermine Federal immigration priorities.


Sec. 3. Definitions. (a) “Asylum officer” has the meaning given the term in section 235(b)(1)(E) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)).
(b) “Southern border” shall mean the contiguous land border between the United States and Mexico, including all points of entry.
(c) “Border States” shall mean the States of the United States immediately adjacent to the contiguous land border between the United States and Mexico.
(d) Except as otherwise noted, “the Secretary” shall refer to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
(e) “Wall” shall mean a contiguous, physical wall or other similarly secure, contiguous, and impassable physical barrier.
(f) “Executive department” shall have the meaning given in section 101 of title 5, United States Code.
(g) “Regulations” shall mean any and all Federal rules, regulations, and directives lawfully promulgated by agencies.
(h) “Operational control” shall mean the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.

Sec. 4. Physical Security of the Southern Border of the United States. The Secretary shall immediately take the following steps to obtain complete operational control, as determined by the Secretary, of the southern border:
(a) In accordance with existing law, including the Secure Fence Act and IIRIRA, take all appropriate steps to immediately plan, design, and construct a physical wall along the southern border, using appropriate materials and technology to most effectively achieve complete operational control of the southern border;
(b) Identify and, to the extent permitted by law, allocate all sources of Federal funds for the planning, designing, and constructing of a physical wall along the southern border;
(c) Project and develop long-term funding requirements for the wall, including preparing Congressional budget requests for the current and upcoming fiscal years; and
(d) Produce a comprehensive study of the security of the southern border, to be completed within 180 days of this order, that shall include the current state of southern border security, all geophysical and topographical aspects of the southern border, the availability of Federal and State resources necessary to achieve complete operational control of the southern border, and a strategy to obtain and maintain complete operational control of the southern border.

Sec. 5. Detention Facilities. (a) The Secretary shall take all appropriate action and allocate all legally available resources to immediately construct, operate, control, or establish contracts to construct, operate, or control facilities to detain aliens at or near the land border with Mexico.
(b) The Secretary shall take all appropriate action and allocate all legally available resources to immediately assign asylum officers to immigration detention facilities for the purpose of accepting asylum referrals and conducting credible fear determinations pursuant to section 235(b)(1) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)) and applicable regulations and reasonable fear determinations pursuant to applicable regulations.
(c) The Attorney General shall take all appropriate action and allocate all legally available resources to immediately assign immigration judges to immigration detention facilities operated or controlled by the Secretary, or operated or controlled pursuant to contract by the Secretary, for the purpose of conducting proceedings authorized under title 8, chapter 12, subchapter II, United States Code.

Sec. 6. Detention for Illegal Entry. The Secretary shall immediately take all appropriate actions to ensure the detention of aliens apprehended for violations of immigration law pending the outcome of their removal proceedings or their removal from the country to the extent permitted by law. The Secretary shall issue new policy guidance to all Department of Homeland Security personnel regarding the appropriate and consistent use of lawful detention authority under the INA, including the termination of the practice commonly known as “catch and release,” whereby aliens are routinely released in the United States shortly after their apprehension for violations of immigration law.

Sec. 7. Return to Territory. The Secretary shall take appropriate action, consistent with the requirements of section 1232 of title 8, United States Code, to ensure that aliens described in section 235(b)(2)(C) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)(C)) are returned to the territory from which they came pending a formal removal proceeding.

Sec. 8. Additional Border Patrol Agents. Subject to available appropriations, the Secretary, through the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, shall take all appropriate action to hire 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents, and all appropriate action to ensure that such agents enter on duty and are assigned to duty stations as soon as is practicable.

Sec. 9. Foreign Aid Reporting Requirements. The head of each executive department and agency shall identify and quantify all sources of direct and indirect Federal aid or assistance to the Government of Mexico on an annual basis over the past five years, including all bilateral and multilateral development aid, economic assistance, humanitarian aid, and military aid. Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each executive department and agency shall submit this information to the Secretary of State. Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary shall submit to the President a consolidated report reflecting the levels of such aid and assistance that has been provided annually, over each of the past five years.

Sec. 10. Federal-State Agreements. It is the policy of the executive branch to empower State and local law enforcement agencies across the country to perform the functions of an immigration officer in the interior of the United States to the maximum extent permitted by law.
(a) In furtherance of this policy, the Secretary shall immediately take appropriate action to engage with the Governors of the States, as well as local officials, for the purpose of preparing to enter into agreements under section 287(g) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1357(g)).
(b) To the extent permitted by law, and with the consent of State or local officials, as appropriate, the Secretary shall take appropriate action, through agreements under section 287(g) of the INA, or otherwise, to authorize State and local law enforcement officials, as the Secretary determines are qualified and appropriate, to perform the functions of immigration officers in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States under the direction and the supervision of the Secretary. Such authorization shall be in addition to, rather than in place of, Federal performance of these duties.
(c) To the extent permitted by law, the Secretary may structure each agreement under section 287(g) of the INA in the manner that provides the most effective model for enforcing Federal immigration laws and obtaining operational control over the border for that jurisdiction.

Sec. 11. Parole, Asylum, and Removal. It is the policy of the executive branch to end the abuse of parole and asylum provisions currently used to prevent the lawful removal of removable aliens.
(a) The Secretary shall immediately take all appropriate action to ensure that the parole and asylum provisions of Federal immigration law are not illegally exploited to prevent the removal of otherwise removable aliens.
(b) The Secretary shall take all appropriate action, including by promulgating any appropriate regulations, to ensure that asylum referrals and credible fear determinations pursuant to section 235(b)(1) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1125(b)(1)) and 8 CFR 208.30, and reasonable fear determinations pursuant to 8 CFR 208.31, are conducted in a manner consistent with the plain language of those provisions.
(c) Pursuant to section 235(b)(1)(A)(iii)(I) of the INA, the Secretary shall take appropriate action to apply, in his sole and unreviewable discretion, the provisions of section 235(b)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) of the INA to the aliens designated under section 235(b)(1)(A)(iii)(II).
(d) The Secretary shall take appropriate action to ensure that parole authority under section 212(d)(5) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)) is exercised only on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the plain language of the statute, and in all circumstances only when an individual demonstrates urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit derived from such parole.
(e) The Secretary shall take appropriate action to require that all Department of Homeland Security personnel are properly trained on the proper application of section 235 of the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (8 U.S.C. 1232) and section 462(g)(2) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 279(g)(2)), to ensure that unaccompanied alien children are properly processed, receive appropriate care and placement while in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security, and, when appropriate, are safely repatriated in accordance with law.

Sec. 12. Authorization to Enter Federal Lands. The Secretary, in conjunction with the Secretary of the Interior and any other heads of agencies as necessary, shall take all appropriate action to:
(a) permit all officers and employees of the United States, as well as all State and local officers as authorized by the Secretary, to have access to all Federal lands as necessary and appropriate to implement this order; and
(b) enable those officers and employees of the United States, as well as all State and local officers as authorized by the Secretary, to perform such actions on Federal lands as the Secretary deems necessary and appropriate to implement this order.

Sec. 13. Priority Enforcement. The Attorney General shall take all appropriate steps to establish prosecution guidelines and allocate appropriate resources to ensure that Federal prosecutors accord a high priority to prosecutions of offenses having a nexus to the southern border.

Sec. 14. Government Transparency. The Secretary shall, on a monthly basis and in a publicly available way, report statistical data on aliens apprehended at or near the southern border using a uniform method of reporting by all Department of Homeland Security components, in a format that is easily understandable by the public.

Sec. 15. Reporting. Except as otherwise provided in this order, the Secretary, within 90 days of the date of this order, and the Attorney General, within 180 days, shall each submit to the President a report on the progress of the directives contained in this order.

Sec. 16. Hiring. The Office of Personnel Management shall take appropriate action as may be necessary to facilitate hiring personnel to implement this order.

Sec. 17. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

The projected order on refugees from the general vicinity of the Middle East is as follows.


WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump on Friday intended to sign an executive action Friday temporarily halting the flow of refugees into the United Sates and stopping all entries from some majority-Muslim nations, his spokesman said.
A draft of the order obtained by The Associated Press also includes an indefinite ban on accepting Syrian refugees, and the pause in the broader refugee program extends for 120 days.
Trump campaigned on a pledge to put in place "extreme vetting" procedures particularly for people coming to the U.S. from countries with terrorism ties. According to the draft order, the president plans to suspend issuing visas for people from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria or Yemen for at least 30 days.
White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Trump intended to sign the order during a Friday afternoon visit to the Pentagon, along with actions related to military readiness and the National Security Council. Details of those directives were not immediately clear.
While at the Pentagon, Trump was expected to meet with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and attend a ceremonial swearing-in for Defense Secretary James Mattis.
Trump has the authority to determine how many refugees are accepted annually; he can suspend the program at any time. Refugee processing was suspended in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks and restarted months later.
During the last budget year, the U.S. accepted 84,995 refugees, including 12,587 people from Syria. President Barack Obama had set the refugee limit for this budget year at 110,000.
Trump, according to the impending executive order, planned to cut that program by more half to 50,000. The draft order said while the program is suspended, the U.S. may admit people on a case-by-case basis "when in the national interest" and the government would continue to process refugee requests from people claiming religious persecution, "provided that the religion ... is a minority religion in the individual's country." That suggests that would allow the admission of Christians from Muslim-majority countries.

[Montmorency]

(d) Produce a comprehensive study of the security of the southern border, to be completed within 180 days of this order, that shall include the current state of southern border security, all geophysical and topographical aspects of the southern border, the availability of Federal and State resources necessary to achieve complete operational control of the southern border, and a strategy to obtain and maintain complete operational control of the southern border.

Should be interesting.



Sec. 13. Priority Enforcement. The Attorney General shall take all appropriate steps to establish prosecution guidelines and allocate appropriate resources to ensure that Federal prosecutors accord a high priority to prosecutions of offenses having a nexus to the southern border.

sigh


A draft of the order obtained by The Associated Press also includes an indefinite ban on accepting Syrian refugees, and the pause in the broader refugee program extends for 120 days.

By the "broader refugee program", I assume that covers all refugees to be admitted for residency or citizenship (leaving aside the noted special exceptions). Does it cover all pending dossiers as well? Ironically then individuals who have been traveling the procedure for months or years will be put in bureaucratic limbo for the ostensible inadequacy of vetting procedures for a specific class of applicants.

Tell us when he makes a decision on extraditions, perhaps of the Turkish Gulen, or of some Russian dissidents as there may be... :clown:

[Strike For The South]

Trump is an insane little troll. The real problem now though is state governments and the (remaining) federal gov't being emboldened by his buffoonery. He has surrounded himself with racists and corporatists. That's where the problem lies. Phillip talks about deferring to experts: that does us no good if those experts end game is detrimental to everyone other than the upper class.

[Montmorency]

Trump is an insane little troll. The real problem now though is state governments and the (remaining) federal gov't being emboldened by his buffoonery. He has surrounded himself with racists and corporatists. That's where the problem lies. Phillip talks about deferring to experts: that does us no good if those experts end game is detrimental to everyone other than the upper class.

Pretty much. Rex Tillerson at least is in fact qualified to be on the Cabinet, but...

[HopAlongBunny]

Pretty much. Rex Tillerson at least is in fact qualified to be on the Cabinet, but...

I'm sure all the Cabinet candidates are fully qualified; you simply have to examine the alternative facts.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I almost find it unfair to push this quibble, but I was pointing out that as an absolute the two qualities you noted while referring to torture (again putting aside what the actual intelligence community positions are or were), delegating responsibility and supporting subordinates, are not in the way you raised them qualities sought after in a leader - rather, they are qualities intrinsic to being a leader, since they only require any normal human activity in the absence of solipsism. You did not speak to degree or nature of the qualities, merely listing their presence, but as such you're only speaking in tautologies.

And to be sure, there are many expert opinions Trump is happy to dismiss. But by no means can a leader be obliged to or even hope to accommodate every opinion.

So an argument for competence or qualification has to come down to the character and the events through which it is mediated, not apparitions of the latent. For the torture example alone, this would mean arguing from the virtue or value of the specific case and not the fact that it involves the basics of living in a world with other actors.

Some Politicians, notably Michale Gove, don't ever listen to anyone - and they believe they should run a country.

Today Trump has said he's now inclined not to support Waterboarding because although he believes its useful his incoming head of the CIA is apparently not a fan. The point is that Trump makes a point of defering to "his team" rather than presenting himself as the Man Who Makes all the Decisions.

That he makes a point of illustrating this, repeatedly, shows he believes it's an part of being President - he's emphasising that he delegates and co-operates. This may be genuine or it may be a stylistic choice, but it's clear Trump is pitching himself as a manager or "CEO" as much as a leader.

Compare to Theresa May - who frequently rides roughshod over her own cabinet and the devolved Administrations - notably declaring the UK would leave the Single Market before said Devolved Administrations had a chance to formally meet and present their views.


Trump is an insane little troll. The real problem now though is state governments and the (remaining) federal gov't being emboldened by his buffoonery. He has surrounded himself with racists and corporatists. That's where the problem lies. Phillip talks about deferring to experts: that does us no good if those experts end game is detrimental to everyone other than the upper class.

Trump is not going to be a Good President, I think, but the more I think about Obama the more I think he was very much Style of Substance. The fact that Trump managed to behead his vaunted domestic "Legacy" with a few strokes of his pen demonstrates this. The collapse of the Democratic Party also has to be partly Obama's responsibility as his lack of leadership of said party meant that his electoral success did not translate into their electoral success.

Also, you spell my name with two L's.

-1,000,000,000 Internets.

[Greyblades]

Wait, are we doing the obama's performance review allready?

Smeg, I had a video about this... ah here we go:

Warning profilitic swearing and extreme bellicosity.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fetZRj0V-MQ

3, 2, 1...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Here is the text of the order regarding refugees:


PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Purpose. The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.
Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.
In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.

Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the results of the review described in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security's determination of the information needed for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information, within 30 days of the date of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.
(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).
(d) Immediately upon receipt of the report described in subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all foreign governments that do not supply such information to start providing such information regarding their nationals within 60 days of notification.
(e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section until compliance occurs.
(f) At any point after submitting the list described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the names of any additional countries recommended for similar treatment.
(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.
(h) The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall submit to the President a joint report on the progress in implementing this order within 30 days of the date of this order, a second report within 60 days of the date of this order, a third report within 90 days of the date of this order, and a fourth report within 120 days of the date of this order.

Sec. 4. Implementing Uniform Screening Standards for All Immigration Programs. (a) The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall implement a program, as part of the adjudication process for immigration benefits, to identify individuals seeking to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission. This program will include the development of a uniform screening standard and procedure, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be; a process to evaluate the applicant's likelihood of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant's ability to make contributions to the national interest; and a mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of this directive within 60 days of the date of this order, a second report within 100 days of the date of this order, and a third report within 200 days of the date of this order.

Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures. Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.
(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.
(c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.
(d) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest.
(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest -- including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.
(f) The Secretary of State shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the directive in subsection (b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution within 100 days of the date of this order and shall submit a second report within 200 days of the date of this order.
(g) It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and local jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees. To that end, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.

Sec. 6. Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility. The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Attorney General, consider rescinding the exercises of authority in section 212 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182, relating to the terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related implementing memoranda.

Sec. 7. Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit Tracking System. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for all travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President periodic reports on the progress of the directive contained in subsection (a) of this section. The initial report shall be submitted within 100 days of the date of this order, a second report shall be submitted within 200 days of the date of this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 365 days of the date of this order. Further, the Secretary shall submit a report every 180 days thereafter until the system is fully deployed and operational.

Sec. 8. Visa Interview Security. (a) The Secretary of State shall immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1222, which requires that all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject to specific statutory exceptions.
(b) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of State shall immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program, including by substantially increasing the number of Fellows, lengthening or making permanent the period of service, and making language training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows for assignment to posts outside of their area of core linguistic ability, to ensure that non-immigrant visa-interview wait times are not unduly affected.

Sec. 9. Visa Validity Reciprocity. The Secretary of State shall review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements to ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification, truly reciprocal insofar as practicable with respect to validity period and fees, as required by sections 221(c) and 281 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(c) and 1351, and other treatment. If a country does not treat United States nationals seeking nonimmigrant visas in a reciprocal manner, the Secretary of State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or other treatment to match the treatment of United States nationals by the foreign country, to the extent practicable.

Sec. 10. Transparency and Data Collection. (a) To be more transparent with the American people, and to more effectively implement policies and practices that serve the national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available within 180 days, and every 180 days thereafter:
(i) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism-related activity, affiliation, or material support to a terrorism-related organization, or any other national security reasons since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later;
(ii) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the United States, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and
(iii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including honor killings, in the United States by foreign nationals, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and
(iv) any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of foreign nationals charged with major offenses.
(b) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of the date of this order, provide a report on the estimated long-term costs of the USRAP at the Federal, State, and local levels.

Sec. 11. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE, January 27, 2017

[AE Bravo]

Nonimmigrant visas can be cancelled instantly for failure to appear in court, even for minor traffic offenses. That there are no warnings from any foreign embassies in the US over this is scary. At least let people know. Other than that, this was the easiest visa renewal for me. Seems like business as usual for nonimmigrant visas from what I see, besides the racial profiling order and the new deportation laws.

[CrossLOPER]

Wait, are we doing the obama's performance review allready?

Smeg, I had a video about this... ah here we go:

Warning profilitic swearing and extreme bellicosity.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fetZRj0V-MQ

3, 2, 1...

The one thing I like about that youtuber is that he has proven that any cretin with an over-inflated sense of self-worth enjoying permanent residence in mom's guestroom can gain followers just by setting up a webcam and applying a shitty filter over the footage and filming yourself rambling about absolutely nothing. He's so monotonous that you can take any video and slap any label on it and no one would be able to differentiate it from any other in his library.

He reminds of the guy who sports a mountain man beard and wears a beanie in front of his wall of games. I can't remember that guy's name, but I think he does rageaholic's job much better.

[Greyblades]

Man, you can set your watch on your tirades.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nonimmigrant visas can be cancelled instantly for failure to appear in court, even for minor traffic offenses. That there are no warnings from any foreign embassies in the US over this is scary. At least let people know. Other than that, this was the easiest visa renewal for me. Seems like business as usual for nonimmigrant visas from what I see, besides the racial profiling order and the new deportation laws.

Pfft.

It's religious profiling - looks like you get fast tracked if you're a Christian.

[Greyblades]

Sounds like another incentive to convert, comparisons to jizya tax incoming.

[Sarmatian]

Are you talking solely about Americans, or do you include your Anglo-Saxon kin as well? Because your description famously fits the British as well.

It's a very vague comment and fits all nations pretty much. It's a classic example of "disguise a compliment as a flaw" that we are so fond of. Like when the teacher says "You know, your child is very bright but lazy."

This might come as a shock, but your countrymen are no more reasonably intelligent or ignorant than the rest of the world. Everybody's countrymen are usually less intelligent and more ignorant than we like to think they are.

[Crandar]

The good president didn't ban the country from where most of 911 terrorists came.
Why, I wonder...
But yeah, Shillary was totally in the pocket of king Salman and Trump is definitely gonna drain that damn swamp.
The amount of childish rhetoric that people are ready to happily swallow because of their partisanship is incredible.

Meanwhile in St. Louis:
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2016/10/24/syrian-refugees-afraid-of-north-st-louis/

[Greyblades]

The clinton foundation did in fact take 25 million from saudi arabia (https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors?category=%2410%2C000%2C001+to+%2425%2C000%2C000), trump not banning the saudis doesnt change that.

As for draining the swamp: noone can know after the first week and predictions to the contrary are made doubtful by precident, by your outright refusal you are not rising above it all, as you wish to be seen doing, but instead merely partaking in a different side's partisanship.

[Husar]

The clinton foundation did in fact take 25 million from saudi arabia (https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors?category=%2410%2C000%2C001+to+%2425%2C000%2C000), trump not banning the saudis doesnt change that.

That's not necessarily a fact, you're using two assumptions:

1. That their website only provides correct information.
2. That the donation was 25 million, when the website lists donations between 10 and 25 million.

Of course making deals with dictators and "questionable democrats" is an old tradition of Western politicians that is hardly exclusive to Clinton, not that that makes her any better. Here are some other recent examples:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38779669


Britain has agreed a £100m defence deal to help develop fighter jets for the Turkish air force.
The announcement came as UK Prime Minister Theresa May met the Turkish president and prime minister in Ankara.
Mrs May said the defence agreement "underlines once again that Britain is a great, global, trading nation".
She said the UK would enhance trade relations with Turkey, and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said his country would increase trade to $20bn (£16bn).

http://europe.newsweek.com/donald-trump-foreign-business-deals-jeopardize-us-531140?rm=eu


In a telephone call that same day with Erdogan, Trump passed on compliments to the Turkish president from a senior official with his company’s business partner on the Istanbul project, whom the president-elect was reported to have called “a close friend.” The official, Mehmet Ali Yalcindag, is the son-in-law of Dogan Holding owner Aydin Dogan and was instrumental in the development of the Trump complex in Turkey. That Trump delivered messages from his business partner to Erdogan has been reported in numerous media outlets in Turkey, including some closely tied to the government, and has not been denied by Turkish officials or the Trump transition team.

Just business as usual I guess. :shrug:
The money needs to flow...

[CrossLOPER]

Man, you can set your watch on your tirades.
Man, you can set your watch on your hyperboles.

I just gave my opinion on that guy. He hasn't shown any evolution since his first video. It's also funny that you mention tirades, since that guy specializes in the most pointless ones, and always sounds like an overgrown, angry and edgy teenager.

[Idaho]

Can I just say lol America. What mess have you got yourselves in?

[Beskar]

Can I just say lol America. What mess have you got yourselves in?

Definitely becoming "Great" again... Great Idiots.

[CrossLOPER]

I like the latest photo-op where he promotes Bannon to a hugh security position. "LOOK GUYS, I'M WORKING REALLY HARD."

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Perspective please.

ALL of the POTUS administrations in my lifetime have done this kind of political theatre stuff. Appointing a drug czar means we're "really" working on the drug problem. Giving a freedom award to a person of color means we no longer have any race issues. Passing a law that increases mandatory sentencing means that we are being tough on crime. Increasing the capital gains tax by 5% means we're really sticking it to the rich this time. ALL of this is SHOW and not substance -- like the hard-bodied assistant in a magic act.

The current occupant's administration is performing their little theatre moments just as have all the predecessors.

Do not let your mislike of Trump lead you to analyze his shenanigans as any more or any less superfluous and silly than those who have gone before.



You want to really evaluate him or criticize him? Look at the policy measures being taken and argue how/when/why they fall short or will have unintended consequences that outweigh their benefits.

[Husar]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38787241


In two separate measures, the president ordered:
- A ban on administration officials from ever lobbying the US on behalf of a foreign government, and a separate five-year ban on other lobbying.

- A preliminary plan by the secretary of defence to defeat so-called Islamic State (IS) to be presented within 30 days

Didn't he claim during the campaign that he had a great plan already but couldn't mention it because it had to be kept secret?
Now he tasks his secretary of defense with making a plan? What happened to his great plan that would work 100%?

[Gilrandir]

Can I just say lol America. What mess have you got yourselves in?

You both are in the mess. One is called Trump, the other - Brexit.



Didn't he claim during the campaign that he had a great plan already but couldn't mention it because it had to be kept secret?
Now he tasks his secretary of defense with making a plan? What happened to his great plan that would work 100%?

What if his secretary of defense comes up with a 110% plan?

[Beskar]

Perspective please.

I don't remember any of this when it came to Obama or Bush. I was too young for Clinton Election.

Sure, you could argue they did relatively minor things, but nothing causing the trouble of the turd-tornado Trump is creating.

[Greyblades]

Just business as usual I guess. :shrug:
The money needs to flow...

Trump imposes lifetime ban on some lobbying, five years for others (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/29/trump-imposes-lifetime-ban-on-some-lobbying-five-years-for-others.html)


President Donald Trump acted Saturday to fulfill a key portion of his pledge to "drain the swamp" in Washington, banning administration officials from ever lobbying the U.S. on behalf of a foreign government and imposing a separate five-year ban on other lobbying.

Trump has said individuals who want to aid him in his quest to "Make America Great Again" should focus on the jobs they will be doing to help the American people, not thinking ahead to the future income they could rake in by peddling their influence after serving in government.

"Most of the people standing behind me will not be able to go to work," Trump joked, referring to an array of White House officials who lined up behind him as he sat at his Oval Office desk. The officials included Vice President Mike Pence, chief of staff Reince Priebus, senior strategist Steve Bannon and counselor Kellyanne Conway. "So you have one last chance to get out."

Officially not business as usual for trump, and hopefully from now on the entire usa.


I don't remember any of this when it came to Obama or Bush. I was too young for Clinton Election.

Sure, you could argue they did relatively minor things, but nothing causing the trouble of the turd-tornado Trump is creating. I find your lack of faith disturbing...


An inability to take the high road to instead follow the blind denergation of your opposition's example is nothing to take pride in.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Trump imposes lifetime ban on some lobbying, five years for others (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/29/trump-imposes-lifetime-ban-on-some-lobbying-five-years-for-others.html)



Officially not business as usual for trump, and hopefully from now on the entire usa.

I find your lack of faith disturbing...


An inability to take the high road to instead follow the blind denergation of your opposition's example is nothing to take pride in.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/politics/trump-toughens-some-facets-of-lobbying-ban-and-weakens-others.html


But Mr. Eisen and other ethics experts noted that rules banning lobbyists from taking any job with an agency they had tried to influence in the past two years had been removed. Also, the new rules allow departing executive branch employees to take private sector jobs and then informally lobby the administration, as long as they are not registered as a lobbyist, a type of activity previously prohibited for two years. Registration is required once a person does a certain amount of work for a client.“There is much to like,” Mr. Eisen said of the new executive order. “But it gives nonlobbyists too much leeway when they leave. That is where the biggest problem in the system is: unregistered, shadow lobbyists. They should be getting more regulation, not less.”
He also said, “Trump kept the Obama limits on the revolving door coming into government, but eliminated Obama’s revolving door protections for nonlobbyists leaving government.”

Not so much draining the swamp, as putting a curtain around it.

[Idaho]

You both are in the mess. One is called Trump, the other - Brexit
Both are lol right wingers. Full of bile and brainlessness.

[Husar]

Officially not business as usual for trump, and hopefully from now on the entire usa.

The business as usual comment was made regarding a different issue...

Eh, that lobbying ban thing was already mentioned in my quote, I didn't comment on it because it seemed a bit unclear whether it meant all lobbying or just some of it. "other lobbying" does not necessarily mean "ALL other lobbying". When I read this for example:


Under an executive order that Trump signed in the presence of the news media, every political appointee joining the executive branch on or after Jan. 20 — the day Trump took office — must agree to the lobbying bans. That includes avoiding, for five years after leaving, lobbying the agency they worked for.

Another provision sets a two-year period during which appointees must avoid working on issues involving former employers or clients.

Trump is allowed to waive any of the restrictions.

That sounds like he didn't end all lobbying and just placed some restrictions on people hired in the future. Not to forget that he had the ban on Mattis serving in the government waived as well apparently. I guess we will see whether it actually changes something or whether companies and special interests just hire people for five years to use them as lobbyists afterwards, or simply use people who didn't work in the government before as lobbyists etc.


Trump said the order supersedes one that President Barack Obama signed on Jan. 21, 2009, that banned anyone from lobbying the government for a period of two years after leaving. Trump said Obama's order was "full of loopholes."

We'll see whether this one isn't. This is the same guy who seems to lie on a daily basis and whose staff presents us with "alternative facts" after all.


Others say the prohibitions on lobbying are too insignificant to be effective.

Guess I'm not the only one with doubts. :sweatdrop:

[CrossLOPER]

Trump imposes lifetime ban on some lobbying, five years for others (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/29/trump-imposes-lifetime-ban-on-some-lobbying-five-years-for-others.html)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/18/trumps-new-lobbying-rules-could-drain-the-swamp-but-they-may-be-illegal-and-are-porous/


The five-year ban is also likely to prompt some people to de-register as lobbyists before being considered for Trump administration jobs or to not register as a lobbyists after they’ve left the White House, even if they are involved in similar activities intended to influence public officials.

One sign indicates this may already be happening. A close aide to Vice President-elect Mike Pence, Josh Pitcock — a Washington lobbyist for the state of Indiana — filed paperwork with the Senate on Monday to terminate his status as a federal lobbyist.

Pitcock advised Pence, Indiana’s governor, during the presidential campaign and has lobbied for the state since 2013, earning $280,000 a year to lobby on issues including health-care marketplace exchange rates and resources for the state’s response to the Zika virus, lobbying records show.

But hey, if it has a YUGE font it must mean something.

[Greyblades]

The business as usual comment was made regarding a different issue... :sweatdrop:Forgive me a degree of artistic license, it was too good a segway and I knew you would be able tell my intent.

Guess I'm not the only one with doubts. :sweatdrop:

Doubts of effectiveness at this juncture, I can understand, but I believe it is a step in the right direction, one that I believe he is likely to improve on. I base that belief on his previous willingness to defer to his cabinate's expertise on issues they disagree on. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/27/trump-mattis-view-on-torture-will-override-his-own-beliefs.html)

[Viking]

It would seem to me (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_passport#Countries_that_do_not_accept_Israeli_passports) that all seven targeted countries themselves bar people from entry based purely on nationality. If so, I hope that any citizens of these countries now expressing their indignation at the US ban have already expressed their indignation at the bans in place in their own countries. If not, now would seem to be an excellent opportunity.

[Husar]

Doubts of effectiveness at this juncture, I can understand, but I believe it is a step in the right direction, one that I believe he is likely to improve on. I base that belief on his previous willingness to defer to his cabinate's expertise on issues they disagree on. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/27/trump-mattis-view-on-torture-will-override-his-own-beliefs.html)

Yeah, well, this whole cabinet thing will be quite interesting in the coming weeks. It's not like there are no potential business interests in a cabinet of millionaires or billionaires. Even if they have no active business ties, they surely all have a lot of friends who are CEOs and so on...
There's no need for a lobbyist when you have a good friend sitting directly in the office after all. :sweatdrop:

I'd actually be happy if he did drain the swamp so to say, I just don't buy it coming from him. I didn't check the data behind it, but this little graphic is very interesting regarding the potential effectiveness of his immigration ban regarding terrorism and how business interests are probably not of any concern for him:

19429

Not to forget that his children running his business is laughable in terms of his being detached from the business...

[Montmorency]

Perspective please.

ALL of the POTUS administrations in my lifetime have done this kind of political theatre stuff. Appointing a drug czar means we're "really" working on the drug problem. Giving a freedom award to a person of color means we no longer have any race issues. Passing a law that increases mandatory sentencing means that we are being tough on crime. Increasing the capital gains tax by 5% means we're really sticking it to the rich this time. ALL of this is SHOW and not substance -- like the hard-bodied assistant in a magic act.

The current occupant's administration is performing their little theatre moments just as have all the predecessors.

Do not let your mislike of Trump lead you to analyze his shenanigans as any more or any less superfluous and silly than those who have gone before.



You want to really evaluate him or criticize him? Look at the policy measures being taken and argue how/when/why they fall short or will have unintended consequences that outweigh their benefits.

You should know that this is alarmingly naive. If the analyte was undertaken for political purposes, then it clearly has political ramifications. The question is not one of policy itself but of how policy is used to transform power in politics.

You can't make much of a distinction between "theater" and "substance".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/29/donald-trumps-ban-refugees-us-president-insists-policy-not-against/

Boris Johnson gets an exemption for British Citizens.

At least someone achieved something this week.

[Husar]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/29/donald-trumps-ban-refugees-us-president-insists-policy-not-against/

Boris Johnson gets an exemption for British Citizens.

At least someone achieved something this week.


[...]Boris Johnson lobbies president

:laugh4:
I thought Trump just stopped all lobbying, especially from foreign countries. :sweatdrop:

[Dâriûsh]

It would seem to me (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_passport#Countries_that_do_not_accept_Israeli_passports) that all seven targeted countries themselves bar people from entry based purely on nationality. If so, I hope that any citizens of these countries now expressing their indignation at the US ban have already expressed their indignation at the bans in place in their own countries. If not, now would seem to be an excellent opportunity.

All seven, uh, except Somalia. But who’s counting?

But excellent recommendation. As you know, protesting government decisions in dictatorships like Syria, Iran, Yemen, and Sudan is completely safe.

That leaves war-torn Iraq, with its US supported government, and post-civil war Libya. Do you expect that people, who desperately wants to leave those places, should take time to protest their questionable governments travel restrictions on Israelis before they go?

[Viking]

But excellent recommendation. As you know, protesting government decisions in dictatorships like Syria, Iran, Yemen, and Sudan is completely safe.

That leaves war-torn Iraq, with its US supported government, and post-civil war Libya. Do you expect that people, who desperately wants to leave those places, should take time to protest their questionable governments travel restrictions on Israelis before they go?

Note that I was talking about those who were protesting the US ban (and not all of them 'desperately want to leave', I assume). There are many ways to avoid being a hypocrite publicly; recognising that the bans of their home countries at all exist would go a long way.

[Montmorency]

Note that I was talking about those who were protesting the US ban (and not all of them 'desperately want to leave', I assume). There are many ways to avoid being a hypocrite publicly; recognising that the bans of their home countries at all exist would go a long way.

Israel and these countries forbidding Israeli passports (UAE and Saudi Arabia among those not touched by the order) explicitly identify each other as enemy states. That's not quite the administration's current position.

[Dâriûsh]

Note that I was talking about those who were protesting the US ban (and not all of them 'desperately want to leave', I assume). There are many ways to avoid being a hypocrite publicly; recognising that the bans of their home countries at all exist would go a long way.

Granted, not all are desperate to leave. That was an exaggeration.

But anyway. So when I protest this ban, because it will affect me, me family, and many of my friends, I should take care to criticize the governments of those six dictatorships and semi-dictatorships first?

Considering their (often) gross violations of the human rights of their own citizens, at what point shall I or, for example, a Syrian find time to add: oh, and by the way Mr. Assad, please cease to discriminate against the citizens of Israel at your passport control?

[Gilrandir]

Both are lol right wingers. Full of bile and brainlessness.

At least one of them the British may try to avoid seeing on their premises:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/29/petition-calling-donald-trumps-state-visit-uk-cancelled-gets/

[Viking]

Israel and these countries forbidding Israeli passports (UAE and Saudi Arabia among those not touched by the order) explicitly identify each other as enemy states. That's not quite the administration's current position.

That's a relevant point, but it doesn't appear to me that Israel bars entry from any of these 'enemy' countries; meaning that there is a lack of symmetry here.


So when I protest this ban, because it will affect me, me family, and many of my friends, I should take care to criticize the governments of those six dictatorships and semi-dictatorships first?

No, just the policies of your own country; since that is the state that benefits from you and that you benefit from, etc.


Considering their (often) gross violations of the human rights of their own citizens, at what point shall I or, for example, a Syrian find time to add: oh, and by the way Mr. Assad, please cease to discriminate against the citizens of Israel at your passport control?

When time is found to criticise the US ban, I'd think.

I generally don't think treating citizens of dictatorships as equals is a bad thing. Even if we assume that they have no immediate means to influence the situation, it can make them think; and maybe some of those thoughts gradually will diffuse up to the people in power.

And of course, part of my motivation was simply to bring these bans to people's attention. Foreign journalists may be able to ask any dictator or dignitary that protested the US ban "but what about your travelling ban?", and maybe we could get some ball rolling in the long run. An intuitive first step towards fixing issues is to make sure that people are actually aware of them.

[Montmorency]

That's a relevant point, but it doesn't appear to me that Israel bars entry from any of these 'enemy' countries; meaning that there is a lack of symmetry here.

I see your point as not one of whether criticism against one exclusionary policy is negated by the fact that targeted parties employ categorically-similar policies, but of whether the targeted parties themselves have grounds to do so in that light.

I think they can along the same grounds as third parties can criticize the policy, insofar as they (affected Muslim states) can demonstrate a distinction between the logic of their policies and the logic of the US policy (and so a distinction in criticism of one as opposed to another). I think symmetry is more an outcome than a factor.


As an aside, the footnotes in the Wiki reference some kind of pretty cool passport/visa info site. I can't figure out how to navigate it other than to change elements of the url directly to get different results. Here is an example link (https://www.timaticweb.com/cgi-bin/tim_website_client.cgi?SpecData=1&VISA=&page=visa&NA=IL&AR=00&PASSTYPES=PASS&DE=KW&user=KLMB2C&subuser=KLMB2C). 'NA=<>' is where you put the country codeletters for nationality, 'DE=<>' for destination. I think the default passport setting is "normal passport".

From what I can manage, of the countries refusing Israeli passports


- Admission and transit refused to holders of Iraqi "S" series
passports.

These are apparently non-machine readable passports predating a recent Iraqi passport reform.

[Dâriûsh]

When time is found to criticise the US ban, I'd think.

I generally don't think treating citizens of dictatorships as equals is a bad thing. Even if we assume that they have no immediate means to influence the situation, it can make them think; and maybe some of those thoughts gradually will diffuse up to the people in power.

And of course, part of my motivation was simply to bring these bans to people's attention. Foreign journalists may be able to ask any dictator or dignitary that protested the US ban "but what about your travelling ban?", and maybe we could get some ball rolling in the long run. An intuitive first step towards fixing issues is to make sure that people are actually aware of them.

Hello again,

You imply that I, and other people who are either living in, or having origin in one of those anti-Israeli countries, are somehow expected to take those regimes policies into account, before questioning policies discriminating us by the outside world. If not, we are hypocrites.


Well, here is the thing. The travel restrictions targeting Israelis was passed into law by undemocratic or highly questionable regimes in all those countries. I do not believe that being a citizen who happens to be living under the yoke of tyranny, makes you automatically complicit in the questionable policies implemented by said regime, unless you happen to be a regime crony. Resist, by all means, if you can. But I also understand that many people comply for fear of their own safety.

Furthermore, I believe such regimes view a travel ban imposed by, for instance, the United States on their citizens as more of a convenience, than a disadvantage.


Naturally, those people in the United States who voted against that pompous man and his discriminatory policies are equally clear of some sort of collective responsibility for his actions. However, the discriminatory travel restrictions implemented in the United States have not been enforced upon the American people by force of arms. Demonstrators against these measures are not being “disappeared” by the government. America, and most of Europe, is not a nationalist dictatorship, and I will protest any measures that makes them appear as one – regardless if the policies target me specifically, or others, for whatever reason – gender, religion, ethnic background, country of origin, etc., because I fear what it might lead to, if it is allowed to stand without opposition.


But herein at least we agree on something; I am all for awareness on this issue. The very thought that a democratic super power can implement measures, not unlike the reprehensible discriminatory policies enforced by petty undemocratic regimes, is well worth worrying about.

[Pannonian]

Hello again,

You imply that I, and other people who are either living in, or having origin in one of those anti-Israeli countries, are somehow expected to take those regimes policies into account, before questioning policies discriminating us by the outside world. If not, we are hypocrites.


Well, here is the thing. The travel restrictions targeting Israelis was passed into law by undemocratic or highly questionable regimes in all those countries. I do not believe that being a citizen who happens to be living under the yoke of tyranny, makes you automatically complicit in the questionable policies implemented by said regime, unless you happen to be a regime crony. Resist, by all means, if you can. But I also understand that many people comply for fear of their own safety.

Furthermore, I believe such regimes view a travel ban imposed by, for instance, the United States on their citizens as more of a convenience, than a disadvantage.


Naturally, those people in the United States who voted against that pompous man and his discriminatory policies are equally clear of some sort of collective responsibility for his actions. However, the discriminatory travel restrictions implemented in the United States have not been enforced upon the American people by force of arms. Demonstrators against these measures are not being “disappeared” by the government. America, and most of Europe, is not a nationalist dictatorship, and I will protest any measures that makes them appear as one – regardless if the policies target me specifically, or others, for whatever reason – gender, religion, ethnic background, country of origin, etc., because I fear what it might lead to, if it is allowed to stand without opposition.


But herein at least we agree on something; I am all for awareness on this issue. The very thought that a democratic super power can implement measures, not unlike the reprehensible discriminatory policies enforced by petty undemocratic regimes, is well worth worrying about.

The problem with your point about policies enacted by undemocratic governments is that, when the UK and US overthrew one of these (Iraq), they were excoriated for invading another country. The moderate Left in the UK has been marginalised consequent to this, resulting in free rein for the Right (any arguments that remotely smell of Blair are met with "blood on their hands" and "warmonger"). So the lesson from that is that the west should not intervene in the affairs of another country, however unpleasant their government. But these other countries, undemocratic as you say they are, unilaterally take measures against yet other countries. If western countries aren't allowed to meddle in the affairs of middle eastern countries, yet middle eastern countries implement restrictive measures on citizens of other countries, the only way western countries can respond is to, on their side, implement reciprocal measures. Are Trump's measures reciprocal? Dunno, but your argument about not being held responsible for the actions of your government holds little water when western citizens are held responsible for the actions of their government (see the continued terrorist actions here "justified" by Iraq and whatnot).

[Montmorency]

If western countries aren't allowed to meddle in the affairs of middle eastern countries, yet middle eastern countries implement restrictive measures on citizens of other countries, the only way western countries can respond is to, on their side, implement reciprocal measures. Are Trump's measures reciprocal?

EU crush puny Britain! :wink:

[Pannonian]

EU crush puny Britain! :wink:

Not really anything to do with the EU, except for France, who are the only other European country to take an interest in foreign intervention. Most of the EU is pacifist.

[Montmorency]

Not really anything to do with the EU, except for France, who are the only other European country to take an interest in foreign intervention. Most of the EU is pacifist.

I mean in reference to unilateral action (re)implementing restrictive measures on the citizens of other countries.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You should know that this is alarmingly naive. If the analyte was undertaken for political purposes, then it clearly has political ramifications. The question is not one of policy itself but of how policy is used to transform power in politics.

You can't make much of a distinction between "theater" and "substance".

I was not asserting that the theatrics were irrelevant -- else they would not be so oft repeated. All of our politicos engage in such because it sways public opinion (even if only briefly) and public opinion in your favor is part of the currency of power.

I was asserting that the more lasting impacts would be engendered by the specific policy acts undertaken -- and that this was the area receiving too little attention because the more "engaging" theatrics draws the attention.


Next act is to draw all of the attention away from the temporary travel ban and related theatrics by nominating a Scalia-esque jurist to take the vacancy on the SCOTUS. Each new uproar is distracting from each preceding "protest" or concern -- and these are still being worked on when the media spotlight has passed on by.

[Viking]

Hello again,

You imply that I, and other people who are either living in, or having origin in one of those anti-Israeli countries, are somehow expected to take those regimes policies into account, before questioning policies discriminating us by the outside world. If not, we are hypocrites.


Well, here is the thing. The travel restrictions targeting Israelis was passed into law by undemocratic or highly questionable regimes in all those countries. I do not believe that being a citizen who happens to be living under the yoke of tyranny, makes you automatically complicit in the questionable policies implemented by said regime, unless you happen to be a regime crony. Resist, by all means, if you can. But I also understand that many people comply for fear of their own safety.

Furthermore, I believe such regimes view a travel ban imposed by, for instance, the United States on their citizens as more of a convenience, than a disadvantage.


Naturally, those people in the United States who voted against that pompous man and his discriminatory policies are equally clear of some sort of collective responsibility for his actions. However, the discriminatory travel restrictions implemented in the United States have not been enforced upon the American people by force of arms. Demonstrators against these measures are not being “disappeared” by the government. America, and most of Europe, is not a nationalist dictatorship, and I will protest any measures that makes them appear as one – regardless if the policies target me specifically, or others, for whatever reason – gender, religion, ethnic background, country of origin, etc., because I fear what it might lead to, if it is allowed to stand without opposition.


But herein at least we agree on something; I am all for awareness on this issue. The very thought that a democratic super power can implement measures, not unlike the reprehensible discriminatory policies enforced by petty undemocratic regimes, is well worth worrying about.

The kind of people who were the most in my thoughts when I wrote the first post, were those who either agree with or are indifferent to similar travel bans in place in their own countries. I am sure that many such people exist, and also that if they were interviewed by news media - foreign or domestic - they would likely be presented purely as victims.

The responsibility ordinary citizens have for their authoritarian government is an interesting topic in its own right. Without modification, the principle that you cannot expect citizens to stand up to their authoritarian government would extend all the way up to the point where genocide is being carried out.

[Montmorency]

Next act is to draw all of the attention away from the temporary travel ban and related theatrics by nominating a Scalia-esque jurist to take the vacancy on the SCOTUS. Each new uproar is distracting from each preceding "protest" or concern -- and these are still being worked on when the media spotlight has passed on by.

But that's just presenting the temporal bias. So you suppose the current intensity of the counter-Trump grassroots will suffer from flagging enthusiasm over time at the expense of calm and serious opposition? Almost certainly. Whether or not one feels Trump's discourse is one that shouldn't be acknowledged or tolerated by society, the arc of culture bends toward habituation...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

But that's just presenting the temporal bias. So you suppose the current intensity of the counter-Trump grassroots will suffer from flagging enthusiasm over time at the expense of calm and serious opposition? Almost certainly. Whether or not one feels Trump's discourse is one that shouldn't be acknowledged or tolerated by society, the arc of culture bends toward habituation...

Exploiting, as you notate it, "temporal bias" is what the political theatre stuff is all about. Most folks won't dig into the more substantive elements of policy or the implications, preferring the theater. Trumps refugee hiatus isn't, when spelled out, nearly the "Neolithic" policy it is made out to be. Arguably, there are a number of "threat" countries that are NOT listed that are as worrisome as the ones he has listed. I am far more concerned with getting a useful vetting policy in place then I am with the temporary travel bans. His "wall" order is likely to be more costly to the US taxpayer than his campaign wall promise -- and this is no longer being addressed well at all. Heck, his comments on NAFTA are more profound long term impact as well.

[Strike For The South]

So now everyone cares about extra judicial killings in the Iran-Saudi proxy way. Fucking typical.

[Dâriûsh]

The problem with your point about policies enacted by undemocratic governments is that, when the UK and US overthrew one of these (Iraq), they were excoriated for invading another country. The moderate Left in the UK has been marginalised consequent to this, resulting in free rein for the Right (any arguments that remotely smell of Blair are met with "blood on their hands" and "warmonger"). So the lesson from that is that the west should not intervene in the affairs of another country, however unpleasant their government. But these other countries, undemocratic as you say they are, unilaterally take measures against yet other countries. If western countries aren't allowed to meddle in the affairs of middle eastern countries, yet middle eastern countries implement restrictive measures on citizens of other countries, the only way western countries can respond is to, on their side, implement reciprocal measures. Are Trump's measures reciprocal? Dunno, but your argument about not being held responsible for the actions of your government holds little water when western citizens are held responsible for the actions of their government (see the continued terrorist actions here "justified" by Iraq and whatnot).


Thank you for your comment.

However, I fail to see how my point, about a citizen not being responsible for the acts of a repressive and undemocratic government, is undermined by the potential political consequences for politicians of foreign invasion powers.

I am no authority on rights or wrongs of military intervention – I believe that sometimes they may be necessary – for instance in the case of Rwanda – but I am glad I do not have to make such decisions. Where it becomes problematic however, is when that intervention is opportunistically exploited by the intervening power to obtain beneficial international advantages (as France criminally did in the case of Rwanda).

But thank you for bringing up Iraq. There are few cases of abject hypocrisy as bad as that. From 1963 to now, the United States have continuously meddled in Iraqi politics. First they supported the coup that brought Baath-party into power. Then they supported the Baathist Iraqi army with weapons for use against the Kurds. Then they supported Saddam with weapons for use against Iran (while also supplying weapons to Iran – the Iran–Contra affair). Then there was the Kuwait War debacle (see the April Glaspie meeting with Saddam). Then the sanctions where up to half a million Iraqi children died. Then there was the 2003 war and occupation. Then the ensuing sectarian conflict during said occupation. Then there was the bombing campaign against Islamic State in Northern Iraq. And now those “troublesome” Iraqi refugees are barred from entry into the United States.

Anyway…

You say that my “argument about not being held responsible for the actions of your government holds little water when western citizens are held responsible for the actions of their government (see the continued terrorist actions here "justified" by Iraq and whatnot).”

Your reasoning sounds like extremist-logic to me and it is not an opinion I share with you. A family living in Raqqa is no more complicit in the crimes of the so-called Islamic State than you or I. Yet, for some reason, I (and others as well) am the one who must suffer collective punishment for having the wrong birthplace.

Finally, let me comment on how that last sentence sounds to me; it implies that I am somehow responsible for terrorism because of my place of birth. I had actually written a longer reply denouncing terrorism – but I will not bother. Even by disassociating myself from such criminal acts, I know some Muslim-haters (not implying that is you or anyone else on the org) will smugly enjoy that I feel compelled to do so. No thanks.

[Dâriûsh]

The kind of people who were the most in my thoughts when I wrote the first post, were those who either agree with or are indifferent to similar travel bans in place in their own countries. I am sure that many such people exist, and also that if they were interviewed by news media - foreign or domestic - they would likely be presented purely as victims.

The responsibility ordinary citizens have for their authoritarian government is an interesting topic in its own right. Without modification, the principle that you cannot expect citizens to stand up to their authoritarian government would extend all the way up to the point where genocide is being carried out.


My honest opinion – I am genuinely indifferent. With a regime that hangs homosexuals from cranes, discriminates its minorities, and funds foreign wars, a travel ban on foreigners is really the last on the list of grievances. Are those regime hypocrites? You better believe it, and not just in one case – that list is longer than this thread.


Furthermore, I do believe that I wrote resist, if you can. It is easy to tell others to risk their lives standing up to the overwhelming might of murderous authoritarian regimes.


And sorry, everyone. I do believe that I have derailed this thread enough. The point is this, I feel personally slighted by that travel ban. Because it reminds me that no matter how I think of myself, I am considered complicit by default, by that man and his supporters, in crimes committed by others, for no other wrong than my birthplace.

[Montmorency]

So now everyone cares about extra judicial killings in the Iran-Saudi proxy way. Fucking typical.

What is that about?

[Pannonian]

Thank you for your comment.

However, I fail to see how my point, about a citizen not being responsible for the acts of a repressive and undemocratic government, is undermined by the potential political consequences for politicians of foreign invasion powers.

I am no authority on rights or wrongs of military intervention – I believe that sometimes they may be necessary – for instance in the case of Rwanda – but I am glad I do not have to make such decisions. Where it becomes problematic however, is when that intervention is opportunistically exploited by the intervening power to obtain beneficial international advantages (as France criminally did in the case of Rwanda).

But thank you for bringing up Iraq. There are few cases of abject hypocrisy as bad as that. From 1963 to now, the United States have continuously meddled in Iraqi politics. First they supported the coup that brought Baath-party into power. Then they supported the Baathist Iraqi army with weapons for use against the Kurds. Then they supported Saddam with weapons for use against Iran (while also supplying weapons to Iran – the Iran–Contra affair). Then there was the Kuwait War debacle (see the April Glaspie meeting with Saddam). Then the sanctions where up to half a million Iraqi children died. Then there was the 2003 war and occupation. Then the ensuing sectarian conflict during said occupation. Then there was the bombing campaign against Islamic State in Northern Iraq. And now those “troublesome” Iraqi refugees are barred from entry into the United States.

Anyway…

You say that my “argument about not being held responsible for the actions of your government holds little water when western citizens are held responsible for the actions of their government (see the continued terrorist actions here "justified" by Iraq and whatnot).”

Your reasoning sounds like extremist-logic to me and it is not an opinion I share with you. A family living in Raqqa is no more complicit in the crimes of the so-called Islamic State than you or I. Yet, for some reason, I (and others as well) am the one who must suffer collective punishment for having the wrong birthplace.

Finally, let me comment on how that last sentence sounds to me; it implies that I am somehow responsible for terrorism because of my place of birth. I had actually written a longer reply denouncing terrorism – but I will not bother. Even by disassociating myself from such criminal acts, I know some Muslim-haters (not implying that is you or anyone else on the org) will smugly enjoy that I feel compelled to do so. No thanks.

I present to you two liberal arguments, fundamentally opposite to one another.

1. Self determination is the basis of all international relations. The people of a nation should determine its own government, without interference from foreign powers. This principle became currency during WWI, and has been the basis of all international relations since then, at least when not overruled by power.
2. Liberal democracy is the natural state of all nation states. Where this is denied by repressive governments, foreign powers should intervene to bring it about. This was the argument of the neoconservatives.

Which is right?

[Dâriûsh]

Which is right?

Oh, no you don’t.


Who am I to decide? And who are you, for that matter?

Neither argument is valid and neither is entirely invalid.

[Pannonian]

Oh, no you don’t.


Who am I to decide? And who are you, for that matter?

Neither argument is valid and neither is entirely invalid.

The first decision has already been made, and was made by the proposed League of Nations back in WWI even before the US actively joined the war (both sides were trying to woo her and other neutrals with this argument). 1 is the default. The US, backed by the UK, made the decision to ignore this in favour of argument 2. We can safely say that argument 2 is no longer fashionable. So we default back to argument 1.

Within argument 1 is the assumption, barring excessively inhuman practices as prosecuted post-WWII, that states have control of their own internal affairs. Self determination is based on the assumption that foreign states have no right to intervene in the affairs of other states, except where they impinge on the affairs of others. One of these internal affairs, implicit in the formation of cohesive nation states, is border control. Borders are inviolate, and controlled by the state whose borders they are. Borders involving multiple states are governed by interstate agreements. Where one side wishes to differ, this difference is governed by the principle of reciprocity. If one side wishes to make a different arrangement, other sides are entitled to reciprocate in the same manner. No outside agency is entitled to impose its decision on another.

If outside countries aren't allowed to bring their preferred brand of government to, say, Iran (as has been made clear in the Iraq fiasco), then we revert to argument 1, which has its own set of rules and assumptions. If you feel victimised by this, too bad. The US, like any other state, is entitled to do what it likes with its own borders. Other states may reciprocate in retaliation, and they may well be morally right to do so. But how you feel in relation to the US has little bearing on what the US is entitled to do.

[Husar]

The problem with your point about policies enacted by undemocratic governments is that, when the UK and US overthrew one of these (Iraq), they were excoriated for invading another country. The moderate Left in the UK has been marginalised consequent to this, resulting in free rein for the Right (any arguments that remotely smell of Blair are met with "blood on their hands" and "warmonger"). So the lesson from that is that the west should not intervene in the affairs of another country, however unpleasant their government. But these other countries, undemocratic as you say they are, unilaterally take measures against yet other countries. If western countries aren't allowed to meddle in the affairs of middle eastern countries, yet middle eastern countries implement restrictive measures on citizens of other countries, the only way western countries can respond is to, on their side, implement reciprocal measures. Are Trump's measures reciprocal? Dunno, but your argument about not being held responsible for the actions of your government holds little water when western citizens are held responsible for the actions of their government (see the continued terrorist actions here "justified" by Iraq and whatnot).

I think a big part of the problem with Iraq was that there was no plan. And it was based on lies. The US went in as a preemptive strike saying that Iraq was manufacturing WMDs. Later they admitted that they lied. And then there was no plan, there was neither the claim to free the people nor a plan on how to go about it or any kind of long-term committment. The result was the rise of the IS, borne from former elite soldiers of the Iraqi army who were replaced with noobies by the US and allies IIRC.
I'm not going to pretend that everyone would be fine with it, but had they had a more decent plan about how to fix the country, or, even better, had they actually fixed the country the first time they invaded in the early 90s, there'd have been far fewer complaints and problems.
Dariush already mentioned how the US basically played with the country for decades. :shrug:


I was not asserting that the theatrics were irrelevant -- else they would not be so oft repeated. All of our politicos engage in such because it sways public opinion (even if only briefly) and public opinion in your favor is part of the currency of power.

I'm not sure whether his approval ratings reflect that at this point.


And sorry, everyone. I do believe that I have derailed this thread enough. The point is this, I feel personally slighted by that travel ban. Because it reminds me that no matter how I think of myself, I am considered complicit by default, by that man and his supporters, in crimes committed by others, for no other wrong than my birthplace.

I think you made some excellent contributions and voiced your concerns very well. :bow:


I present to you two liberal arguments, fundamentally opposite to one another.

1. Self determination is the basis of all international relations. The people of a nation should determine its own government, without interference from foreign powers. This principle became currency during WWI, and has been the basis of all international relations since then, at least when not overruled by power.
2. Liberal democracy is the natural state of all nation states. Where this is denied by repressive governments, foreign powers should intervene to bring it about. This was the argument of the neoconservatives.

Which is right?

Right is obviously the conservative option. :clown:
Otherwise it depends so much on the circumstances IMO that one cannot make a general rule. The only rule there might be is that when the major motivator to go in and "help" is that one expects huge benefits for one's own national interests, it is very likely to turn sour. If one goes in to help, there should be some altruism involved to make it more likely to work and be received well. With enemies like the Taliban even that rule is not universally true though.

[Pannonian]

I think a big part of the problem with Iraq was that there was no plan. And it was based on lies. The US went in as a preemptive strike saying that Iraq was manufacturing WMDs. Later they admitted that they lied. And then there was no plan, there was neither the claim to free the people nor a plan on how to go about it or any kind of long-term committment. The result was the rise of the IS, borne from former elite soldiers of the Iraqi army who were replaced with noobies by the US and allies IIRC.
I'm not going to pretend that everyone would be fine with it, but had they had a more decent plan about how to fix the country, or, even better, had they actually fixed the country the first time they invaded in the early 90s, there'd have been far fewer complaints and problems.
Dariush already mentioned how the US basically played with the country for decades. :shrug:

Right is obviously the conservative option. :clown:
Otherwise it depends so much on the circumstances IMO that one cannot make a general rule. The only rule there might be is that when the major motivator to go in and "help" is that one expects huge benefits for one's own national interests, it is very likely to turn sour. If one goes in to help, there should be some altruism involved to make it more likely to work and be received well. With enemies like the Taliban even that rule is not universally true though.

There was little secret about the agenda of the neocons. I was aghast at the time that people were buying the WMD argument, when it was plain that they were based on ideology. Or as I called it at the time, idiocy. That liberal democracy could be spread like an ink spot on blotting paper. The subsequent 2005 attacks were justified by the perpetrators and their supporters, not on doing a bad job in Iraq, but being in Iraq in the first place. Hence argument 1.

There is no butting and umming about times and circumstances. It's been clear since WWI that argument 1 is the default. There is no void of argument where you decide how much of each to apply. Argument 1 applies unless a sovereign nation agrees otherwise. If they agree otherwise, then the subsequent agreement applies. But in the absence of such an agreement, argument 1 applies.

I might accept ideological consistency from someone like Bush or Blair, who genuinely believed in argument 2. In such a case, I wouldn't call the hypocrites. I'd call them idiots instead, as I did in 2003 and subsequently as it turned out as badly as I'd expected. But anyone who criticised the US and UK for going into Iraq has no right to argue that they should not be held responsible for their governments. Argument 2 was a genuine attempt to establish a different paradigm from argument 1. If they don't want argument 2, then argument 1 is what they're stuck with.

[Dâriûsh]

If outside countries aren't allowed to bring their preferred brand of government to, say, Iran (as has been made clear in the Iraq fiasco), then we revert to argument 1, which has its own set of rules and assumptions. If you feel victimised by this, too bad. The US, like any other state, is entitled to do what it likes with its own borders. Other states may reciprocate in retaliation, and they may well be morally right to do so. But how you feel in relation to the US has little bearing on what the US is entitled to do.

Hey, yeah, too bad for me.

In my humble opinion, there is a vast difference between blasting regime-change all over another country and protesting discriminatory policies, do you agree? I practice the latter. My protests in this regard relates to my concern that other countries might begin copying these restrictions. Well that and the fact that I find this ban utterly distasteful.

Have a nice evening.

[Husar]

The subsequent 2005 attacks were justified by the perpetrators and their supporters, not on doing a bad job in Iraq, but being in Iraq in the first place. Hence argument 1.

The people who perpetrated these attacks cannot be argued with anyway, hence:


With enemies like the Taliban even that rule is not universally true though.

Basing your policies and opinions solely on the opinions of extremist idiots is setting yourself up for failure IMO.
Might as well listen to the Neo Nazis then because if we don't, they'll complain all the time... :dizzy2:

That's true for leftist extremists as well as rightist ones. The choice between two completely opposed options is usually some extremist thing.
Take appeasement before WW2, that's your argument 1. Now it can be argued that an allied invasion in Germany prior to the outbrak of WW2 would have increased German resentment etc., but that's why the world and politics can be complicated, not a reason to resort to simplistic solutions. Had the allies exposed the death camps during such an invasion and installed a democratic government again, it may have actually worked. :shrug:

[Kagemusha]

I present to you two liberal arguments, fundamentally opposite to one another.

1. Self determination is the basis of all international relations. The people of a nation should determine its own government, without interference from foreign powers. This principle became currency during WWI, and has been the basis of all international relations since then, at least when not overruled by power.
2. Liberal democracy is the natural state of all nation states. Where this is denied by repressive governments, foreign powers should intervene to bring it about. This was the argument of the neoconservatives.

Which is right?

Number 1. is right and should still be followed. People would have take responsibility of their own government and overthrow/ fight it if necessary. US has created itself only harm by trying to forcefully spread democracy, thus making itself a scapegoat in the eyes of anyone looking for some instance to blame, for their problems in any way, if US has actively mingled with their self determination.

In any case this ban by Trump government does not have anything to do with what Pannonian is asking. This is discriminating order that does not have any real coherent logic behind it. Why Syrians or Iranians are not able to travel to US while Saudi´s or Afghan´s can? There is no logic. It simply a populist gesture towards the angry anti immigrant supporters of Trump.

And Hus the death camps were not in existence before WW2, not at least in the form they operated after 1942. If we go to down that slippery slope with hindsight and make wrong decisions, which could create something even more horrible, who takes the responsibility for those mistakes, or will it just be a shrug and "we tried"...

[Pannonian]

Number 1. is right and should still be followed. People would have take responsibility of their own government and overthrow/ fight it if necessary. US has created itself only harm by trying to forcefully spread democracy, thus making itself a scapegoat in the eyes of anyone looking for some instance to blame, for their problems in any way, if US has actively mingled with their self determination.

In any case this ban by Trump government does not have anything to do with what Pannonian is asking. This is discriminating order that does not have any real coherent logic behind it. Why Syrians or Iranians are not able to travel to US while Saudi´s or Afghan´s can? There is no logic. It simply a populist gesture towards the angry anti immigrant supporters of Trump.

And Hus the death camps were not in existence before WW2, not at least in the form they operated after 1942. If we go to down that slippery slope with hindsight and make wrong decisions, which could create something even more horrible, who takes the responsibility for those mistakes, or will it just be a shrug and "we tried"...

I strongly disagree with the UK's choice of government and the decision it made in June last year. But I have to live with it, and deal with it in whatever small way I can within the UK, as an individual. Whatever the UK ends up with as a result of Brexit, even though I strongly disagree with it, I don't expect the EU to ameliorate it in any way.

[Xiahou]

I'm still in "wait and see" mode on Trump. Most anything that comes out of his mouth or Twitter feed are pure idiocy, but so far, I like a good many of the policies that he's been pushing in practice (not in word). Rolling back Obama's regulatory overreach is good. Fast-tracking long stalled environmental reviews of pipelines is good. Limiting government funding of abortion is good. Even the temporary immigration ban/increased vetting isn't terrible on it's face- though it's implementation appears to be rather incompetent.

I find if I actually look at what Trump's doing and ignore whatever is coming out of his mouth, he's actually ok so far. Though, I tend to think it may be due more to the advisors he is delegating power to, than through his own action/ideas. Because, I still think he's a twit. :yes:

[Husar]

And Hus the death camps were not in existence before WW2, not at least in the form they operated after 1942. If we go to down that slippery slope with hindsight and make wrong decisions, which could create something even more horrible, who takes the responsibility for those mistakes, or will it just be a shrug and "we tried"...

Yes about the camps, but I thought the appeasement policy was widely seen as a huge failure? Would you say it was the only right thing to do?


I'm still in "wait and see" mode on Trump. Most anything that comes out of his mouth or Twitter feed are pure idiocy, but so far, I like a good many of the policies that he's been pushing in practice (not in word). Rolling back Obama's regulatory overreach is good. Fast-tracking long stalled environmental reviews of pipelines is good. Limiting government funding of abortion is good. Even the temporary immigration ban/increased vetting isn't terrible on it's face- though it's implementation appears to be rather incompetent.

How exactly has Trump rolled back regulatory overreach by issuing one presidential decree after the other? Maybe I missed one.
Didn't he regulate the borders far more? Then he also regulated lobbying, tries to regulate outsourcing and offshoring efforts, etc.

[Husar]

As for the whole "the cabinet will mellow him", "he can't do anything without the parliament" and so on, according to this German article, people said the exact same things about Hitler when he was made chancellor...

http://www.zeit.de/2017/05/adolf-hitler-reichskanzler-ernennung-jahrestag

Other quotes include "I got Hindenburg's trust, in two weeks we'll have cornered him that he squeams" and that Hitler would now have to prove "that he is capable of being a statesman". Many people also saw him as a puppet of other actors such as vice chancellor von Papen.

Of course I have no idea why or how any of that could be relevant for this thread. :rolleyes:

[Greyblades]

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/934/664/417.jpg


19429

Not to forget that his children running his business is laughable in terms of his being detached from the business...

I have seen this as well, though my experience of it was tempered by the inclusion of this nugget of information (http://www.snopes.com/trump-immigration-order-obama/); the nations listed were identified by the Department of Homeland Security as risk nations during the last few years and had resulted in the same seven being targeted with travel restrictions in a bill signed by the previous administration.

One story told is that Trump is simply using the restrictions Obama laid down as a template to ratchet up restrictions quickly before he can compose a better plan, another is that those nations exempted are allies and or strategically vital to the fight against ISIS and pissing them off would be a bad idea.

With this level of information available whichever explanation you believe that is likely predicated on your willingness to give trump the benefit of the doubt.


:laugh4:
I thought Trump just stopped all lobbying, especially from foreign countries. :sweatdrop:
Boris may have been born in america he isnt under it's employ, at least not yet :clown:


Hey, yeah, too bad for me.

Immigration is not a right but a privledge that any sovereign nation is entirely justified in restricting as they wish, So yes too bad for you.

[Xiahou]

How exactly has Trump rolled back regulatory overreach by issuing one presidential decree after the other? Maybe I missed one.
Maybe you did miss one (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-signs-executive-order-reduce-regulations-n714151).

There's also the plan to use CRA (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/congressional-review-act-obama-regulations.html)s to roll back many of Obama's "midnight" regulations that he rolled out last month. This is good.

[CrossLOPER]

I'm still in "wait and see" mode on Trump.
Saying this at this point is like hoping that the train brakes will kick in while the train is still going 30 kph and about 20 feet away.


Most anything that comes out of his mouth or Twitter feed are pure idiocy, but so far, I like a good many of the policies that he's been pushing in practice (not in word).
Like banning people from entire nations from immigrating, devaluing protections of the environment and protected groups and fuck knows what else?


Rolling back Obama's regulatory overreach is good.
How? With an avalanche of unconstitutional reforms focused solely on making the US dirtier, meaner and more isolated and repressed?

Fast-tracking long stalled environmental reviews of pipelines is good.
Pipelines leak. A lot.

Limiting government funding of abortion is good.
Limiting availability of services to vulnerable groups is heinous.

Even the temporary immigration ban/increased vetting isn't terrible on it's face- though it's implementation appears to be rather incompetent.
Incompetent is a mild way to put it. Terminally retarded is a much better description. It does absolutely nothing positive and solves no problems. It created a massive amount of problems and is rapidly eradicating any positive view of the US.


I find if I actually look at what Trump's doing and ignore whatever is coming out of his mouth, he's actually ok so far. Though, I tend to think it may be due more to the advisors he is delegating power to, than through his own action/ideas. Because, I still think he's a twit. :yes:
He is CONSOLIDATING power into as few people as possible and his agents are threatening dissenting opinions. "Getting with the program" and "taking names" are thinly veiled threats that precede authoritarian moves.


Maybe you did miss one (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-signs-executive-order-reduce-regulations-n714151).

How in the fuck do you decide what a regulation is or what it includes? This is going to work out great.

Replacing:
Regulation 1: Org must do A.
Regulation 2: Org must do B.

Enacting:
Regulation 3: Org must do A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I...


There's also the plan to use CRA (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/politics/congressional-review-act-obama-regulations.html)s to roll back many of Obama's "midnight" regulations that he rolled out last month. This is good.
Too bad it is going to be used against pollution regulations.

Fuck yeah Beijing skies!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Lord love a duck. The tone of these posts suggests that impeachment would fall short, and that summary execution for thought crimes is the only acceptable measure for Trump.


CHILL....he is just another occupant of the oval. No need to check the scalp for tattoos.

[Xiahou]

Saying this at this point is like hoping that the train brakes will kick in while the train is still going 30 kph and about 20 feet away. Ok...


Pipelines leak. A lot. Not as much as railcars, tanker trucks or ships. They also explode a lot more than pipelines. A lot more.


Limiting availability of services to vulnerable groups is heinous. Murdering defenseless children is heinous.


Incompetent is a mild way to put it. Terminally retarded is a much better description. It does absolutely nothing positive and solves no problems. It created a massive amount of problems and is rapidly eradicating any positive view of the US. Incompetent in that it was rolled out with little to no warning for the agencies tasked with implementing it and then issuing contradictory statements on what to do with current visa/green card holders... first let them back in, then not, then let them back in. I guess they got it right 2/3 of the time.



He is CONSOLIDATING power into as few people as possible and his agents are threatening dissenting opinions. "Getting with the program" and "taking names" are thinly veiled threats that precede authoritarian moves.
Not so different from Obama's prosecution of whistleblowers and spying on members of the press, huh? See, this is a problem I have with the media and liberals in regards to Trump. They're completely losing their minds- the level of signal to noise is completely out off the charts. I think it's only a matter of time before Trump does something truly reprehensible- but with all the partisans wailing, gnashing their teeth and rending their clothes every time Trump farts, it's going to be much harder to see it and give it the coverage it deserves. Basically, it's going to be a 'boy who cried wolf' scenario. Trump doing something you disagree with is not the same as the second coming of Hitler. All your constant howling is doing is making it that much easier for him to brush you off when you have a more serious criticism.

[Strike For The South]

So much fuzz not enough facts. I can only assume everything I read is from some damnable KGB agent in some Moscow hovel. They get one pair of blue jeans and go right back to hating the capitalists.

in any event, I can't get behind a man who will leave those who collaborated with American forces out to dry. Those muslims did more for this country than Trump. It's unforgivable to pick up sticks and leave them high and dry.

[CrossLOPER]

Ok...
Keep thinking about it. You're a smart guy.


Not as much as railcars, tanker trucks or ships. They also explode a lot more than pipelines. A lot more.
Would you like one on your property?


Murdering defenseless children is heinous.
Placing the value of a non-viable formation of cells over a living human being is insane. Who knows? They might be a threat. Better extinguish it before it turns 5.

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

You want to talk about saving children? Start with the ones that have already been born.


Incompetent in that it was rolled out with little to no warning for the agencies tasked with implementing it and then issuing contradictory statements on what to do with current visa/green card holders... first let them back in, then not, then let them back in. I guess they got it right 2/3 of the time.
It shouldn't have been an executive order. At all. You don't make an executive order of this scale and complexity based on arbitrary and cloudy guidelines. Complex thinking is something that seems to elude this administration.


Not so different from Obama's prosecution of whistleblowers and spying on members of the press, huh? See, this is a problem I wibbilty bibbilty blobby boo
Only one post and you immediately go off on about liberals and Obama and whatnot, and then mention Hitler. One post and you are a victim of the liberal agenda. Unbelievable.

[Kagemusha]

So much fuzz not enough facts. I can only assume everything I read is from some damnable KGB agent in some Moscow hovel. They get one pair of blue jeans and go right back to hating the capitalists.

in any event, I can't get behind a man who will leave those who collaborated with American forces out to dry. Those muslims did more for this country than Trump. It's unforgivable to pick up sticks and leave them high and dry.

You must have missed the memo, but Russia is now your buddy and Uncle Putin your best friend,while it is the dirty Chinese who are now source of all evil. The process of deciding which Muslims are good and which are bad is still ongoing, but its has been so for the last 50 years...

[Dâriûsh]

Immigration is not a right but a privledge that any sovereign nation is entirely justified in restricting as they wish, So yes too bad for you.

Thanks. Your sympathy is heartwarming.

I am not even talking about immigration. I am talking about personally being denied entry into an entire country. The reason for which is that I am suddenly tainted somehow. Nevermind how I live my life or who I am – my birthplace condemns me.

I can only speculate that your callous disregard in this matter is because you assume such discriminatory measures will never affect you.

[Pannonian]

Thanks. Your sympathy is heartwarming.

I am not even talking about immigration. I am talking about personally being denied entry into an entire country. The reason for which is that I am suddenly tainted somehow. Nevermind how I live my life or who I am – my birthplace condemns me.

I can only speculate that your callous disregard in this matter is because you assume such discriminatory measures will never affect you.

On the contrary, he voted for it last June. I was against it, but I'll have to live with it anyway because the likes of GB voted for it.

[Dâriûsh]

On the contrary, he voted for it last June. I was against it, but I'll have to live with it anyway because the likes of GB voted for it.

I am sorry. Contrary to what? I am not sure how this relates to my post.

What discriminatory measures has he (Greyblades?) voted for, that you have to live with?

[Viking]

My honest opinion – I am genuinely indifferent. With a regime that hangs homosexuals from cranes, discriminates its minorities, and funds foreign wars, a travel ban on foreigners is really the last on the list of grievances. Are those regime hypocrites? You better believe it, and not just in one case – that list is longer than this thread.

By the same logic, because of much worse things going on in the world, people from seven countries being denied entry to the US is not much to care about.

I think it can be a good idea to point out things that are 'wrong', even if they are far down on the priority list. Some things may be more connected than they first seem, for example.


Furthermore, I do believe that I wrote resist, if you can. It is easy to tell others to risk their lives standing up to the overwhelming might of murderous authoritarian regimes.

I am not telling people to stand up to their authoritarian governments; but to the extent that they do not, it may alter the, shall we say, moral equation. But it is a debate that is probably best for a separate topic, as a travel ban is normally not something very serious.

[Idaho]

It seems that we have fully moved away from politics being a rational argument, to it being like one of those arguments with people who are incoherent and inconsistent. So there is no agreed framework or reference. Anyone can blurt out any old shit and any objections or thoughtful responses are just drowned out by a tidal wave of such blurting.

[Montmorency]

I am sorry. Contrary to what? I am not sure how this relates to my post.

What discriminatory measures has he (Greyblades?) voted for, that you have to live with?

Brexit presumably.

You make strong posts btw.

----

DAPL should not really be getting this much opposition, and opposition on the basis of pipeline vs. other transport modes is a red herring. If the procedures are complete and the property is secured, go ahead with the damn thing.

On the other hand, abortion and regulations are pretty much the best things ever.

----

Here's some historical perspective on Hitler and the destruction of the Jews (skip to 6:51 if lazy):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuAUlCemH68

[Dâriûsh]

By the same logic, because of much worse things going on in the world, people from seven countries being denied entry to the US is not much to care about.

I think it can be a good idea to point out things that are 'wrong', even if they are far down on the priority list. Some things may be more connected than they first seem, for example.



I am not telling people to stand up to their authoritarian governments; but to the extent that they do not, it may alter the, shall we say, moral equation. But it is a debate that is probably best for a separate topic, as a travel ban is normally not something very serious.

I have repeated this several times, but I’ll do it again: The difference is what to expect from a state run by a nationalist military dictatorship versus a state with democratically elected leader (and one who might only spend 4 years or less on the post).

So that logic you present would only apply if the United States were a xenophobic and isolationist regime. It is not.


And no, you make it very clear that a travel ban is not something very serious to you. Perhaps it is difficult to comprehend legislation being drawn up to discriminate you specifically, not for your opinion or political views, but for where you are born.

[Kagemusha]

Yes about the camps, but I thought the appeasement policy was widely seen as a huge failure? Would you say it was the only right thing to do?

When Germany remilitarized Rhineland during 1936 the WW1 Allied powers gained a casus belli against Nazi Germany. After a clear violation of a international treaty, there was no need for an preemptive strike. The cause for war against Germany was there, but the Western allies did not use it. So those circumstances really dont apply as example of preemptive forceful regime change conducted by an external power.

Of course this is a complicated issue and there is no simple answer, but how i see it. If you meddle with internal affairs of others without their consent the responsibility concerning the outcome lies with you afterwards.

[Pannonian]

I have repeated this several times, but I’ll do it again: The difference is what to expect from a state run by a nationalist military dictatorship versus a state with democratically elected leader (and one who might only spend 4 years or less on the post).

So that logic you present would only apply if the United States were a xenophobic and isolationist regime. It is not.


And no, you make it very clear that a travel ban is not something very serious to you. Perhaps it is difficult to comprehend legislation being drawn up to discriminate you specifically, not for your opinion or political views, but for where you are born.

It's discrimination based on citizenship. I browse a Pakistani forum from time to time, and the posters there were surprised they weren't already on the list, given their reputation, and expected to be added once India put their two cents in. The Pakistani Brits said that this was the signal for them to give up their Pakistani citizenship, which would remove the black mark. They also drew a comparison between Pakistan, which allows dual citizenship, and India, which does not, and wondered whether the latter path was better.

[Sarmatian]

I present to you two liberal arguments, fundamentally opposite to one another.

1. Self determination is the basis of all international relations. The people of a nation should determine its own government, without interference from foreign powers. This principle became currency during WWI, and has been the basis of all international relations since then, at least when not overruled by power.
2. Liberal democracy is the natural state of all nation states. Where this is denied by repressive governments, foreign powers should intervene to bring it about. This was the argument of the neoconservatives.

Which is right?

The question isn't which is right but who decides.

[Husar]

Lord love a duck. The tone of these posts suggests that impeachment would fall short, and that summary execution for thought crimes is the only acceptable measure for Trump.


CHILL....he is just another occupant of the oval. No need to check the scalp for tattoos.

Again, they said the same thing about Hitler, see Monty's video as well in that regard.
Saying the goal of protesters is somehow execution or something like that is a strawman or whatever you call it, I'm pretty sure most of them would be okay with Trump being less extreme as a result of public pressure for example. Public pressure usually doesn't come from shutting up though. When Obama got elected he was declared the antichrist as well and people said he would come to prosecute them for owning guns etc., so in a way it's just typical partisan American behavior and you should just chill as well. ~;)
Now you may wonder why I made the Hitler comparison then, well:
1. It's funny for me.
2. Trump actually did announce plenty of outrageous things and seems to show more authoritarian behavior than Obama. And then I trust some of his supporters and especially that Bannon-dude even less than Trump himself. That he raised Bannon to such important positions is what I'd find worrying. I wouldn't even think of Bannon-dude as a mellowing force in his cabinet, more like a stirring one... And Trump removed some experienced generals from permanent positions, they might have been mellowing forces... :wall:

Remember when Hitler put the extremists in all the important positions? :sweatdrop:


So much fuzz not enough facts.

That would seem like an uninterrupted continuation from Trump's election campaign then...


When Germany remilitarized Rhineland during 1936 the WW1 Allied powers gained a casus belli against Nazi Germany. After a clear violation of a international treaty, there was no need for an preemptive strike. The cause for war against Germany was there, but the Western allies did not use it. So those circumstances really dont apply as example of preemptive forceful regime change conducted by an external power.

Of course this is a complicated issue and there is no simple answer, but how i see it. If you meddle with internal affairs of others without their consent the responsibility concerning the outcome lies with you afterwards.

Preemptive regime change sounds weird. Iraq was said to be a preemptive strike because Iraq was supposedly planning a strike with its WMDs and was supposedly harboring terrorists. The regime change was more of a by-product in the official narrative IIRC. While there may have been doubts about the WMDs and the terrorism ties at the time, there was obviously sufficient support to make them go ahead.

And yes, it's a complicated issue because trade can already be seen as meddling in other peoples' affairs. If Trump punishes corporations for building or operating factories in Mexico, how is he not meddling with Mexican affairs? He's actively destroying jobs in Mexico and Mexico cannot realistically hope to do anything about it other than symbolic measures.

[Idaho]

It's very interesting the contrast between the Trump launch and the bush launch. With Bush, 90% of the American orgahs were fairly fiercely pro Bush. Very hawkish and nationalistic. Even hanging on to support through the Iraq and Afghanistan catastrophes.

With Trump it seems that the best the American orgahs can do is a few sheepish "let's wait and see" or "actions aren't as bad as his words".

I predict that he either starts ww3 or doesn't last 2017.

[Pannonian]

The question isn't which is right but who decides.

So who has the right to decide, in your view?

[Viking]

I have repeated this several times, but I’ll do it again: The difference is what to expect from a state run by a nationalist military dictatorship versus a state with democratically elected leader (and one who might only spend 4 years or less on the post).

So that logic you present would only apply if the United States were a xenophobic and isolationist regime. It is not.

I disagree with this. I think we should expect (as in require) the same from authoritarian countries as we do from liberal ones; even if the issue in question is much less serious than other things.

So if one happens to meet, for example, a Syrian Assad supporter who is angry about not being able to travel to the US, they could be challenged about the travel ban in place in their own country. Scenarios like that is what I had in mind when I wrote the first post. Don't let people off the hook.

Even if you do expect more from democratic countries, the US travel ban is still typically less serious than things like people dying of treatable diseases, extreme poverty etc. It just shouldn't be high on the list, because there are much worse things going on, according to this logic.


And no, you make it very clear that a travel ban is not something very serious to you. Perhaps it is difficult to comprehend legislation being drawn up to discriminate you specifically, not for your opinion or political views, but for where you are born.

Beyond travel bans typically being less serious than things like extreme poverty and genocide, I have not intended to say much about its seriousness.



Here's some historical perspective on Hitler and the destruction of the Jews (skip to 6:51 if lazy):

Interesting pre-war perspective.

[Husar]

Also a question: How do they ban people with dual nationality in practice? Is there some note in their passports that says they also have another nationality or why can't they just leave the banned passport at home and get in with the other one?
I've heard of people who try to get as many nationalities as possible for various reasons, do they have to let each new one be entered into all their other passports? Or is this some secret shenanigans where the NSA hacks all national databases and compares all the data? :sweatdrop:

[Xiahou]

Only one post and you immediately go off on about liberals and Obama and whatnot, and then mention Hitler. One post and you are a victim of the liberal agenda. Unbelievable.Nope, not a victim. I was trying to explain to you why you're making it impossible for me and others to take you seriously. There's no point in trying to engage in you in any sort of discourse.... so I won't.

[Xiahou]

Trump actually did announce plenty of outrageous things and seems to show more authoritarian behavior than Obama. It's all perspective, I'm afraid. Obama did more to consolidate power (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/14/obama-s-imperial-presidency-now-is-trump-s.html) in the presidency and to weaken the other branches of government. He just got better PR.

Many constitutional scholars and politicians on the right have spent the last eight years rallying against the Obama presidency, arguing that he had overstepped his powers, especially with regard to national security.

But this is now likely to yield to protests from the left, with the same criticisms applying to Trump.

“For eight years Republicans have complained that the presidency was too powerful, that President Obama ruled like a dictator, and that the powers of the presidency needed to be curbed,” Nichols said. “My guess is that they’re not going to be very serious about that principle.”

With the shoe on the other foot, the left may soon realize how terrifying some of the president’s authorities can be.

“If you are concerned about overreach of executive authority, and the only thing that was keeping your concerns at bay was that President Obama had that authority… [it’s] going to come back to bite people in the rear, because now a President Trump will rely on those same authorities,” said Bradley Moss, a lawyer specializing in national security law.
Call me when Trump prosecutes a war without congressional approval or orders the death of American citizens without judicial review. Then we'll be onto something. Most of the anti-Trump theatrics thus far, look too much like naked partisanship. It's ok if my guy does it, but if the other guy does it he's Hitler 2.0. Trump's executive overreach hasn't come near Obama's yet. And I don't want him to go as far as Obama did. I didn't vote for Trump, and if he abuses his power as badly, I won't vote for him next time either. But we survived Obama and we'll survive Trump too.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I have repeated this several times, but I’ll do it again: The difference is what to expect from a state run by a nationalist military dictatorship versus a state with democratically elected leader (and one who might only spend 4 years or less on the post).

So that logic you present would only apply if the United States were a xenophobic and isolationist regime. It is not.


And no, you make it very clear that a travel ban is not something very serious to you. Perhaps it is difficult to comprehend legislation being drawn up to discriminate you specifically, not for your opinion or political views, but for where you are born.

Note on your sig, Dariush. I think you mean Fatehi and not the actress in your second quotation -- but some might miss that without the surname.

[Montmorency]

It's all perspective, I'm afraid. Obama did more to consolidate power (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/14/obama-s-imperial-presidency-now-is-trump-s.html) in the presidency and to weaken the other branches of government. He just got better PR.

Call me when Trump prosecutes a war without congressional approval or orders the death of American citizens without judicial review. Then we'll be onto something. Most of the anti-Trump theatrics thus far, look too much like naked partisanship. It's ok if my guy does it, but if the other guy does it he's Hitler 2.0. Trump's executive overreach hasn't come near Obama's yet. And I don't want him to go as far as Obama did. I didn't vote for Trump, and if he abuses his power as badly, I won't vote for him next time either. But we survived Obama and we'll survive Trump too.

Ironically, you and others IMO end up conflating the Presidency and the Executive. The latter has increased its ambit over national security, but the POTUS itself is still much weaker than during the mid-century. Now, admittedly there is indeed scope for a sitting POTUS to take advantage of the growth of his department to work toward conjoining the two, to consolidate power away from party consensus rule, and to exercise personal authority over increasingly-fine matters - but this has not been the case for generations. Obama did not buck the trend, and I believe Trump is not doing and will not do so, regardless of his conceits or the indignation of his opponents.

Concisely: the indirect power of POTUS in the world (coercive, that is) has increased, but the direct power of POTUS in the US government has decreased. Moreover, the former is more an outcome of technological factors and the nature of contemporary conflicts than any mechanical developments in law.

That's my line and I'm sticking to it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I have repeated this several times, but I’ll do it again: The difference is what to expect from a state run by a nationalist military dictatorship versus a state with democratically elected leader (and one who might only spend 4 years or less on the post).

So that logic you present would only apply if the United States were a xenophobic and isolationist regime. It is not.


And no, you make it very clear that a travel ban is not something very serious to you. Perhaps it is difficult to comprehend legislation being drawn up to discriminate you specifically, not for your opinion or political views, but for where you are born.

Not legislation, but an executive order. Such orders spell out the process by which the executive branch will execute the law promulgated by Congress. Were Congress to oppose the measures taken in the Executive Order, they could modify the law by which the President is empowered placing whatever limitations they preferred on the books. This change would require a 2/3 majority so as to be veto-proof, but that is the system under which we operate.

The executive order was NOT aimed at you personally, of course, though any refugee or would-be immigrant from Iran -- obviously including you -- will be barred from entry for the next 114 days or so. The sloppy execution of the order (e.g. holding up the entry of current legal residents) makes it clear that too many are aware of the media version without reading the blinking thing, including Customs officers apparently.

The only indefinite ban (at least so far) is on those from Syria.

The order will, from the look of things, probably be extended to other nations of concern after about 60 days -- based in part on their willingness/ability or lack of willingness/ability to provide the additional information envisaged in the new and more robust vetting procedures referenced in the order.

The whole point is to resume immigration and the refugee program after this hiatus, with the hiatus having been used to establish and place assets to conduct the more rigorous screening. The more rigorous screening is not, apparently, going to be applied to all and sundry (though I expect that it will be, bowing to political pressure for fairness, once the new procedures are in place). Customs and immigration is about to become a good deal more costly to the taxpayer.

I actually think that a better vetting process is a good idea, and that it should be applied to all and sundry both for fairness and because much of the potential threat but by no means all of a potential threat is lodged in these nations. As this was such a centerpiece of his campaign for so long, however, I am a bit frustrated that a more complete process is going to take 4 months to get in place. Should have had people working on the specifics from 11/15 on

[Montmorency]

I actually think that a better vetting process is a good idea, and that it should be applied to all and sundry both for fairness and because much of the potential threat but by no means all of a potential threat is lodged in these nations. As this was such a centerpiece of his campaign for so long, however, I am a bit frustrated that a more complete process is going to take 4 months to get in place. Should have had people working on the specifics from 11/15 on

What in particular could be improved in the process, arduous as it is? Is anything concrete meant to be achieved by such a reform, or by an intention of reform?

This isn't a question of process after all, but one of source. Some classes are prima facie unacceptable, others are not, and all before any paperwork or interviews come into play. The contest now is whether "Muslims" may be considered among the unacceptable classes.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What in particular could be improved in the process, arduous as it is? Is anything concrete meant to be achieved by such a reform, or by an intention of reform?

This isn't a question of process after all, but one of source. Some classes are prima facie unacceptable, others are not, and all before any paperwork or interviews come into play. The contest now is whether "Muslims" may be considered among the unacceptable classes.

I think the intent will be to screen out those who have demonstrated a threat potential (supporting or conducting violence for the cause etc.). Probably some kind of flag for people with violent criminal history as well, whether terrorist or no.

Using the religion in and of itself would be both inappropriate and unconstitutional.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;... The use of the religion as a whole would obviously contradict the "free exercise" portion. It would also be offensive to more than 3 million U.S. citizens who are Muslim.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's discrimination based on citizenship. I browse a Pakistani forum from time to time, and the posters there were surprised they weren't already on the list, given their reputation, and expected to be added once India put their two cents in. The Pakistani Brits said that this was the signal for them to give up their Pakistani citizenship, which would remove the black mark. They also drew a comparison between Pakistan, which allows dual citizenship, and India, which does not, and wondered whether the latter path was better.

Discrimination based on citizenship is generally deemed legitimate.

See Germany's stance of citizens of Syria claiming refugee status.

[Kagemusha]

Preemptive regime change sounds weird. Iraq was said to be a preemptive strike because Iraq was supposedly planning a strike with its WMDs and was supposedly harboring terrorists. The regime change was more of a by-product in the official narrative IIRC. While there may have been doubts about the WMDs and the terrorism ties at the time, there was obviously sufficient support to make them go ahead.

Yes.People believed the lies of the "agressive regime". I am not sure did the neocons themselves had any idea what they were about to do, or just more likely exited to just do something with their power.



And yes, it's a complicated issue because trade can already be seen as meddling in other peoples' affairs. If Trump punishes corporations for building or operating factories in Mexico, how is he not meddling with Mexican affairs? He's actively destroying jobs in Mexico and Mexico cannot realistically hope to do anything about it other than symbolic measures.

Thankfully long past are the days of Mercantilism. Trump can punish corporations in US and that is it. Will that happen is a completely other story, but then i am not sure how well the real estate businessman understands the global economy, at least the analyst are terrified what will happen, but that seems to be their default reaction to anything these days.

[Kralizec]

Discrimination based on citizenship is generally deemed legitimate.

See Germany's stance of citizens of Syria claiming refugee status.

Generally?
The justification that some of his surrogates have put forth is that the countries involved have previously been designated as potential sources of terrorism during the Obama administration. Superficially, that would seem like a good reason.

It's fairly obvious however that the measure is only intended to placate those voters who were attracted to his promise of a Muslim ban. A proposal that was a flagrant violation of the US constitution.

They put hardly any effort at all in arguing there's a serious, urgent need for the measure (the USA already had an extremely thorough vetting process to begin with) and implemented it overnight, without any regard for people who'd been through weeks (if not months) of paperwork and would end up being turned away at the airport.

Maybe the order will largely survive constitutional review in the end. Regardless it's a meanspirited measure, and dishonest in its motivations (since it's only aimed at keeping campaign promises, not genuine security concerns)

[spmetla]

It's very interesting the contrast between the Trump launch and the bush launch. With Bush, 90% of the American orgahs were fairly fiercely pro Bush. Very hawkish and nationalistic. Even hanging on to support through the Iraq and Afghanistan catastrophes.

With Trump it seems that the best the American orgahs can do is a few sheepish "let's wait and see" or "actions aren't as bad as his words".

I predict that he either starts ww3 or doesn't last 2017.

As one of the Orgahs that supported Bush for much longer than I should have I fall in the anti-Trump crowd. We have no real alternatives other than 'wait and see' though. He's emasculated the Republican leadership throughout the election and is forcibly completing its conversion into a "Tea Party" crackpot political group. This is unfortunately what the Republicans get for fostering the Tea Party folks and what the Democrats get for supporting every counter culture ultra-minority group (the people that claim non-binary gender for example). I'm not a pro- unchecked open border immigration guy by any means but the outright racism that's evident in his talk and actions is downright frightening to me; especially when coupled to his authoritarian approach to dissent.

I too fear he will blunder into a major war while dismembering NATO at the same time. Every day the news is more and more depressing to watch. I hated Clinton but I could at least have dealt with her competence versus this buffoon's approach.

Our system of checks and balances don't work if his own party feel obliged to toe the line on all his policies no matter how reprehensible just for the sake of being re-electable in two years.

[Xiahou]

So Trump nominated Gorsuch for the SCOTUS. From what I know of him, he's a fantastic choice- said to be a reliable Constitutional originalist, a textualist when it comes to ruling on legislation and tends to show deference to states rights over federal.

And yet... even when he's doing something great, Trump still makes my skin crawl when I hear him talking about it. He still manages to give off the slimy con-man vibe. :sweatdrop:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhbOD5QZu3M

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Generally?
The justification that some of his surrogates have put forth is that the countries involved have previously been designated as potential sources of terrorism during the Obama administration. Superficially, that would seem like a good reason.

It's fairly obvious however that the measure is only intended to placate those voters who were attracted to his promise of a Muslim ban. A proposal that was a flagrant violation of the US constitution.

They put hardly any effort at all in arguing there's a serious, urgent need for the measure (the USA already had an extremely thorough vetting process to begin with) and implemented it overnight, without any regard for people who'd been through weeks (if not months) of paperwork and would end up being turned away at the airport.

Maybe the order will largely survive constitutional review in the end. Regardless it's a meanspirited measure, and dishonest in its motivations (since it's only aimed at keeping campaign promises, not genuine security concerns)

The countries in question are Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen

With the exception of Iran those countries are all going through massive unrest or are in a state of systemic collapse. Trump see Iran as an enemy of the US. By contract Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are fairly stable internally and nominally US Allies.

I agree with you this is mean spirited and primarily a political move but I don't think it's a crude domestically targeted one. Someone thought quite hard about this - by making is virtually impossible for people from these countries to enter the US you send the message that these people are not welcome.

[a completely inoffensive name]

said to be a reliable Constitutional originalist,

How can you reliably interpret the Constitution the way the founders did, when they could not agree on how to interpret it on day 1?

[Xiahou]

How can you reliably interpret the Constitution the way the founders did, when they could not agree on how to interpret it on day 1?
I think originalism is a close cousin to textualism... I'll just steal this from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism) rather than trying to paraphrase:

The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have understood the ordinary meaning of the text to be. It is this view with which most originalists, such as Justice Scalia, are associated.I think that's pretty succinct.

Don't invent new meanings from the words that are written. Read what's there and apply it as literally as possible. If you don't like what's written- have your legislators change it. I think that's a good judicial philosophy.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think originalism is a close cousin to textualism... I'll just steal this from Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism) rather than trying to paraphrase:
I think that's pretty succinct.

Don't invent new meanings from the words that are written. Read what's there and apply it as literally as possible. If you don't like what's written- have your legislators change it. I think that's a good judicial philosophy.

Who is reasonable? Where is the line between inventing new meanings and discovering implied powers? Why must we redefine the Constitution through legislation to justify decisions when we can extend the logic that has already been provided? Do we toss aside our right to privacy as 20th century activism?

Ultimately, the arguments that originalist's make are colored by the inherent bias of the man within the robe. The people they cite and the logic they apply suit to fit their narrative of "reasonable men in year X". This cannot be avoided by even the most intellectually honest justices, as even Scalia clearly defiled his own philosophy on several occasions in order to uphold his Catholic values.

This is why anyone who supports originalism is deluded. This attempt to peg the Constitution to its history feels right only because we think of history itself as static and unchanging, like the book it is written in. In reality the United States has since its very beginning been a battle of ideologies, and it is the highest perversion to assert that in the 1870s out of 100 reasonable US citizens you would get anything other 100 different meanings of the Reconstruction Amendments.

[Strike For The South]

The idea that you can strip away all context from any document and then try to interpret it in any meaningful way is shit. Context gives words meaning.

if strict textualists meant what they said, all gun owners would have to be will drilled, registered with their state, and willing to commit to training. Because they way that sentence is written, the reason for gun ownership is an organized militia.

I also wouldn't have a problem if most of these guys were like Thomas and said "the court can't decide" rather than Scalia "the court erodes power".

[Montmorency]

If textualism as such were possible, all Supreme Court cases would be decided unanimously or by a bureaucratic council of lawyers, without recourse to "reasonable" hypotheticals at any point in history.


The idea that you can strip away all context from any document and then try to interpret it in any meaningful way is shit. Context gives words meaning.

if strict textualists meant what they said, all gun owners would have to be will drilled, registered with their state, and willing to commit to training. Because they way that sentence is written, the reason for gun ownership is an organized militia.

I also wouldn't have a problem if most of these guys were like Thomas and said "the court can't decide" rather than Scalia "the court erodes power".

To be generous, by the same token given a modern context we could offer differing notions of what constitutes militia. For example, police, neighborhood watch, verifying general fitness to be National Guard (without joining), probably others. So there are certainly ways to weaken even a hybrid interpretation.

[edyzmedieval]

If this view is correct, then the Republicans played out a Machiavelli textbook type play on the American public. :book:

Top Republicans and strategists realised that neither of the candidates stood any real chance against Hilary Clinton, no matter how hard they would try and turn the election in their favour. Neither of them. Hilary was overwhelmingly tipped to win. But they had "the Trump card" (pun intended). Trump didn't play out by the traditional political rules, which allowed the Republicans to gather on support from an electoral base that wasn't traditionally Republican, hence why they were able to expand their voter base even into Democratic strongholds. Trump's reality TV appeal also made him well known to the American public, in comparison to all of the others.

Pence however is the real Republican candidate.

He's a conservative Republican member, has a good track record in Indiana and he is respected and appreciated by the Republicans. But he had no chance against Hilary.

So the Republicans picked Trump as their sole chance of winning, they won it and Pence is the VP. With Trump creating a firestorm every single day, the chances for impeachment are ticking upwards, leading to a possibility of demotion... and Pence as the ideal Republican President.

[Dâriûsh]

Note on your sig, Dariush. I think you mean Fatehi and not the actress in your second quotation -- but some might miss that without the surname.

What, that old thing?

Or perchance it could be the actress and hence a quote from the darkest (and so far yet unreleased) episode of How I Met Your Mother. Think about it. :clown:

I’ll change it if you can give me a better one. :clown:



Not legislation, but an executive order. Such orders spell out the process by which the executive branch will execute the law promulgated by Congress. Were Congress to oppose the measures taken in the Executive Order, they could modify the law by which the President is empowered placing whatever limitations they preferred on the books. This change would require a 2/3 majority so as to be veto-proof, but that is the system under which we operate.

The executive order was NOT aimed at you personally, of course, though any refugee or would-be immigrant from Iran -- obviously including you -- will be barred from entry for the next 114 days or so. The sloppy execution of the order (e.g. holding up the entry of current legal residents) makes it clear that too many are aware of the media version without reading the blinking thing, including Customs officers apparently.

The only indefinite ban (at least so far) is on those from Syria.

The order will, from the look of things, probably be extended to other nations of concern after about 60 days -- based in part on their willingness/ability or lack of willingness/ability to provide the additional information envisaged in the new and more robust vetting procedures referenced in the order.

The whole point is to resume immigration and the refugee program after this hiatus, with the hiatus having been used to establish and place assets to conduct the more rigorous screening. The more rigorous screening is not, apparently, going to be applied to all and sundry (though I expect that it will be, bowing to political pressure for fairness, once the new procedures are in place). Customs and immigration is about to become a good deal more costly to the taxpayer.

I actually think that a better vetting process is a good idea, and that it should be applied to all and sundry both for fairness and because much of the potential threat but by no means all of a potential threat is lodged in these nations. As this was such a centerpiece of his campaign for so long, however, I am a bit frustrated that a more complete process is going to take 4 months to get in place. Should have had people working on the specifics from 11/15 on

Executive order there, potential legislation here. Rightwing politicians around Europe is watching the United States (and that man) on this. The fewer protests such measures evoke, the more likely the European extremists will be inclined to copy, or escalate upon, said measures.


Regarding a better vetting process - as a “Muslim” guy, I have experienced my fair share of vetting up until now.

This includes them taking my laptop and phone and demanding access codes, implying that they have the right to demand access to my Facebook profile and email, and generally just been forced to wait for hours. I dread to think they can take it any further.

Seeing your non-Muslim-looking friends and co-workers go through checks without incidents, often smiling sheepishly afterwards and apologizing (as if they have to), is both demeaning and humiliating.

Stuff like this is difficult not to take personal. So I am all for fairness.

[Strike For The South]

If textualism as such were possible, all Supreme Court cases would be decided unanimously or by a bureaucratic council of lawyers, without recourse to "reasonable" hypotheticals at any point in history.
And what judge doesn't revert to hypotheticals? Maybe Thomas? I suppose asking no questions because the text answers the arguements presented before you is a valid strategy. Most of these Judges merely side with capital against labor, in both social and economic cases. Although, considering who the founders were, they would probably be fine with that. But making that inference would be using my context, which is bad.



To be generous, by the same token given a modern context we could offer differing notions of what constitutes militia. For example, police, neighborhood watch, verifying general fitness to be National Guard (without joining), probably others. So there are certainly ways to weaken even a hybrid interpretation.

True. My whole thing is i want stricter gun controls and think the constitution allows for them. That's what I'm getting at as I wait for the optometrist.

In other news, Trump has finally broken the Catholic-Jewish stranglehold on the judiciary. For too long the voice of the white protestant man has gone unheard, this is our time!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Regarding a better vetting process - as a “Muslim” guy, I have experienced my fair share of vetting up until now.

This includes them taking my laptop and phone and demanding access codes, implying that they have the right to demand access to my Facebook profile and email, and generally just been forced to wait for hours. I dread to think they can take it any further.

Seeing your non-Muslim-looking friends and co-workers go through checks without incidents, often smiling sheepishly afterwards and apologizing (as if they have to), is both demeaning and humiliating.

Stuff like this is difficult not to take personal. So I am all for fairness.

I suspect I would feel much the same were I in that position. It is a fair point to make.

I also suspect that whatever enhanced vetting procedures become the norm will eventually extend to all refugees, immigrants, and those applying for extended residency.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...In other news, Trump has finally broken the Catholic-Jewish stranglehold on the judiciary. For too long the voice of the white protestant man has gone unheard, this is our time!

But how can we expect a judge to judge righteously if they have NOT been raised in a tradition of guilt?

[Xiahou]

The idea that you can strip away all context from any document and then try to interpret it in any meaningful way is shit. Context gives words meaning.I don't think originalism means stripping away all context. I think it means looking that the context it was passed in.


if strict textualists meant what they said, all gun owners would have to be will drilled, registered with their state, and willing to commit to training. Because they way that sentence is written, the reason for gun ownership is an organized militia.
This is..... not true. A strict reading of the 2A says no such thing. " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" stands as an independent clause grammatically- your textualist argument fails. Feel free to produce any support from the framers that they meant, if you want to try the originalist approach.

[Vuk]

So I heard that somewhere out there is a video of a Donald Trump where he has a garbanzo bean on his face. Makes me so proud that he is representing this country.
That is my serious and relevant commentary. :)
Peace, out.

[Dâriûsh]

That president sure is talking a lot about Iran right now.

[Idaho]

That president sure is talking a lot about Iran right now.

He needs external and internal enemies to keep up the aggressive momentum.

[Idaho]

I don't think originalism means stripping away all context. I think it means looking that the context it was passed in.

This is..... not true. A strict reading of the 2A says no such thing. " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" stands as an independent clause grammatically- your textualist argument fails. Feel free to produce any support from the framers that they meant, if you want to try the originalist approach.

Why do you Americans have to think that your constitution is a sacred document? It's not sacred, it's just a reasonably good legal text, with a few dated anachronisms - created by a small group of land owners and slave owners in a specific context.

[Greyblades]

Were I cruel, I would say that it is to the americans what a roman aqueduct was to a medieval european: a thing revered and studied because the ability to recreate constructs (or in this case legeslature) of such quality has been long lost.

[Idaho]

Were I cruel, I would say that it is to the americans what a roman aqueduct was to a medieval european: a thing revered and studied because the ability to recreate constructs (or in this case legeslature) of such quality has been long lost.

I think you might be right.

The most important statement in the US constitution is "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". I could never imagine happiness being enshrined in the UK. Spiteful misery, yes. Vengeful cruelty - natch. And yet while they wrote those words, they were condemning thousands to death, slavery in the pursuit of other's greed. I can't think of a stronger argument that the constitution is a product of its context and that context (like all contexts) was blinkered, hypocritical and self serving.

[Greyblades]

And I thought i was cynical.

[Strike For The South]

I don't think originalism means stripping away all context. I think it means looking that the context it was passed in.
It's a legal doctrine that allows decades of precedent to be washed away while the judge hides behind the constitution claiming its not what the founders would have wanted. No one is a true originalist (except for maybe Thomas, the old scamp). They are an originalist when it suits them. It's an excuse for regressive policies in the guise of an ideology.


This is..... not true. A strict reading of the 2A says no such thing. " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" stands as an independent clause grammatically- your textualist argument fails. Feel free to produce any support from the framers that they meant, if you want to try the originalist approach.

Except that's only half the sentence? You are leaving out as part of a well regulated militia. It's a right that comes with a responsibility. There is no need to have a prefatory statement if all the 2a meant was "you can keep your guns". You can keep your guns if you are well regulated.

If I told you: "I'm broke, so I've started sucking dick under the bridge" and then you went to Seamus and said "Strike is sucking dick under the bridge" you would be leaving at a pertinent peice of information despite the fact "I've started sucking dick under the bridge" is an independent clause.

[Strike For The South]

I think you might be right.

The most important statement in the US constitution is "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". I could never imagine happiness being enshrined in the UK. Spiteful misery, yes. Vengeful cruelty - natch. And yet while they wrote those words, they were condemning thousands to death, slavery in the pursuit of other's greed. I can't think of a stronger argument that the constitution is a product of its context and that context (like all contexts) was blinkered, hypocritical and self serving.

Bruh. That's the declaration. Nice pontification though.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't think originalism means stripping away all context. I think it means looking that the context it was passed in.

This is..... not true. A strict reading of the 2A says no such thing. " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" stands as an independent clause grammatically- your textualist argument fails. Feel free to produce any support from the framers that they meant, if you want to try the originalist approach.

Grammatically, and it therefore follows legally, this is incorrect - what you quoted is not a single clause, it is a compound clause, a single clause would not have a comma.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This is a single complete sentence with a specific internal logic.

1. A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

2. Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This tells us a number of things - it gives primacy to the need for a well regulated militia, not a "free militia" but a well regulated one. It then specifies that the militia is to be composed of the "people" who have an inherent right to "bear arms". Here's the thing, in the context is was written "bear arms" means something different to "hold arms". Specifically, to "bear arms" is the right to use weaponry, not the right to own it.

A literal, and contextually consistent, interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would be to have an armoury with M16 rifles in every town under the care of a professional armourer where every adult citizen (or just every adult male citizen) was required to train at least twice a month and pass certification on the weapon once a year.

Another interpretation would be a centrally held register of every firearm in the US and a requirement that every family with an income over a certain threshold possess at least one AR-15 derivative weapon chambered in 5.56mm NATO (so that the Federal Government can distribute ammunition efficiently in time of war).

Yet another interpretation would be that the National Guard is the "well regulated militia" and ever man has a right to join and therefore "bear arms" which completely negates the private gun ownership argument - this being the line taken by the Supreme Court until some time after WWII.

What is most certainly true is that if you accept that the right to "bear arms" is inalienable then you must also accept that the "state" has a Constitutional responsibility to "regulate" with a view to forming a militia. Whilst this doesn't allow for an automatic weapons ban it DOES place certain responsibilities on the "state" to regulate the calibre of weapons being sold as well as the quality. You can't have your militia turn up with grotty rifles that all jam after a week and become unusable either because they were cheap or because they were poorly looked after.

There are certainly a number of interpretations, and I think that was deliberate, but it's very clear that the intention was for a regulated "citizen militia" which could defend the US from external enemies. It's also clear that regulation at either State or Federal level was seen as necessary to achieve the required level of effectiveness.

[CrossLOPER]

Why do you Americans have to think that your constitution is a sacred document?
Mainly the second amendment. I have never seen any other amendment more defended in recent times than that one.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Why do you Americans have to think that your constitution is a sacred document? It's not sacred, it's just a reasonably good legal text, with a few dated anachronisms - created by a small group of land owners and slave owners in a specific context.

One view (http://www.libertyroundtable.com/2014/03/18/whats-so-special-about-the-us-constitution-anyway/)

was looking for a European political scientist's assessment, but my google fu failed

[Pannonian]

Grammatically, and it therefore follows legally, this is incorrect - what you quoted is not a single clause, it is a compound clause, a single clause would not have a comma.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This is a single complete sentence with a specific internal logic.

1. A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

2. Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This tells us a number of things - it gives primacy to the need for a well regulated militia, not a "free militia" but a well regulated one. It then specifies that the militia is to be composed of the "people" who have an inherent right to "bear arms". Here's the thing, in the context is was written "bear arms" means something different to "hold arms". Specifically, to "bear arms" is the right to use weaponry, not the right to own it.

A literal, and contextually consistent, interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would be to have an armoury with M16 rifles in every town under the care of a professional armourer where every adult citizen (or just every adult male citizen) was required to train at least twice a month and pass certification on the weapon once a year.

Another interpretation would be a centrally held register of every firearm in the US and a requirement that every family with an income over a certain threshold possess at least one AR-15 derivative weapon chambered in 5.56mm NATO (so that the Federal Government can distribute ammunition efficiently in time of war).

Yet another interpretation would be that the National Guard is the "well regulated militia" and ever man has a right to join and therefore "bear arms" which completely negates the private gun ownership argument - this being the line taken by the Supreme Court until some time after WWII.

What is most certainly true is that if you accept that the right to "bear arms" is inalienable then you must also accept that the "state" has a Constitutional responsibility to "regulate" with a view to forming a militia. Whilst this doesn't allow for an automatic weapons ban it DOES place certain responsibilities on the "state" to regulate the calibre of weapons being sold as well as the quality. You can't have your militia turn up with grotty rifles that all jam after a week and become unusable either because they were cheap or because they were poorly looked after.

There are certainly a number of interpretations, and I think that was deliberate, but it's very clear that the intention was for a regulated "citizen militia" which could defend the US from external enemies. It's also clear that regulation at either State or Federal level was seen as necessary to achieve the required level of effectiveness.

One would argue, with some substance given how the English language has been used through the centuries, that the first part of the sentence should be the most important. Second amendment fans should be doing their utmost to organise well regulated militias, with the subsequent clauses being subservient to this first and leading clause. Military history would point to organisation being the most important part of such bodies (with logistics, clear command hierarchy, etc).

I'm not too familiar with how things are in the states, so do the above exist in any practical form?

[drone]

This tells us a number of things - it gives primacy to the need for a well regulated militia, not a "free militia" but a well regulated one. It then specifies that the militia is to be composed of the "people" who have an inherent right to "bear arms". Here's the thing, in the context is was written "bear arms" means something different to "hold arms". Specifically, to "bear arms" is the right to use weaponry, not the right to own it.
Technically, we have a "well regulated" militia. The Militia Act of 1903 defines both the organized and unorganized militias, most males aged 17-45 are part of the latter.


Another interpretation would be a centrally held register of every firearm in the US and a requirement that every family with an income over a certain threshold possess at least one AR-15 derivative weapon chambered in 5.56mm NATO (so that the Federal Government can distribute ammunition efficiently in time of war).
Just one? Filthy casuals. :tongue:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Technically, we have a "well regulated" militia. The Militia Act of 1903 defines both the organized and unorganized militias, most males aged 17-45 are part of the latter.


Just one? Filthy casuals. :tongue:

The question you need to ask your self is: if I presented the "unorganised militia" to George Washington how long would he need to organise them?

If the answer is anything other than a few weeks then it's a failure to the spirit of the Second Amendment. One of the purposes of the "Organised militia" is a final check on tyranny. If your military is basically the same as your civilian population it's virtually impossible to use one to oppress the other.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The question you need to ask your self is: if I presented the "unorganised militia" to George Washington how long would he need to organise them?

If the answer is anything other than a few weeks then it's a failure to the spirit of the Second Amendment. One of the purposes of the "Organised militia" is a final check on tyranny. If your military is basically the same as your civilian population it's virtually impossible to use one to oppress the other.

And that is the condition that currently obtains. Government tyranny would not be possible using the military because they would -- mostly -- interpret that as an illegal order and not gun down fellow citizens who were not actively shooting them.


As to your larger point, the "unorganized militia" that forms the bulk of our "militia" forces is a bit of a dodge of the spirit of the militia concept.

I would like to see the Guard as the organized militia, with a "reserve" militia force that does meet certain basic standards (weapons fit for use with annual mini courses in safety and basic range time) for all persons not delineated/accepted by the community as exempt from militia service and with as many of those as have appropriate skills serving in non-combatant militia capacity.

[Montmorency]

The big error was Scalia in the Heller case handwaving the establishing/prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, which for other amendments is always understood as having equal stature to the "operative" clause, and claiming that it presented a statement regarding personal self-defense.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Some good points here.

At that juncture in my nation's history, it was really THESE and not THE United States of America.

State government was a much more profound influence on the populace and the scope and role of the federal government was much less than today.

In that context, the militias of each county or city were of much greater import than the militias of today, and outside the cities the militia often comprised nearly every male from 16 to 60ish in their local area.

That condition does not obtain today.

[Pannonian]

Some good points here.

At that juncture in my nation's history, it was really THESE and not THE United States of America.

State government was a much more profound influence on the populace and the scope and role of the federal government was much less than today.

In that context, the militias of each county or city were of much greater import than the militias of today, and outside the cities the militia often comprised nearly every male from 16 to 60ish in their local area.

That condition does not obtain today.

Does originalism/textualism take that into account?

[AE Bravo]

You know what middle eastern countries that are not in that list do right? Ban incitement speech and fighting words in mosques. If anyone should be deported, it's the openly hostile. IIRC this is a violation of the first amendment, and these people's existence in western societies is solely to condemn and dehumanize them. They have no purpose there and nobody will miss their imprisonment besides terrorists. There is a reason these preachers aren't in a Muslim country, you gave them leeway.

At this point Trump has nowhere to go but escalate things further. So what would doubling down look like? Blatant targeting of Muslims, which will divide the country and serve the interests of Islamists once again.

[Greyblades]

What doesn't serve the interest of islamists these days?

[Kagemusha]

What doesn't serve the interest of islamists these days?

Things that Kurds with Northern Sunni tribes,Iraqi army, Western Sunni tribes and PMU (with backing of Iran) are doing to them at Iraq at this very moment. Now without coalition air support for couple weeks since Trump took the office.

[Greyblades]

Yes, in reality that would be true, my question was a rhetorical question highlighting the tendency for Islamic apologists to declare every action that isn't sit there and turn the other cheek to the suicide bombings as playing into the hands of the Islamists.

For examples of what I am taking about you can listen to the speeches of professional cuckold Justin "If you kill your enemies, they win" Truedau

[Husar]

Yes, in reality that would be true, my question was a rhetorical question highlighting the tendency for Islamic apologists to declare every action that isn't sit there and turn the other cheek to the suicide bombings as playing into the hands of the Islamists.

For examples of what I am taking about you can listen to the speeches of professional cuckold Justin "If you kill your enemies, they win" Truedau

Can't seem to find any of that because alt-right terrorists attacked a mosque in Canada and that seems to be all that shows up now when you look for Trudeau on terrorism. Pics or it didn't happen. Also waiting for an apology from the alt-right, so far they seem to support this kind of terrorism.

[Kagemusha]

Yes, in reality that would be true, my question was a rhetorical question highlighting the tendency for Islamic apologists to declare every action that isn't sit there and turn the other cheek to the suicide bombings as playing into the hands of the Islamists.

For examples of what I am taking about you can listen to the speeches of professional cuckold Justin "If you kill your enemies, they win" Truedau

I understand that your question was rhetorical. That is why i thought it would be even more so important to answer to it with non rhetorical reply.

I think large part of the problem with Islamist is that both sides of Western political specter are rather more interested at criticizing the views of their political opponents concerning islamist. Rather then focusing in settling the issue of these lunatics in any way. If we look at the problem pragmatically. The body count islamist terrorist can create at Europe and US is rather minimal compared to other social problems. Our police and military forces with the aid of intelligence operators have hampered and foiled most of the attacks as of late, most even before those were launched. So i do not see any reason to spread hysteria over it. Last of today a fellow yelling Allahu Akbar and attacking people with a knife was shot at Louvre Paris.

It seems that the local inhabitants of Middle East are defeating the islamists at Iraq and Syria. With more time, less support they get from us, but defeating them anyways. The problem is what after that? We have the most islamist country in the World Saudi-Arabia as close partner of US and the West, so generally speaking. I cant see at least the financial support for the islamist terrorist/ Sunni supremist ending any time soon.

A completely other problem is possible radicalization of some of the Western Muslim communities, but that is an internal political problem of Western countries.

[Montmorency]

I think large part of the problem with Islamist is that both sides of Western political specter are rather more interested at criticizing the views of their political opponents concerning islamist. Rather then focusing in settling the issue of these lunatics in any way. If we look at the problem pragmatically. The body count islamist terrorist can create at Europe and US is rather minimal compared to other social problems. Our police and military forces with the aid of intelligence operators have hampered and foiled most of the attacks as of late, most even before those were launched. So i do not see any reason to spread hysteria over it. Last of today a fellow yelling Allahu Akbar and attacking people with a knife was shot at Louvre Paris.

The political issue, though, is of convincing the populace that they are in fact not much less safe than before when viscerally they reject statistical arguments. That issue is every bit as significant as actually "stopping" Islamists. Impunity in itself weighs heavily on the mind of the average citizen.

[Husar]

I understand that your question was rhetorical. That is why i thought it would be even more so important to answer to it with non rhetorical reply.

I think large part of the problem with Islamist is that both sides of Western political specter are rather more interested at criticizing the views of their political opponents concerning islamist. Rather then focusing in settling the issue of these lunatics in any way. If we look at the problem pragmatically. The body count islamist terrorist can create at Europe and US is rather minimal compared to other social problems. Our police and military forces with the aid of intelligence operators have hampered and foiled most of the attacks as of late, most even before those were launched. So i do not see any reason to spread hysteria over it. Last of today a fellow yelling Allahu Akbar and attacking people with a knife was shot at Louvre Paris.

It seems that the local inhabitants of Middle East are defeating the islamists at Iraq and Syria. With more time, less support they get from us, but defeating them anyways. The problem is what after that? We have the most islamist country in the World Saudi-Arabia as close partner of US and the West, so generally speaking. I cant see at least the financial support for the islamist terrorist/ Sunni supremist ending any time soon.

A completely other problem is possible radicalization of some of the Western Muslim communities, but that is an internal political problem of Western countries.

Why do you hate yourself and want muslims to take over Europe? :drama2:


The political issue, though, is of convincing the populace that they are in fact not much less safe than before when viscerally they reject statistical arguments. That issue is every bit as significant as actually "stopping" Islamists. Impunity in itself weighs heavily on the mind of the average citizen.

The problem is when you call them average, you're being elitist and they will vote for Trump/AfD/UKIP/Le Pen because they're very clever flowers unlike the special leftist snowflakes who think we're not all average. :dizzy2:

I'm also not sure whether it is a rejection of statistical arguments when people create a fake map to show how terrible and statistically significant immigrant crime supposedly is. I think it has more to do with the old Stalin quote where every death of a "christian" person is a tragedy and all the dead "muslim" people are a statistic. :sweatdrop:
And then of course the reliance of capitalist media on clicks for ad sales. If a badly researched piece for the echo chamber gets more clicks than a well-researched article about how both sides have their faults, it polarizes more and more. Like the librarians use to say, the private sector can polarize best. :2thumbsup:

[Viking]

The political issue, though, is of convincing the populace that they are in fact not much less safe than before when viscerally they reject statistical arguments. That issue is every bit as significant as actually "stopping" Islamists. Impunity in itself weighs heavily on the mind of the average citizen.

Statistics would presumably show that the number of people killed by Islamists or Islamists-inspired attackers in Europe is currently at or near an all-time high.

[Montmorency]

Statistics would presumably show that the number of people killed by Islamists or Islamists-inspired attackers in Europe is currently at or near an all-time high.

Higher than in the past - and? Should it be a source of urgent alarm in daily activities?

[Viking]

Higher than in the past - and?

Can we predict where the ceiling will be? A trend upwards isn't particularly promising, particularly when the trends for most (?) other forms of antisocial activity seem to go the other way.


Should it be a source of urgent alarm in daily activities?

Is it, though?

[Montmorency]

Can we predict where the ceiling will be? A trend upwards isn't particularly promising, particularly when the trends for most (?) other forms of antisocial activity seem to go the other way.

We're at a ceiling for the time being, unless or until a much more powerful internationalist organization arises with ideology calling for a focus on the West (Al Qaeda's long-war focus on attacking Muslim governments has regained currency now that IS is foundering), or there is more grassroots animosity in the West. But even then we will be looking at the same orders of magnitude for casualties unless individual attacks can be made much more effective.

Which means that the present time is for developing out security and emergency response tools, as no concrete "solution" to terrorism is forthcoming.


Is it, though?

Yes? (http://www.gallup.com/poll/4909/terrorism-united-states.aspx)

But more than just polling, individuals give testimony that the specter of terrorism is somehow worse than the possibility of other incident, crime or victimization in that it makes them feel unsafe at all times and in all places.

[Kagemusha]

The political issue, though, is of convincing the populace that they are in fact not much less safe than before when viscerally they reject statistical arguments. That issue is every bit as significant as actually "stopping" Islamists. Impunity in itself weighs heavily on the mind of the average citizen.

QFT


Why do you hate yourself and want muslims to take over Europe? :drama2:

I love them as much as myself and any other unique snowflake.Whether a leftist hippie or right wing nutter. Just wander at my lawn and find out..:mellow:


Statistics would presumably show that the number of people killed by Islamists or Islamists-inspired attackers in Europe is currently at or near an all-time high.

Here is some statistics about people being killed at terrorist attacks at Europe:

http://www.datagraver.com/case/people-killed-by-terrorism-per-year-in-western-europe-1970-2015

I know already that you are going to say that this does not dish out Islamist terrorist. My reply is that there always will be nutters out there who want to kill other people for some marvelous cause. Statistically there are less victims of terrorism then in the past.

[HopAlongBunny]

The numbers are less meaningful than the story.
No it doesn't rise to the level (in body count) as the storming of Juno or Omaha; the numbers pale to insignificance when compared to say traffic deaths.
But the stories, sell papers and drive clicks so we get a steady supply (framed in fact or "enhanced")
It counts because it is the narrative we get; you could go further of course, say painting it as the puppet show we get to distract from "inconvenient" stories/narratives.

[Viking]

We're at a ceiling for the time being, unless or until a much more powerful internationalist organization arises with ideology calling for a focus on the West (Al Qaeda's long-war focus on attacking Muslim governments has regained currency now that IS is foundering), or there is more grassroots animosity in the West. But even then we will be looking at the same orders of magnitude for casualties unless individual attacks can be made much more effective.

Then there's also the factor of immigration, which is continuously creating a larger pool to draw potential attackers from.


it makes them feel unsafe at all times and in all places.

Do you have a source for this? How many?


Statistically there are less victims of terrorism then in the past.

With the exception of jihadist-related attacks, as shown in graph 3.

There will 'always' be the danger to people's lives from this and that, but of course we should still try to minimise such risks.


The numbers are less meaningful than the story.
No it doesn't rise to the level (in body count) as the storming of Juno or Omaha; the numbers pale to insignificance when compared to say traffic deaths.
But the stories, sell papers and drive clicks so we get a steady supply (framed in fact or "enhanced")
It counts because it is the narrative we get; you could go further of course, say painting it as the puppet show we get to distract from "inconvenient" stories/narratives.

If you want the media to focus on the things that kill the most people rather than the things that are the most spectacular, you've only just started. I don't think there would much room for Trump's travel ban or his groping comments in this new media landscape.

[Dâriûsh]

The buffoons in the Iranian RG have fallen for Trumps provocations (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/donald-trump-iran-twitter-missiles-revolutionary-guards-nuclear-deal-a7562516.html).

"If we see smallest misstep from the enemies, our roaring missiles will fall on their heads." :dizzy2:

Depicted: the glorious roaring missiles of the Islamic Revolution

https://bunkstrutts.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/iranmissilephotoshop5_lgf.jpg

[Sarmatian]

Is this still a Trump thread?

[HopAlongBunny]

In memory of those who perished in the Bowling Green Massacre; thank you Frederik Douglass for all his good work that day

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/02/03/kellyanne-conway-cites-bowling-green-massacre-that-never-happened-to-defend-travel-ban/?utm_term=.0f9372a267f9

You just can't make stuff like this up:clown:

[Husar]

This is so wonderful...

After the Dutch famously introduced their nation to Donald Trump, other comedy shows across Europe came together with them and created their own introductions, which can be found here:

http://everysecondcounts.eu

Only a few are up so far, I think a few more will go up once they aired in their respective countries and we'll see whether more countries join in later.

Here is the German entry as a teaser:


https://youtu.be/WcH9eWBs9fw?t=100

Skip to about 1:35 or start from the website above for the actual intro video since it seems linking directly to a certain time does not work here.

[Montmorency]

Then there's also the factor of immigration, which is continuously creating a larger pool to draw potential attackers from.

In absolute terms, of course. Right behind that is latent population growth.

Apparently there could be anywhere from 0.5-1.0 million (http://www.fromtroubledlands.net/from_troubled_lands.pdf) just of Pakistani-Americans at the moment.

This line of thinking doesn't mean much unless you embrace the methodology of targeted national restrictions, because you expect the existing pool to boil over (because of unprecedented persecution combined with unprecedented jihadi success abroad, maybe?).


Do you have a source for this? How many?

This isn't from polling or anything, just various op-eds I've read from across the right-wing spectrum. I've found left-wing perspectives more likely to emphasize the necessity of solidarity and the like (i.e. that embracing solidarity is how to alleviate one's own security misgivings).


The buffoons in the Iranian RG have fallen for Trumps provocations (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/donald-trump-iran-twitter-missiles-revolutionary-guards-nuclear-deal-a7562516.html).

"If we see smallest misstep from the enemies, our roaring missiles will fall on their heads." :dizzy2:

Depicted: the glorious roaring missiles of the Islamic Revolution


We've got bad hombres here in the United States, maybe if we can't handle them...

[Greyblades]

Never like the statistical argument against border controls, to me it sounds like "only 1 in a million die to salmonella die in this country, so we shouldnt worry if the food standards authoriities are allowed to become slack."

[Montmorency]

Never like the statistical argument against border controls, to me it sounds like "only 1 in a million die to salmonella die in this country, so we shouldnt worry if the food standards authoriities are allowed to become slack."

They're slack?

[Greyblades]

Cut by over a third.
Feds to cut aerial surveillance on the border by 50 percent (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/2/feds-cut-aerial-surveillance-border-50-percent/) February 2, 2016.
Border Patrol Cuts Use of Force by Nearly 40 Percent Over 2 Years (http://abcnews.go.com/US/border-patrol-cuts-force-40-percent-years/story?id=34430669) Oct 13, 2015

[Kagemusha]

Never like the statistical argument against border controls, to me it sounds like "only 1 in a million die to salmonella die in this country, so we shouldnt worry if the food standards authoriities are allowed to become slack."

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”-Yoda

[Greyblades]

Yoda spent his last years with an animator's hand up is ass, so I'll take that with a grain of salt.

[Montmorency]

Cut by over a third.
Feds to cut aerial surveillance on the border by 50 percent (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/2/feds-cut-aerial-surveillance-border-50-percent/) February 2, 2016.

What a disingenuous metonymy.

Anyway (https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/border-surveillance-follies)...


The DHS IG found that “ … after 8 years, CBP cannot prove that the program is effective.” Worse, the CBP low-balled the per-hour cost of operating its drones. Instead of the claimed $2,468 per flight hour, the DHS IG found the cost was $12,255 per hour — nearly five times as much as CBP officials have claimed. Almost no illegal border crossing apprehensions could be attributed to information from the drones, and the CBP could not show the drones actually reduced the cost of border surveillance. Despite these findings, the CBP has not abandoned plans to spend nearly half a billion dollars more to expand its drone program.

Directing a federal agency that has already squandered hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on failed surveillance technologies and policies to engage in more of the same reinforces the image of Congress being a dysfunctional institution.


Border Patrol Cuts Use of Force by Nearly 40 Percent Over 2 Years (http://abcnews.go.com/US/border-patrol-cuts-force-40-percent-years/story?id=34430669) Oct 13, 2015


Violent encounters with both immigrants and American citizens were down to 768 in fiscal year 2015 (October 2014 to September 2015) from 1,215 in fiscal 2013 (October 2012 to September 2013).

Sounds like a success.

[Kagemusha]

Yoda spent his last years with an animator's hand up is ass, so I'll take that with a grain of salt.

Young padawan. Once you advance towards age of Yoda. Your prostate will eventually teach you the meaning of hand up in the ass...Just wait and see young padawan.

[Greyblades]

What a disingenuous metonymy.

Anyway (https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/border-surveillance-follies)...

Sounds like a success.


“This reduction is especially significant, considering that assaults against agents and officers have essentially remained steady.”

In 2014 (I assume this is a typo for 2015), there were 390 assaults on agents, according to CBP; whereas in 2014 there were 373 and 2013 there were 468.

In 2014 there were 486,651 apprehensions on the border, in 2015 this dropped to 337,117 and rose back to 415,816 last year. Source (https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2016-Oct/BP%20Total%20Monthly%20Apps%20by%20Sector%20and%20Area%2C%20FY2000-FY2016.pdf).

Just by correlation I would say that the violent encounters were bound to go down as such in reflection of the lowered overall numbers, whereas the amount of attacks on officers slightly increased.

I see this as a "success" in the vein of the "failure" that was the introduction of metal helmets in ww1 which increased the reported head injuries, took them a while to realize the helmets were merely converting fatalities into injury.

The cato instutute is a libertarian think tank funded by the koch brothers, without supporting evidence It would be hard to take take their words as mcuh more than biased allegation.

Speaking of libertarians, going a bit further back it can be found that it was obama of all people who was wrestling with the republicans into underfunding border security. House GOP slashed Obama's $3.7 billion into $600 million on an emergency bill in 2014 (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/house-gop-border-bill-funding-cut-109490).

I'm looking for whether this bill passed so low but if it or any other gutted bill passed it might explain the why of the lowered apprehensions.

[Montmorency]

In 2014 there were 486,651 apprehensions on the border, in 2015 this dropped to 337,117 and rose back to 415,816 last year. Source (https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2016-Oct/BP%20Total%20Monthly%20Apps%20by%20Sector%20and%20Area%2C%20FY2000-FY2016.pdf).

Just by correlation I would say that the violent encounters were bound to go down as such in reflection of the lowered overall numbers, whereas the amount of attacks on officers slightly increased.

I see this as a "success" in the vein of the "failure" that was the introduction of metal helmets in ww1 which increased the reported head injuries, took them a while to realize the helmets were merely converting fatalities into injury.

The cato instutute is a libertarian think tank funded by the koch brothers, without supporting evidence It would be hard to take take their words as mcuh more than biased allegation.

Speaking of libertarians, going a bit further back it can be found that it was obama of all people who was wrestling with the republicans into underfunding border security. House GOP slashed Obama's $3.7 billion into $600 million on an emergency bill in 2014 (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/house-gop-border-bill-funding-cut-109490).

I'm looking for whether this bill passed so low but if it or any other gutted bill passed it might explain the why of the lowered apprehensions.

From the horse's mouth (https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/pr/2015/oigpr_010615.pdf).

As for (Southern) border security under Obama, unsurprisingly for an 8-year period the picture isn't a simple one.

Cato (https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/president-obamas-mixed-legacy-immigration) again:


President Obama has a mixed record on immigration. On one hand, he is the most stringent enforcer of immigration laws in American history — far outstripping the deportation numbers of the George W. Bush and earlier administrations. On the other hand, his executive actions have helped shield large swaths of illegal immigrants from deportation.

From NPR (http://www.npr.org/2016/08/31/491965912/5-things-to-know-about-obamas-enforcement-of-immigration-laws):


Deportations Rose During The First Half Of Obama’s Administration, But Have Declined In Recent Years

President Obama's approach to immigration enforcement is really two very different approaches: one for those caught near the border, the other for immigrants found living illegally in the interior.
[...]
"The result is sharply different enforcement pictures at the border and within the United States," according to a report from the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute. "At the border, there is a near zero tolerance system, where unauthorized immigrants are increasingly subject to formal removal and criminal charges. Within the country, there is greater flexibility."

Illegal immigration from Mexico has dropped in recent years, but many from Central America still attempt to cross.

The Washington times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/1/immigrants-surge-at-border-under-obamas-mismanagem/) notes a "surge" in 2016...


Chief Morgan’s description of what’s happening was disputed across town by Jeh Johnson, the secretary of Homeland Security, at a forum sponsored by the Bipartisan Policy Center. He prescribes greater attention to “underlying circumstances” in Central American countries.
“Experience shows that you can build more walls and you can put more border security on the southwest border, but you’ve got to address the underlying circumstances in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador that motivate a 7-year-old child to transit the entire length of Mexico, come to the United States for a better life. Until we start addressing these underlying conditions and until we build out the alternative safe legal paths to come to this country, we’re going to deal with this problem.”

[Husar]

So what do people think about Trump's executive order to begin banking deregulation?

I thought Hillary was despised for being in the pocket of the banks and now Trump wants to deregulate them?
People questioned Hillary's willingness to rein in the banks and voted for a guy who openly wants to give them free range again?
Whose pensions were destroyed when the lending rules were more open? Those of the "establishment"?

Not to forget he literally mentioned his friends (=rich people) needing more money from the banks.

https://www.bowlinggreenmassacrefund.com

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So what do people think about Trump's executive order to begin banking deregulation?

I thought Hillary was despised for being in the pocket of the banks and now Trump wants to deregulate them?
People questioned Hillary's willingness to rein in the banks and voted for a guy who openly wants to give them free range again?
Whose pensions were destroyed when the lending rules were more open? Those of the "establishment"?

Not to forget he literally mentioned his friends (=rich people) needing more money from the banks.

https://www.bowlinggreenmassacrefund.com

Sanders was the one who was hammering Hillary most on that issue. Trump always took the stance that he can deal with Wall street because he is too rich to be bought by them. At least that was the rhetoric.

It remains to be seen which regulations will be pruned, if any, to abide by the terms of the executive order (2 regulations out for every new one added). As it is, no changes at all would leave things just as they are.

[Husar]

Sanders was the one who was hammering Hillary most on that issue. Trump always took the stance that he can deal with Wall street because he is too rich to be bought by them. At least that was the rhetoric.

It remains to be seen which regulations will be pruned, if any, to abide by the terms of the executive order (2 regulations out for every new one added). As it is, no changes at all would leave things just as they are.

Well, Sanders is also the one who posted the following on Facebook:


To say that Donald Trump is a hypocrite would be a major understatement. During his campaign he told the American people that he would be taking on the powerful forces of Wall Street and the rigged economy. On January 9, 2016, he said: “I'm not going to let Wall Street get away with murder. Wall Street has caused tremendous problems for us. We're going to tax Wall Street." In August of 2016, Trump said: “We can’t fix a rigged system by relying on the people who rigged it in the first place." He even managed to put into the Republican platform language that called for reinstating Glass-Steagall legislation.
Surprise, surprise. Now that he's president, he has turned his back on everything he said during the campaign and cozied up to Wall Street. Many of his major financial appointments come directly from Wall Street and Goldman Sachs — architects of the rigged economy. Among other Goldman-Sachs alumni in his administration are: White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, Treasury Secretary nominee Steve Mnuchin, National Economic Council Chairman-appointee Gary Cohn and Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman nominee Jay Clayton.

Paired with the following link: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-adds-goldman-sachs-executive-administration-article-1.2944943

You can interprete that however you want, while it may be true that an administration full of bankers cannot be bribed by bankers may be true, only because it does not require bribes if you put bankers in charge in the first place. And the following is also interesting: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/2/3/14414362/trump-cabinet-golden-parachute


Chao and Cohn pose a different problem in the eyes of ethics advocates. That’s because, unlike Tillerson, they both have provisions in their contracts that specifically require their companies to reward them with millions if they join the government, according to Holman, of Public Citizen. They would not receive these payouts if they left their companies either to retire or to join a competitor.

I also came across an article that says Trump's protectionist stance may actually be good for the US given certain historic precedences. Since I was curious about this earlier, I read all of it and am not sure what to make of it: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/02/free-truths-free-trade-tpp-nafta-170202101303370.html

Protectionism could IMO spark a whole lot of new problems even if I would generally say that some of the necessities of globalism such as the enormous ocean traffic etc. are not desirable at all. Then again Trump's protectionism doesn't seem to take the environment (or as we should say, our world) into account at all.

[Husar]

It has apparently begun.

No, seriously, read this, it's hard to summarize, I read it weeks ago: https://medium.com/@alexey__kovalev/message-to-american-media-from-russia-6e2e76eeae77#.57hhzxglb

It's about how Putin uses the media to his advantage, by inserting people who praise him and further his agenda to drown out uncomfortable questions. And then today I watched a clip of the Lib Show with Cuckbert, where he inserted a clip from the following:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez9yCnwR6TM

I mean, to say there are no similarities is to think that Stalin just got unlucky that so many people had unfortunate deadly accidents during his presidency.

I hope I don't have to explain why the question the guy asks is incredibly idiotic as well...

[Idaho]

Anyone who thought Trump would somehow do something to curtail the excesses and influence (control?) of wall street, were totally deluded. Big money is going to have the leash taken off, and the working people of America are going to be distracted by this kind of thing:

https://youtu.be/oqZaQKskP-A
https://youtu.be/oqZaQKskP-A

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It has apparently begun.

No, seriously, read this, it's hard to summarize, I read it weeks ago: https://medium.com/@alexey__kovalev/message-to-american-media-from-russia-6e2e76eeae77#.57hhzxglb

It's about how Putin uses the media to his advantage, by inserting people who praise him and further his agenda to drown out uncomfortable questions. And then today I watched a clip of the Lib Show with Cuckbert, where he inserted a clip from the following:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez9yCnwR6TM

I mean, to say there are no similarities is to think that Stalin just got unlucky that so many people had unfortunate deadly accidents during his presidency.

I hope I don't have to explain why the question the guy asks is incredibly idiotic as well...

That's just cringe worthy.

[Montmorency]

Through the second half of Larsson's question I got the impression that he was trying to pull one over Spicer.


And in the meantime, for a second question, since that's in fashion these days: can he tell the Forest Service to start logging our forests aggressively again to provide jobs for Americans, wealth for the Treasury, and not spend $3.5 billion a year fighting forest fires?

That was satirical, wasn't it?

No?

[Tristuskhan]

Through the second half of Larsson's question I got the impression that he was trying to pull one over Spicer.



That was satirical, wasn't it?

No?

Oh my.... Forestry as it must not be practiced! Forests can (must?) be a source of long-term sustainable revenue. But not this way.

[Husar]

That was satirical, wasn't it?

No?

I think it wasn't.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/02/lars_larson_calls_press_secret.html


Scientists also suggest that some forests of Washington and Oregon are overstocked and need to be thinned.

This gives it some perspective, at first it sounded like he just wanted to chop away at all the forests. It still sounds a lot like he cares more about the monetary gain than anything else. Spicer's answer that Trump wants to make use of all the resources on US soil sounds like he agrees about environmental concerns being secondary. Considering that forest fires are partially started by humans to clear the land etc., it all seems a bit cynical to me. :shrug:

[Montmorency]

I think it wasn't.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/02/lars_larson_calls_press_secret.html



This gives it some perspective, at first it sounded like he just wanted to chop away at all the forests. It still sounds a lot like he cares more about the monetary gain than anything else. Spicer's answer that Trump wants to make use of all the resources on US soil sounds like he agrees about environmental concerns being secondary. Considering that forest fires are partially started by humans to clear the land etc., it all seems a bit cynical to me. :shrug:

I was thinking more the bit on forest-fire control costing too much, so cut down the forests to keep them from burning down. Like a satirical distortion of curation efforts which mitigate risk of fire by clearing and shaping growth.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Trump's insanity is finally forcing me to interact with my Congressman. Not that it will do any good.

[HopAlongBunny]

Well, you can't trust the media.
The judiciary is suspect.
Thank God we have Dear Leader to guide us through these uncertain times!

[Pannonian]

I was thinking more the bit on forest-fire control costing too much, so cut down the forests to keep them from burning down. Like a satirical distortion of curation efforts which mitigate risk of fire by clearing and shaping growth.

Rolling back Obamacare makes sense now. If you kill off anyone who's unhealthy, you no longer have a healthcare problem.

[CrossLOPER]

Rolling back Obamacare makes sense now. If you kill off anyone who's unhealthy, you no longer have a healthcare problem.
If everyone is dead, there is no one to have any problems... ever again.

[Strike For The South]

We just witnessed someone buy a political office.

This is why Trump got elected

wait.

[Greyblades]

Sorry my intercontinental telepathy is acting up today, what are you talking about?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Sorry my intercontinental telepathy is acting up today, what are you talking about?

Betsy Devos got confirmed because Pence had to use his tie breaker vote. She is no matter what your politics...not the sharpest knife in the rack.

[Greyblades]

It was the buying part I do not understand.