President Trump
-
Hashi Lebwohl
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 19576
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm
-
Holsety
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 3436
- Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 8:56 pm
- Location: Principality of Sealand
- Been thanked: 1 time
Av's link seems to have worked. Initially I was going to come on here and screenshot the post, but hey, now the post is here.
I actually had typed responses to (I think) Cail and Hashi, too. But I don't feel like I have the time today to re-re. Zar was probably annoyed that I said I disliked his post and didn't say why. So that's what this post was doing (except that I apologize - because I didn't read his post well enough, which is not acceptable on my part because that post wasn't long).
Slowness in discussion isn't avoidable - but since my post got borked again, every KW response, re Trump, Bakker, Erikson, Donaldson or ketchup gets saved until I see it on here, posted.
Why do I need to apologize? I read what I thought was laughable - and skipped what's not laughable.
I'm not sure the perspective is misinformed or deceitful, I think violence may be disproportionate, I don't judge either side because I think I'm quite bubbled relative to many on both.
Libya: Disaster regardless of considerations made.
Red Line: Maybe I don't know enough, but here goes - the line should never have been drawn. We need to consider learning a lesson with the middle east and not thinking we are going to solve every crisis there. Russia's solution seems to have been to pick a side: that is probably better than nationbuilding in Afghanistan.
Maybe I don't know enough about Syria. Do you think Russia wants a foothold? Is it so crucial to keep them from getting one that we should build another one of our own? Economy is in tatters. Do we or Russia want to move in now so we can get something out of it if it recovers?
Trump is right - we shouldn't assume Russia cannot be an ally. If they can be an ally, Russia in Syria is not a definite disaster, except Assad seems to be brutal (could we have removed them and made anything better?). My issue with the red line is that it shouldn't have been drawn, not that it should have been enforced. Looking foolish is bad - faulty action is worse (see above and below).
RE ISIS generally: past US policy helped set the stage for ISIS, but Obama's admin are the ones who should have had and implemented a strategy to solve ISIS. So yes, that's a gigantic problem with him. I hope if we keep intervening in Iraq, we ask ourselves what we have to gain from intervening at all. For Afghanistan, I hope drug money sticks to regional warlords or goes to criminal syndicates, and the terrorists got cut out (I'm joking).
Iraq: will the Iraqi army be ready and willing to take on threats without US support? Do we want to have more troops there regularly? If we left our forces there, would ISIS have faced us there? I suppose one thing is true - if we had left a force there and then ISIS invaded, there would be little question that more forces would be sent in if we didn't have enough.
The things I found laughable were the defenses of Trump. I don't think he's a xenophobe, but I think the defenses are terrible. I was criticizing you more than Trump. But the attacks on Obama and us for supporting him - which my eyes glazed over - I think are fine. They're not laughable.
I'm including my attacks of the stuff I found to be bizarre reasoning, but if I or other people don't acknowledge problems our guy had, it's a problem.
"100s of millions of Muslims in 43 countries aren't affected by his so-called "Muslim ban."
The fact that he did not affect every Muslim in every country in the world does not mean he does not hate Muslims. This won't be a one line criticism.
Say Trump is trying to stop Muslim extremism yet has no issue with Muslims generally. There's still some reason to perceive Muslims who have done nothing wrong faced a serious imposition on their lives?
Perfectly rational response: it's a serious imposition, but we're worried about terrorism. We're trying to keep people from dying. It's not good for you, but you're not top priority.
Response in kind: if the imposition seems sweeping and arbitrary, people will feel that you don't give a shit about the imposition. Also, like I said, good that you did not impose on every muslim trying to get in, but don't expect someone to assume that means you have good intent.
The request to stay the TRO was justified by reference to executive privilege. I hope as things go further along the justification for the ban gets more specific.
I don't care that Trump said it, but you gotta address that if you actually care to defend it. If the answer is just "well don't judge him for one mere implication," I don't care that Trump said it.
Do you see the conflict between your defenses? Between the criminal aliens from Mexico and the people with visas and green cards, you have disinterest and disregard for both. If Trump was saying we have a problem with JUST illegal immigrants, but then policies made by his administration interfere with legal immigrants too, the fact that he drew a verbal distinction between legals and illegals starts to blur.
But there's still doubt. We're talking immigrants from those 7 countries which faced a ban who had some legal basis to come here VS illegal immigrants from Mexico and probably the middle east too.
Despite the sarcasm - my doubt re "xenophobia" is real.
I actually had typed responses to (I think) Cail and Hashi, too. But I don't feel like I have the time today to re-re. Zar was probably annoyed that I said I disliked his post and didn't say why. So that's what this post was doing (except that I apologize - because I didn't read his post well enough, which is not acceptable on my part because that post wasn't long).
Slowness in discussion isn't avoidable - but since my post got borked again, every KW response, re Trump, Bakker, Erikson, Donaldson or ketchup gets saved until I see it on here, posted.
Why do I need to apologize? I read what I thought was laughable - and skipped what's not laughable.
My guess is you will not take the justification seriously - but I assume they will point to police brutality and say the violence is not one way. I don't think all the rioters liked Sanders. If you want to address that I know you have - but for those unsatisfied that is the issue. They think there's violence from law enforcement, and too much of it. I know you're aware of that perspective and you likely think it's misinformed/deceitful or that the riots are a disproportionate response - but I'm still reminding you of what they think.Emotions are running high. However, we have the Left nowadays talking about blowing up the White House and having a riot when a university invites a speaker whom they don't like. The hatred and violence is happening on one particular side, and everyone is just ignoring it as if it's justified. I don't understand how Leftist riots are okay. Can anyone point to a recent Rightist riot? I can't think of one.
I'm not sure the perspective is misinformed or deceitful, I think violence may be disproportionate, I don't judge either side because I think I'm quite bubbled relative to many on both.
Brief response:Do you think Obama carefully considered the consequences of pulling out the troops from Iraq, attacking Libya without a strategy for what happens after victory, or failing to back up his "red line" with action? Those decisions all seem very haphazard and all have significant negative consequences, but we rarely hear his supporters or the media (I know, redundant) hold him accountable for the massive unrest in the Middle East he has caused, from the Syrian civil war, to the migrant crisis, to the rise of ISIS. Those are catastrophically bad consequences that we already know happened. But people seem more concerned about what Trump might do than what Obama has already done.
Libya: Disaster regardless of considerations made.
Red Line: Maybe I don't know enough, but here goes - the line should never have been drawn. We need to consider learning a lesson with the middle east and not thinking we are going to solve every crisis there. Russia's solution seems to have been to pick a side: that is probably better than nationbuilding in Afghanistan.
Maybe I don't know enough about Syria. Do you think Russia wants a foothold? Is it so crucial to keep them from getting one that we should build another one of our own? Economy is in tatters. Do we or Russia want to move in now so we can get something out of it if it recovers?
Trump is right - we shouldn't assume Russia cannot be an ally. If they can be an ally, Russia in Syria is not a definite disaster, except Assad seems to be brutal (could we have removed them and made anything better?). My issue with the red line is that it shouldn't have been drawn, not that it should have been enforced. Looking foolish is bad - faulty action is worse (see above and below).
RE ISIS generally: past US policy helped set the stage for ISIS, but Obama's admin are the ones who should have had and implemented a strategy to solve ISIS. So yes, that's a gigantic problem with him. I hope if we keep intervening in Iraq, we ask ourselves what we have to gain from intervening at all. For Afghanistan, I hope drug money sticks to regional warlords or goes to criminal syndicates, and the terrorists got cut out (I'm joking).
Iraq: will the Iraqi army be ready and willing to take on threats without US support? Do we want to have more troops there regularly? If we left our forces there, would ISIS have faced us there? I suppose one thing is true - if we had left a force there and then ISIS invaded, there would be little question that more forces would be sent in if we didn't have enough.
The things I found laughable were the defenses of Trump. I don't think he's a xenophobe, but I think the defenses are terrible. I was criticizing you more than Trump. But the attacks on Obama and us for supporting him - which my eyes glazed over - I think are fine. They're not laughable.
I'm including my attacks of the stuff I found to be bizarre reasoning, but if I or other people don't acknowledge problems our guy had, it's a problem.
Look. I...this just...you can't use this and expect people to care. Maybe if only two races or ethnicities existed in the world. If you're very tongue in cheek for the rest of this, OK.Trump--the guy married to a Yugoslavian woman--is not a xenophobe.
"100s of millions of Muslims in 43 countries aren't affected by his so-called "Muslim ban."
The fact that he did not affect every Muslim in every country in the world does not mean he does not hate Muslims. This won't be a one line criticism.
Say Trump is trying to stop Muslim extremism yet has no issue with Muslims generally. There's still some reason to perceive Muslims who have done nothing wrong faced a serious imposition on their lives?
Perfectly rational response: it's a serious imposition, but we're worried about terrorism. We're trying to keep people from dying. It's not good for you, but you're not top priority.
Response in kind: if the imposition seems sweeping and arbitrary, people will feel that you don't give a shit about the imposition. Also, like I said, good that you did not impose on every muslim trying to get in, but don't expect someone to assume that means you have good intent.
The request to stay the TRO was justified by reference to executive privilege. I hope as things go further along the justification for the ban gets more specific.
Why do people dislike what Trump said? "And some, I assume, are good people." Ya, leave it for the end, and leave it in doubt.Trump never said that all Mexicans are criminals, he was specifically talking about the criminal aliens, of which there are 100s of 1000s.
I don't care that Trump said it, but you gotta address that if you actually care to defend it. If the answer is just "well don't judge him for one mere implication," I don't care that Trump said it.
Do you see the conflict between your defenses? Between the criminal aliens from Mexico and the people with visas and green cards, you have disinterest and disregard for both. If Trump was saying we have a problem with JUST illegal immigrants, but then policies made by his administration interfere with legal immigrants too, the fact that he drew a verbal distinction between legals and illegals starts to blur.
But there's still doubt. We're talking immigrants from those 7 countries which faced a ban who had some legal basis to come here VS illegal immigrants from Mexico and probably the middle east too.
So hey, there's no association between the comments about illegal Mexicans and probably illegal immigrants in the Middle East and immigrants with visas and green cards from the Middle East and Northern Africa.Thank you. It's true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we're getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They're sending us not the right people.
It's coming from more than Mexico. It's coming from all over South and Latin America, and it's coming probably -- probably -- from the Middle East. But we don't know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don't know what's happening. And it's got to stop and it's got to stop fast.
Despite the sarcasm - my doubt re "xenophobia" is real.
-
Hashi Lebwohl
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 19576
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm
The problem with Trump's travel ban--which is not indistinguishable from travel bans on similar points of origin which were enacted in the past, some less than 5 years ago--is that Trump thinks he can solve the immigration problem with a few strokes of the pen and a hearty "make it so" even though the problem has been slowly growing in severity for at least 20 years.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
-
Zarathustra
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 19636
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am
The argument made by Trump's legal team was pretty bad. They tried to say that the court had no grounds to review Trump's executive order. That's ludicrous. Just because Trump has the Constitutional power to do what he did doesn't mean the court doesn't also have the power to review it and see if it conforms to the Constitution. I think the courts were wrong--clearly Trump's action doesn't violate the Constitution, as 6 other Presidents have done similar actions--but their arguments need to get better.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
That was actually the correct defense of a bad E.O. The states had no standing to bring the case, as there's no way you can preemptively prove that the states might be harmed by the lack of immigrants during the temporary ban.
The E.O. sucks, but the 9th Circuit had no business getting involved as the two states had no standing to bring the cases.
The E.O. sucks, but the 9th Circuit had no business getting involved as the two states had no standing to bring the cases.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
-
peter
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 11578
- Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
- Location: Another time. Another place.
- Been thanked: 6 times
Point re Russian interest in Syria - not 100% sure, but don't they have access to a deep water port there, possibly the only one they have excepting the Crimea which has the problem of being enclosed in the Black Sea with only the Bosporus as an egress?
The truth is a Lion and does not need protection. Once free it will look after itself.
....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'
We are the Bloodguard
....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'
We are the Bloodguard
-
Hashi Lebwohl
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 19576
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm
Apparently people who worked for the Trump campaign were in contact with Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election. Even though there is no evidence that anyone did anything illegal or worked with Russian intelligence the timing looks suspicious. A lot of this is fallout from Flynn's resignation over his misleading characterization of his conversations with the Russian Ambassador to the United States; Flynn was National Security Advisor for about one month.
The Trump Administration needs to settle down before they create problems they are unable to solve.
The Trump Administration needs to settle down before they create problems they are unable to solve.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
-
Avatar
- Immanentizing The Eschaton
- Posts: 61746
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
- Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
- Has thanked: 15 times
- Been thanked: 21 times
Yeah, I don't really see that happening any time soon. 
On the plus side for Trump, I see he has urged Israel to hold off on new settlements.
--A
On the plus side for Trump, I see he has urged Israel to hold off on new settlements.
Of course, it might be for show, since Israel traditionally ignores requests like that, but maybe he's sincere about it.Trump urges Israel to 'hold off' on settlements
President Donald Trump on Wednesday asked Israel's prime minister to "hold off" on building Jewish settlements in land the Palestinians claim for their future state, yet held back from explicitly endorsing support for a future independent Palestine.
After weeks of dancing around the issue of expanded Israeli settlements, Trump made the request to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at a joint news conference at the White House preceding their private discussions. It is Netanyahu's first trip to Washington since Trump became president.
While Trump's call echoed that of past US presidents, who've considered Israeli housing construction in east Jerusalem and the West Bank an obstacle to a Middle East peace deal, the American leader broke with his predecessors on the idea of a two-state agreement. While such an accord may have once appeared to be the "easier of the two" options, Trump said he'd be open to alternatives if the two sides propose something better...
--A
-
SoulBiter
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 9281
- Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:02 am
- Has thanked: 79 times
- Been thanked: 13 times
Trump in my opinion.
Lets start with what I don't like so far:
His irrational need to get on twitter or some other new source and defend himself against anyone who is critical of him or his administration. You are making decisions that some are not going to like. Its OK... move on.
He doesn't vet his data before it leaves his mouth. Because of that, he says things that can be interpreted improperly, or even more, he doesn't always have the full picture before making comments to the media.
But here is what I like so far:
He doesn't care what his decisions do for his political future. That leaves him open to being a decision maker.
The immediate move to control the borders. the last 3 Presidents have promised to do so, and werent able to move on immigration. Trump is already further along than any of them. I saw this morning they are hiring 15K new border agents and he is ready to sign a new Executive order to replace the one that was challenged in the courts.
Rolling back regulations that have been hampering business and job creation. Jobs are coming back and they are coming back fast.
Now he is moving to repeal and replace the debacle that is the ACA which will cave on its own after eating up a large percentage of the economy i8f nothing is done.
He is already signalling a move the simplify the tax code. Long overdue!!!
As a person, I cant stand the guy. But so far he is making good grades domestically as far as I'm concerned.
Lets start with what I don't like so far:
His irrational need to get on twitter or some other new source and defend himself against anyone who is critical of him or his administration. You are making decisions that some are not going to like. Its OK... move on.
He doesn't vet his data before it leaves his mouth. Because of that, he says things that can be interpreted improperly, or even more, he doesn't always have the full picture before making comments to the media.
But here is what I like so far:
He doesn't care what his decisions do for his political future. That leaves him open to being a decision maker.
The immediate move to control the borders. the last 3 Presidents have promised to do so, and werent able to move on immigration. Trump is already further along than any of them. I saw this morning they are hiring 15K new border agents and he is ready to sign a new Executive order to replace the one that was challenged in the courts.
Rolling back regulations that have been hampering business and job creation. Jobs are coming back and they are coming back fast.
Now he is moving to repeal and replace the debacle that is the ACA which will cave on its own after eating up a large percentage of the economy i8f nothing is done.
He is already signalling a move the simplify the tax code. Long overdue!!!
As a person, I cant stand the guy. But so far he is making good grades domestically as far as I'm concerned.
We miss you Tracie but your Spirit will always shine brightly on the Watch 
-
Hashi Lebwohl
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 19576
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm
The New York Times has a listing of all of Trump's Cabinet choices, including the ones who have been confirmed and the ones who did not need confirmation. Apparently there are still positions which are unfilled.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
-
peter
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 11578
- Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
- Location: Another time. Another place.
- Been thanked: 6 times
A magazine article I read said that at best Trump can be accused of ignoring all the warning signs when appointing Flynn, a potential accident waiting to happen given his previous form as an individual prone to rash behaviour, at worst it could be that Flynn was actually doing no more than Trump had told him to - in which case, if proven, Trump is effectively finished before he has started.
The truth is a Lion and does not need protection. Once free it will look after itself.
....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'
We are the Bloodguard
....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'
We are the Bloodguard
-
Hashi Lebwohl
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 19576
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm
Finished? Hardly. Unless he openly commits some act of treason the probability of Trump being impeached out of office before his term is through is exactly 0%. He will likely be a one-termer but he won't be finished before then.
His close advisors still need to take away his Twitter access, though.
In the meantime, Trump is moving on gutting some portions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (I tried to link the Wikipedia article for it but the formatting of the url contained weird characters which I could not extract, even when I pasted it into plain text).
His close advisors still need to take away his Twitter access, though.
In the meantime, Trump is moving on gutting some portions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (I tried to link the Wikipedia article for it but the formatting of the url contained weird characters which I could not extract, even when I pasted it into plain text).
The Tank is gone and now so am I.
-
peter
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 11578
- Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
- Location: Another time. Another place.
- Been thanked: 6 times
If Trump were to be proven to have been behind closed door promises being made to Russia, placing him in a compromising position and subject to blackmail/coercion in the future, that alongside the already intense speculation into Russia's role in furthering his election success would not sit well with the American people surely?
The truth is a Lion and does not need protection. Once free it will look after itself.
....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'
We are the Bloodguard
....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'
We are the Bloodguard
-
Hashi Lebwohl
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 19576
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm
-
peter
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 11578
- Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
- Location: Another time. Another place.
- Been thanked: 6 times
I don't know Hashi, is there not a line beyond even which the faithful cannot be pushed.
Meanwhile, can I ask - the British media are presenting the Trump/White House presidency/administration to date as a state of chaos and confusion. Trump, they tell us, makes tweets contradicting the statements of his closest ministers, the right hand appears to not know what the left hand is doing (further exacerbated by the and absolute unpredictability as to what he will say or do next), and business is conducted as much around the convivial table of a 'PFL' (see Farage) as in the office. Is this the picture that the American media is putting out (and God knows - they've got no reason to love him) or is this just the British press making sure the Trump bump in their sales, which feeds voraciously on the continuing public appetite for Trump related howlers, runs and runs?
Meanwhile, can I ask - the British media are presenting the Trump/White House presidency/administration to date as a state of chaos and confusion. Trump, they tell us, makes tweets contradicting the statements of his closest ministers, the right hand appears to not know what the left hand is doing (further exacerbated by the and absolute unpredictability as to what he will say or do next), and business is conducted as much around the convivial table of a 'PFL' (see Farage) as in the office. Is this the picture that the American media is putting out (and God knows - they've got no reason to love him) or is this just the British press making sure the Trump bump in their sales, which feeds voraciously on the continuing public appetite for Trump related howlers, runs and runs?
The truth is a Lion and does not need protection. Once free it will look after itself.
....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'
We are the Bloodguard
....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'
We are the Bloodguard
-
Hashi Lebwohl
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 19576
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:38 pm
Yes, but I am uncertain where that line exists--it will be in different places for different people. LBJ picks up a dog by its ears? Some people were still going to vote for him until he decided not to run. Involvement in the Watergate scandal went all the way to the Oval Office? Doesn't matter--some people would have voted for Nixon again, anyway. An out-of-control CIA running around the world doing whatever it felt like doing, even selling weapons to nations which purported to be our enemy? Irrelevant--some people would have voted for Reagan an third time had they been able to. Blowjobs in the Oval Office? Doesn't matter--some people still think Clinton was the best President. Invading or attacking countries which did not attack us first? People voted for Bush a second time. Obama helped roll back race relations and deported more illegal immigrants than his three most recent predecessors put together? His supporters still voted for him.peter wrote:I don't know Hashi, is there not a line beyond even which the faithful cannot be pushed.
I really do not know how bad behavior has to be before a true believer won't vote for their candidate of choice.
The Tank is gone and now so am I.