Sibdane Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 He's doing too much too fast to prove a point and I think he'll end up hurting himself in the end. nutmegwolf203 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 So let in the (potentially) most likely terrorists because it's good for the economy and ditch the lesser threat because that'll excite the neanderthals that voted for him. Makes complete sense. I does make sense. Piss off the Saudi 's with their oil? As far as I am aware the US govt still hasn't achnowledged any Saudi involvement in 9/11. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 I does make sense. Piss off the Saudi 's with their oil? As far as I am aware the US govt still hasn't achnowledged any Saudi involvement in 9/11. Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were Suadis. US won't acknowledge any involvement because it'd damage them financially, human life is secondary to monetary gain sadly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 indeed. Problem is that publishing online shows less effort and subsequently less valid That's the point. No problem with people and serious issues, like Cornish Steve 's but any idiot can come up with one, whine on Twitter/Facebook etc and then Parliament will debate whether Nelson's Column should be renamed after the next winner of X factor. It just wastes everyone's time, even mine writing this post! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were Suadis. US won't acknowledge any involvement because it'd damage them financially, human life is secondary to monetary gain sadly. Exactly, doesn't make it right but for them it makes money so it makes sense, hence why they haven't been banned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted January 30, 2017 Report Share Posted January 30, 2017 Exactly, doesn't make it right but for them it makes money so it makes sense, hence why they haven't been banned. So he's letting in people from nations who've killed thousands of Americans while banning people from countries who've never hurt a soul. Populism, playing to his knuckle dragging supporters. Zero logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghoat Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 I honestly do not have a problem with the orders he has signed. This is what he campaigned on, and should have been expected. Withdrawal from PTT, border security, temporary halt of immigration from unstable states that are breeding grounds for radicals who are hostile to the US etc...Anyone who is really shocked wasn't listening to him. That being said as Mark and Tonka pointed out he is reaching the limit of those. If he keeps scribbling out EO's, he is going to run into a hell of a firestorm, internally and externally. I did vote for Trump. I do care about immigration, national security and the US economy, so he was a much better candidate for me than Hillary. However, I wasn't at rallies, wearing hats and covering my yard in signs. He is far from perfect, and his does make me nervous from the fact his is not a politician - which was a large part of his appeal too. But it's a 2 edged sword, because he doesn't act or react like a politician, which is predictable and measured. However, that doesn't mean i like or will like everything he does. He's a bit more bombastic and narcissistic than I'd prefer, but we will just have to see how it plays out and hope I'll say this tho, if the left and the media continue to flip out with over the top doom and gloom every time her farts, it's counter productive. Trust me, there are huge percentage of Trump voters that are pretty moderate/moderate-right - myself included. But it's going to be very hard to actually listen to opposition if it's consistently over the top and exaggerated, rooted in the fact they just don't like Trump or anything he does. The real logic and valid points get lost in the noise. Those on the right that flipped their shit every time Obama did something were no better. Fact was they just didn't him, and at some point I didn't care to hear anything they had to say either because it was predictable. Don't misunderstand this as directed at anyone on this board or your point of view, I'm speaking in generalities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghoat Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 And for the record the stuff on existing green cards, dual citizens, people from these counties who had US ties, those who were in flight etc...that was mess, hurried and sloppy. The groups that have filed suits to correct and address this stuff are the correcting the obvious flaws in the EO , I support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holystove Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 My problem with the ban is that it is horrible disproportionate. Before the EO, it took about 2 years to enter the US as a refugee from the Middle-East. There already was "extreme" vetting. So what are the chances you were going to miss one of them is a terrorist? 0.0001%? Now with this absolute ban, you're 100% sure there won't be coming any terrorists from those 7 countries. The price? Antagonizing the muslim world, strenghtening ISIS (Trump is right now the top ISIS recruiter), and for the very minimal probability that this ban stops the terrorist that otherwise would have gotten through, you also ban the brilliant young Syrian who was going to go to MIT, the courageous Iraqi Yazidi woman who was to be honoured at an event in Washington for her fight against ISIS, the Iraqi interpreter who risked his life for many years translating for US soldiers, .. apart from the obvious flaws in the EO that you already mentioned as wrong. MikeO, Chach, Lowensda and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nutmegwolf203 Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 I honestly do not have a problem with the orders he has signed. This is what he campaigned on, and should have been expected. Withdrawal from PTT, border security, temporary halt of immigration from unstable states that are breeding grounds for radicals who are hostile to the US etc...Anyone who is really shocked wasn't listening to him. That being said as Mark and Tonka pointed out he is reaching the limit of those. If he keeps scribbling out EO's, he is going to run into a hell of a firestorm, internally and externally. I did vote for Trump. I do care about immigration, national security and the US economy, so he was a much better candidate for me than Hillary. However, I wasn't at rallies, wearing hats and covering my yard in signs. He is far from perfect, and his does make me nervous from the fact his is not a politician - which was a large part of his appeal too. But it's a 2 edged sword, because he doesn't act or react like a politician, which is predictable and measured. However, that doesn't mean i like or will like everything he does. He's a bit more bombastic and narcissistic than I'd prefer, but we will just have to see how it plays out and hope I'll say this tho, if the left and the media continue to flip out with over the top doom and gloom every time her farts, it's counter productive. Trust me, there are huge percentage of Trump voters that are pretty moderate/moderate-right - myself included. But it's going to be very hard to actually listen to opposition if it's consistently over the top and exaggerated, rooted in the fact they just don't like Trump or anything he does. The real logic and valid points get lost in the noise. Those on the right that flipped their shit every time Obama did something were no better. Fact was they just didn't him, and at some point I didn't care to hear anything they had to say either because it was predictable. Don't misunderstand this as directed at anyone on this board or your point of view, I'm speaking in generalities. And for the record the stuff on existing green cards, dual citizens, people from these counties who had US ties, those who were in flight etc...that was mess, hurried and sloppy. The groups that have filed suits to correct and address this stuff are the correcting the obvious flaws in the EO , I support. In my opinion, you're being generous, to put it lightly. The ban hasn't targeted any countries that have statistically posed greater domestic risk, it merely piggy-backed off of a study done by the last administration. Those countries were to have stricter screening measures put in place, and they did. It's a matter of convenience that none of the countries interfere with Trump's business dealings throughout the region. It's easy to get caught up in hyperbole, but this guy and the crew he's assembled around him are dangerous. I understand your concerns, as a citizen, I really do, but I also get the feeling that some of the executive orders that have been introduced haven't affected you personally. That is, you're choosing to dismiss their implications. The things that he's done to marginalized groups (the very groups he attacked during his whole campaign), stripping them of their rights, and finding ways to belittle them is inexcusable. Trump is the grade school bully that's been enabled all his life. I agree that the media blows certain things out of proportion, that's consistent across the board, but with Spicer, Conway and Co. I'm pretty sure they have all the fireworks they need to keep steady attention on the president. Lastly, and I'm reluctant to make this personal-I just quoted you because you made many clear points; in some ways I envy your ability or place in society that allows you not to fear any of the things he's doing. It's actually incredible. To me, every move he makes sounds like a lit fuse getting closer, and the tragedy of any impeachment predictions coming true is that Pence is equally, if not more terrifying. holystove and Lowensda 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 (edited) http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38805944 Yet another act of a dictator. Not only dismissing any opposition to his rule, but also publicly shaming the opposition. The AG is there to ensure the law is respected, in this case the Immigration law of 1965. There's also the complete ignorance of immigrant vs refugee - 2 very definitions. The Republican politicians are utterly spineless. I had hoped some of them would try and keep him in line, but they seem to be more interested in protecting themselves than the people and law. Oh, and media on both sides, right and left, are sensational. It's hardly a left-only problem Edited January 31, 2017 by Matt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowensda Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38805944 Yet another act of a dictator. Not only dismissing any opposition to his rule, but also publicly shaming the opposition. The AG is there to ensure the law is respected, in this case the Immigration law of 1965. There's also the complete ignorance of immigrant vs refugee - 2 very definitions. The Republican politicians are utterly spineless. I had hoped some of them would try and keep him in line, but they seem to be more interested in protecting themselves than the people and law. Oh, and media on both sides, right and left, are sensational. It's hardly a left-only problem Doesn't surprise me. And that's what he is. He is the definition of a dictator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghoat Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 Lastly, and I'm reluctant to make this personal-I just quoted you because you made many clear points; in some ways I envy your ability or place in society that allows you not to fear any of the things he's doing. It's actually incredible. To me, every move he makes sounds like a lit fuse getting closer, and the tragedy of any impeachment predictions coming true is that Pence is equally, if not more terrifying. No, that is a fair point. Honestly most of the things we protest or cheer probably don't affect us directly - indirectly maybe - but it's what we think is right/fair as best we understand them. When things do directly affect us personally, that's when opinions can change really quickly. I didn't support gay marriage really, but that wasn't a huge thing to me, certainly not a make or break position on who I'd vote for. Until my social circle expanded a bit more and I got to be good friends with a couple guys that had been together for over 20 years, but couldn't be added to health policy, death policy benefit from job, retirement etc...it become personal, or at least close to home, and it caused me to flip my opinion and become strongly pro gay marriage. So no sir, I didn't take that personal at all, it's a valid observation. My place in society is nothing of note. Middle class, I work, wife works, worked my way thru college, and struggling to afford my oldest daughters first year in college. Drink beer on the weekend and watch football and futbol, depending on season and time of day! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Steve Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 The new president could have achieved so much more if only he'd focused on illegal lawnmowers sneaking into the country. nutmegwolf203 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 So he's letting in people from nations who've killed thousands of Americans while banning people from countries who've never hurt a soul. Populism, playing to his knuckle dragging supporters. Zero logic. Never hurt a soul? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 (edited) I had such a debate when I shared that, Steve. Apparently it was irrelevant because it didn't include 9/11. I pointed out then why not include all history of terrorism then and that even including 9/11, you still wouldn't get to the total of Americans killing Americans.... It got fun Edited January 31, 2017 by Matt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Cornish Steve Posted January 31, 2017 Popular Post Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 (edited) Re opposing decisions that don't affect us directly... civilized societies are best measured by how sympathetically and practically they help the most vulnerable - the poor, the sick, the disabled, the immigrant, the minorities. Sure, if we don't fall into any such category, we can pursue Dawkins' principle of the selfish gene. But, we have a God-given conscience. We weep in the face of tragedy even when not our own. We seek to help those who are desperate because we know it's the right thing to do. So, when the sick, the young, and the disabled are penalized by taking away their medical insurance; when refugees who've lost everything and fear for their lives are turned away, when victims of rape and incest are forced to carry the resulting fetus to term, when those who pursue a faith other than our own are demonized, then I will stand alongside them and represent their cause. Isn't that my responsibility as a civilized member of society? Edited January 31, 2017 by Cornish Steve nutmegwolf203, Matt, MikeO and 2 others 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghoat Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 I had such a debate when I shared that, Steve. Apparently it was irrelevant because it didn't include 9/11. I pointed out then why not include all history of terrorism then and that even including 9/11, you still wouldn't get to the total of Americans killing Americans.... It got fun Hell, there have been 5000 murders in Chicago alone in the last decade! Pretty good read - http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-administration-chose-the-7-countries/ Most of the counties on this list are not stable nations because they do not have a stable government. Broadly speaking 2 things keep a nation "stable". 1) Some for of representative gov - like we see in The West where the people can elect lawmakers and leaders 2) Authoritarian regimes which generally repress rights and political opposition When an authoritarian regime collapses (or is toppled) typically the lid comes off the boiling pot. Those who have been repressed grab for power or settle scores they were prevented from and things go to hell in a handbasket - Iraq, Libya, Syria, Egypt. Look how long it took The Balkans after Tito died for the chaos in Yugoslavia to play out. It makes it even worse when those nations happen to hate the west. Pakistan scares the shit out if me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nutmegwolf203 Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 (edited) Re opposing decisions that don't affect us directly... civilized societies are best measured by how sympathetically and practically they help the most vulnerable - the poor, the sick, the disabled, the immigrant, the minorities. Sure, if we don't fall into any such category, we can pursue Dawkins' principle of the selfish gene. But, we have a God-given conscience. We weep in the face of tragedy even when not our own. We seek to help those who are desperate because we know it's the right thing to do. So, when the sick, the young, and the disabled are penalized by taking away their medical insurance; when refugees who've lost everything and fear for their lives are turned away, when victims of rape and incest are forced to carry the resulting fetus to term, when those who pursue a faith other than our own are demonized, then I will stand alongside them and represent their cause. Isn't that my responsibility as a civilized member of society? Well put Steve. I hope that my comments in regards to "personal politics" was taken as a diplomatic statement. I typed it in such a way to attempt to bridge a gap. As a Black male in the U.S. I have become used to explaining to people what it's like to be the other. Seriously, actually and too often to count. I grew up in suburban Connecticut and have found myself the acute minority in most of the places I've lived in. I was lucky to grow up middle class, and the son of an NAACP member and educator. But the fact remains that when I left home I stood out. I would wager to guess that I'm in the same boat here on this very forum. All of that is fine, considering I value the communal feeling I've experienced on here over the years. What becomes taxing is having to encourage someone to see the humanity in me and anyone else that doesn't look or function as they do. I could relay some of the most bizarre stories of my encounters with people opposed to my presence. I'm well aware that these conversations will only become more intense during this regime, but I'm dedicated to an activist approach towards progression and understanding. No, that is a fair point. Honestly most of the things we protest or cheer probably don't affect us directly - indirectly maybe - but it's what we think is right/fair as best we understand them. When things do directly affect us personally, that's when opinions can change really quickly. I didn't support gay marriage really, but that wasn't a huge thing to me, certainly not a make or break position on who I'd vote for. Until my social circle expanded a bit more and I got to be good friends with a couple guys that had been together for over 20 years, but couldn't be added to health policy, death policy benefit from job, retirement etc...it become personal, or at least close to home, and it caused me to flip my opinion and become strongly pro gay marriage. So no sir, I didn't take that personal at all, it's a valid observation. My place in society is nothing of note. Middle class, I work, wife works, worked my way thru college, and struggling to afford my oldest daughters first year in college. Drink beer on the weekend and watch football and futbol, depending on season and time of day! Which is why Ghoat, while I may not agree with your sentiments, simply dismissing them is unhealthy. I'm glad you saw my side and responded the way you did. I have to disagree about your place in society though; I think it's very important. Race, class and every label set between us is integral to how politics function. It doesn't mean I agree with labels, but I also don't have much of a choice. I'd love to have more conversations about this topic because I think actively leaving our respective bubbles is the key to all this. Speaking of bubbles. I've been reading a wonderful book recently. It's called: "A Different Mirror" A History of Multicultural America by Ronald Takaki. It's a dense slow read but I came across this passage that feels apropos to the situation. In a chapter called "The 'Giddy Multitude'" Takaki goes on to explain: "Hopes of landownership became dreams deferred for many English colonists. Frustrated and angry, many white workers felt they had been duped into coming to America. In 1649, pamphleteer William Bullock warned planters about men and women who, "not finding what was promised, "had become "dejected" and recalcitrant workers. In England, they had been viewed as the "Surcharge of necessitous people, the matter or fuel of dangerous insurrections." In Virginia, they became an even greater threat to social order, forming what the planter elite fearfully called a 'giddy multitude" - a discontented class of indentured servants, slaves and landless freemen, both white and black, the Stephanos and Trinculos as well as the Calibans of Virginia." pg. 62 Fast forward to Bacon's Rebellion and the ulterior motives behind pitting one group against another: "But Bacon calculated that an expedition against the Indians would serve a dual purpose - eliminate a foe and redirect the white lower class's anger away from the white elite to the Indians." pg. 63 ...couple more pages... "They could open economic opportunities to white workers and extend political privileges to them. But this would erode their own economic advantage and potentially undermine their political hegemony. Or they could try to reorganize society on the basis of class and race." pg. 65 You know the rest. Fast Forward to now: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/31/hillary-clinton-and-the-populist-revolt This article articulates some similar motives and themes. These things aren't a coincidence and their reoccurrence tells me we're not talking enough. Somehow with all these means of contact, we're still not hearing each other. Van Jones used the term 'whitelash' the night of the election on CNN. I wrote it down because I had never heard it before, but once it sat with me for a while it all made sense. Ghoat, as much as you had to get used to the idea of gay marriage, I couldn't be bothered disputing the well being and civil liberties of others. Just the way I'm wired I guess. That being said, hopefully this thread can maintain this open and civil momentum. For what it's worth, I'm also an artist, I went to school in New York City, and as it happens I am a part of or am emotionally affiliated with many of the groups this administration is checking off its hit list. Most of my work is very minimal but I'm thematically inspired by things well outside of the artscape. If anyone's interested here's the link to my website: http://www.ryanscails.com/ on the page Interviews/Writings you can find my thoughts on some of these subjects. Mainly in the first video and the Able Bodies interview (which I believe I've shared before). Sorry for the essay. have a great day. Edited January 31, 2017 by nutmegwolf203 Cornish Steve, MikeO and markjazzbassist 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted January 31, 2017 Report Share Posted January 31, 2017 Never hurt a soul? In America I should've added. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post holystove Posted February 1, 2017 Popular Post Report Share Posted February 1, 2017 After the Dutch, the Norwegians also seem to have a sense of humour regarding Trump Translation: - If you were stranded on an island, who would you bring along? - I'll take one for the team and bring along Trump nutmegwolf203, MikeO, markjazzbassist and 4 others 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Steve Posted February 1, 2017 Report Share Posted February 1, 2017 We may be disgusted by Trump's executive orders on immigration and refugees, but it seems 49% of Americans agree with them. http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/USA-TRUMP-IMMIGRATION-POLL/010031NQ3V0/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted February 1, 2017 Report Share Posted February 1, 2017 We may be disgusted by Trump's executive orders on immigration and refugees, but it seems 49% of Americans agree with them. http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/USA-TRUMP-IMMIGRATION-POLL/010031NQ3V0/index.html But only 38% think America is setting a good example of how best to confront terrorism. So that's a lot of people agreeing with what he's doing while accepting it's not the best course of action. Bit odd that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holystove Posted February 1, 2017 Report Share Posted February 1, 2017 But only 38% think America is setting a good example of how best to confront terrorism. So that's a lot of people agreeing with what he's doing while accepting it's not the best course of action. Bit odd that. You always get odd outcomes in these polls where they ask multiple questions on one issue. Example: what do Britons think about what Trump says about torture: Oddly 3% of UKIP'rs believe torture doesn't work, but it should be allowed anyway... for kicks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted February 1, 2017 Report Share Posted February 1, 2017 Oddly 3% of UKIP'rs believe torture doesn't work, but it should be allowed anyway... for kicks? Why am I not surprised? holystove 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markjazzbassist Posted February 1, 2017 Report Share Posted February 1, 2017 We may be disgusted by Trump's executive orders on immigration and refugees, but it seems 49% of Americans agree with them. http://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/rngs/USA-TRUMP-IMMIGRATION-POLL/010031NQ3V0/index.html as I've sad before the vast majority of americans are uneducated and easily swayed by things such as fox news. they are values voters who would vote for satan himself if he was against abortion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted February 1, 2017 Report Share Posted February 1, 2017 Unsure whether this belongs here or Brexit... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38833590 holystove 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghoat Posted February 1, 2017 Report Share Posted February 1, 2017 as I've sad before the vast majority of americans are uneducated and easily swayed by things such as fox news CNN/MSNBC. they are values emotional voters who would vote for satan himself if he was against abortion.Hollywood and celebs held telethons for him. Same argument really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghoat Posted February 1, 2017 Report Share Posted February 1, 2017 But only 38% think America is setting a good example of how best to confront terrorism. So that's a lot of people agreeing with what he's doing while accepting it's not the best course of action. Bit odd that. Doesn't seem too odd when you think about it. I am all for what he is trying to do - that's why I voted for him. Doesn't mean i want him to do as much harm as good in the process, yanno? We could bring crime to practically zero if we shot everyone after they were arrested. Absurd example, but still. I think everyone wants affordable heath care, a better economy, security internal and external. But if we agreed on how, there wouldn't be a "left" and a "right" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted February 1, 2017 Report Share Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) Sooooo, Trump got the Republicans to push through a change in the law to avoid challenges from the Democrats on his latest appointment. Lesson 101 of a dictator; if the country's laws and democracy stand in your way, just change it to suit your own needs.... Edited February 1, 2017 by Matt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.