Trump Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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 in the presidency and to weaken the other branches of government. He just got better PR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by link

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

It's all perspective, I'm afraid. Obama did more to consolidate power 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1st Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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 rather than trying to paraphrase:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I think originalism is a close cousin to textualism... I'll just steal this from Wikipedia 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.

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".

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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".

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

...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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

And I thought i was cynical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Does originalism/textualism take that into account?

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

Is it, though?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

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.

Quote:

---

Is it, though?

---

Yes?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

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/peopl...rope-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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

Do you have a source for this? How many?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

The buffoons in the Iranian RG have fallen for Trumps provocations.

"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....oshop5_lgf.jpg

Is this still a Trump thread?

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/...=.0f9372a267f9

You just can't make stuff like this up:clown:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

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 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?).

Quote:

---

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

The buffoons in the Iranian RG have fallen for Trumps provocations.

"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...

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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."

---

They're slack?

Cut by over a third.
Feds to cut aerial surveillance on the border by 50 percent February 2, 2016.
Border Patrol Cuts Use of Force by Nearly 40 Percent Over 2 Years Oct 13, 2015

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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."

---

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”

-Yoda

Yoda spent his last years with an animator's hand up is ass, so I'll take that with a grain of salt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Cut by over a third.
Feds to cut aerial surveillance on the border by 50 percent February 2, 2016.

---

What a disingenuous metonymy.

Anyway...

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Border Patrol Cuts Use of Force by Nearly 40 Percent Over 2 Years Oct 13, 2015

---

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

What a disingenuous metonymy.

Anyway...

Sounds like a success.

---

Quote:

---

“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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

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.

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.

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.

As for (Southern) border security under Obama, unsurprisingly for an 8-year period the picture isn't a simple one.

Cato again:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Deportations Rose During The First Half Of Obama’s Administration, But Have Declined In Recent Years

---

Quote:

---

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."

---

Quote:

---

Illegal immigration from Mexico has dropped in recent years, but many from Central America still attempt to cross.

---

The Washington times notes a "surge" in 2016...

Quote:

---

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.”

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bernie Sanders

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/poli...icle-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-politi...lden-parachute

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vox

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/opi...101303370.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.

It has apparently begun.

No, seriously, read this, it's hard to summarize, I read it weeks ago: https://medium.com/@alexey__kovalev/...e77#.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...

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

It has apparently begun.

No, seriously, read this, it's hard to summarize, I read it weeks ago: https://medium.com/@alexey__kovalev/...e77#.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.

Through the second half of Larsson's question I got the impression that he was trying to pull one over Spicer.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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.