**** Elections thread *****

[Poopadoop]

NO! It's aimed at countries where governments are either not centralized, hence they cannot provide the necessary vetting data, or more simply, their governments are just not cooperative.

Yup, it's aimed only at muslim countries. The fact that they haven't banned every single muslim country doesn't mean it's not a muslim ban, it just means it hasn't been universally applied.

Another interpretation of the 'centralized gov't' thing is that those excluded countries are coincidentally the same countries where Trump has economic interests.

You can read the guy's mind now?

Have you learned to read? I said 'I imagine', not 'I know'. See the difference?

Holy shit man, in what universe is Giuliani a "far-righter"? How in the world could such a person be elected mayor in NYC?

Lol, of course he is. I don't know how he got elected frankly, cause he seems like kind of a nutjob.

Now you're reading judge's minds too? If this judge didn't grant the restraining order, they would have tried again until they found a judge who would.

Do you know how many judges they had to try? I'm guessing it wasn't a large number. (And again, just so we're clear, I'm guessing, not saying I know)

It's not working out well in Canada. They tried to pass legislation to ban hijabs. That doesn't sound like a place where Muslims are very welcome.

The former, conservative (far right) gov't tried to ban them. Judge overruled them. Sound familiar?

Current gov't is very welcoming of refugees.

And I don't know what you mean by "working out well". How do you know that everyone admitted into canada is one of the "good guys"? The lack of an overt attack doesn't validate the quality of security.

Lol, well what criteria do you want to apply to the quality of security? If the lack of an overt attack doesn't count as evidence, I don't know what does.

It only took ONE guy to get into a truck and drive over a sidewalk full of people. That means if you only admit ONE immigrant into your country, there is a non-zero chance you'll be attacked.

I understand the argument. Like I said, it's a question of how much of a risk you're willing to accept for the sake of helping refugees.

Who says we're unwilling to help the world? We just want 3 months to help ourselves develop the best security possible for our citizens,

Ok, so you only want to stop helping the refugees for 3 months (for now). Got it.

and then we'll open the doors back up to the world again.

We'll see.

I swear, every time a liberal argument is thwarted, they invent five new ones out of thin air. Preposterous assumptions, mind reading, conjecture, international disdain.....what else ya got?

You're talking about yourself here, not me.

[Jack Sawyer]

Good thing we have smarter ways of deciding who gets to run shit.

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but the electoral college is not one of those "smarter" ways though. Notice how it is unique in the world?

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/pollin...l-college.aspx

Fact: 63% of your country supports doing away with it. In 2013, 13 years after Bush won because it.

In 2000, George W. Bush was declared the winner of the general election and became the 43rd president, but he didn’t win the popular vote either. Al Gore holds that distinction, garnering about 540,000 more votes than Bush. However, Bush won the electoral vote, 271 to 266.
In 2016, Donald Trump won the electoral vote by 304 to 227 over Hillary Clinton, but Trump lost the popular vote. Clinton received nearly 2.9 million more votes than Trump, according to an analysis by the Associated Press of the certified results in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.

Bush won, but that election was hair splitting close. Clinton lost, but it was enough to be a landslide. Except for what is basically gerrymandering, another favorite tactic of the republicans as of late, but this time on a national level.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.c41c4948426b

On top of that, all sorts of strange shit. The US is one of but a literal handful of countries with such a profound two party system according to wikipedia. What about the other parties? They can go suck dick.




It all does not make sense.




It's way past time for you all to take a collective look into how your countries politics actually function, and do something about it. Or just be perfectly happy and keep chugging along.

[BananaStand]

Yup, it's aimed only at muslim countries. The fact that they haven't banned every single muslim country doesn't mean it's not a muslim ban, it just means it hasn't been universally applied.

You can't be serious. If it's not universally applied, then there must be some OTHER criteria to determine who the ban applies to, and who it doesn't apply to.

Another interpretation of the 'centralized gov't' thing is that those excluded countries are coincidentally the same countries where Trump has economic interests.

This is beyond ridiculous. I mean, never mind the pure evil you're accusing Trump of, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. But your understanding of facts is completely wrong. Where are you getting your information.

It's been widely publicized, if you pull your head out of the echo chamber, that the Obama administration wrote the list. It was Barack Obama who named these 7 countries as problematic. Where are his business interests?

Have you learned to read? I said 'I imagine', not 'I know'. See the difference?

Not only your opinions, but your perception of known facts is being skewed by your imagination. You should watch that.

Lol, of course he is. I don't know how he got elected frankly, cause he seems like kind of a nutjob.

It's so hard to take you seriously when you say such incendiary and outrageous thing about people who are obviously successful and capable. When I hear people talk about Rudy, the word "populist" comes up more than occasionally. "far right nutjob" seems totally incompatible with his image and reputation. Again, where are you getting your information?

Do you know how many judges they had to try? I'm guessing it wasn't a large number. (And again, just so we're clear, I'm guessing, not saying I know)

I don't know how many judges they had to try. Maybe they already knew who would play ball and who wouldn't. The point is, there are a lot of judges, and when the criteria for getting this temporary restraining order is so broad, vague, and subjective, it's hard to believe that ALL the judges would say no.

The former, conservative (far right) gov't tried to ban them. Judge overruled them. Sound familiar?
Current gov't is very welcoming of refugees.

Well maybe they caught our Obama-itis. That's the disease where elected officials do whatever they want regardless of what ordinary people think. Last I heard, ordinary people in Canada are leaving pigs heads on Mosque door steps. There's obviously some tension there. And what's Canada doing that Sweden isn't?

Lol, well what criteria do you want to apply to the quality of security? If the lack of an overt attack doesn't count as evidence, I don't know what does.

using your criteria, we could assume that on Sept 10, 2001 we were all totally safe. We know now, that was monumentally untrue. It sounds like you're saying any immigrant who doesn't commit violence after taking his first steps off the plane, must be a good guy. And terrorist organizations wouldn't only sent attackers. They would send planners, recruiters, networkers, messengers, and all kinds of other operatives that we definitely don't want wandering around America.

I understand the argument. Like I said, it's a question of how much of a risk you're willing to accept for the sake of helping refugees.

If it's a risk/reward question, what's the risk in a 3 month pause? Why is it such a terrible hardship for a refugee to wait an extra 3 months. I keep hearing about how long and arduous our existing process is, if it takes some folks 20 months instead of 17 months....where is the risk? And who knows, maybe our new vetting process cuts that down to 12 months, or 6. Why does it have to be all bad news for refugees?

Ok, so you only want to stop helping the refugees for 3 months (for now). Got it.

That's a misrepresentation of motive. Saying I want to stop helping refugees is stating alternative facts. I want to make sure America is safe. And that means we need to know who's coming in and out.

one of the arguments against the travel ban is that we already have a thorough vetting process, and that argument is usually provided by an immigrant/refugee who went through the process or someone with some visibility to the process. They never mention what the FBI, CIA, and other intelligence agencies are doing behind the scenes. All I hear about is how they have to get so many letters from friends about their character, or how they have to endure extensive interviews.

Well none of that proves anything. I don't know what procedures are necessary to adequately vet a Syrian refugee, but the people who do, say it's not good enough. I'm guessing here, but I imagine our intelligence services make a lot of behind the scenes inquiries with other governments regarding someone's education history, work history, where they lived, arrest records, etc etc. etc.

If we can't verify that information with the central government in Syria....we're guessing. Pakistan will tell us that shit. Saudi Arabia will tell us that shit. Sudan either won't, or can't. This was Comey's point. We can query our own databases, and interview the bejeesus out of these people until the end of time, and it won't help us make a confident determination.

You wouldn't be in favor of letting people through with no vetting, but that's essentially what we're doing if one of these refugees has never made a blip on an American radar. 18 months of interviews doesn't seem to help enough. At least that's what the people in charge of this very thing are saying. 18 month, 180 months, or 18 minutes. It makes no difference in our determination. That's what needs to be fixed before we open the doors again. Why is that a religiously prejudicial idea?

That's a dangerous situation for Americans. I don't want to hurt refugees, but I'm more concerned with keeping Americans safe. And if the only downside is that Yemeni people have to sit in the waiting room for a few more months....I really don't give a fuck.

[BananaStand]

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but the electoral college is not one of those "smarter" ways though. Notice how it is unique in the world?

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/pollin...l-college.aspx

Fact: 63% of your country supports doing away with it. In 2013, 13 years after Bush won because it.

That link seems to favor the electoral college. It looks to me that it pretty well refutes the two major objections to the system. I mean, this is an 8th grade debate man. Go read the James Madison quote at the end of that piece you linked. The Majority may not respect the rights of the Minority. If the presidency were selected by popular vote, a candidate could pander to Boston, San Fran, LA, NYC, Chicago, Houston, Denver, Seattle, Atlanta, and be done. What about the rest of the country?

Bush won, but that election was hair splitting close. Clinton lost, but it was enough to be a landslide. Except for what is basically gerrymandering, another favorite tactic of the republicans as of late, but this time on a national level.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.c41c4948426b

Just gonna say, when you link a Washington Post opinion piece that cites a book written by a guy from Salon.com.....heavy duty eye roll.

I skimmed it. Looks like Karl Rove wasn't shy about advertising the plan. If you don't like it, get out and vote.

On top of that, all sorts of strange shit. The US is one of but a literal handful of countries with such a profound two party system according to wikipedia. What about the other parties? They can go suck dick.

What about the other parties??? Dude....they ran a pothead!!! Seriously man, there are plenty of conservatives with not-great opinions of Trump. Gary Johnson still got single digits. If a third party couldn't make a mark in THIS election....then yeah, they can go suck dick.

[Poopadoop]

You can't be serious. If it's not universally applied, then there must be some OTHER criteria to determine who the ban applies to, and who it doesn't apply to.

Yes I am serious. It's clearly targeted at muslim countries. Just because it wasn't applied to every single muslim country in the world doesn't mean it wasn't targeted at muslim countries. Don't see how that's so hard to understand.

This is beyond ridiculous. I mean, never mind the pure evil you're accusing Trump of, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. But your understanding of facts is completely wrong. Where are you getting your information.

It's been widely publicized, if you pull your head out of the echo chamber, that the Obama administration wrote the list. It was Barack Obama who named these 7 countries as problematic. Where are his business interests?

It's politically convenient to have this fact to bring up. Unfortunately, even if it was Obama's military who labeled these as potentially dangerous countries, it wasn't him who decided to do a ban on these countries. It was your guy.

Not only your opinions, but your perception of known facts is being skewed by your imagination.

Again, talking about yourself here.

It's so hard to take you seriously when you say such incendiary and outrageous thing about people who are obviously successful and capable. When I hear people talk about Rudy, the word "populist" comes up more than occasionally. "far right nutjob" seems totally incompatible with his image and reputation. Again, where are you getting your information?

Just from watching him. He talks utter shit. And ya, when he's advising Trump on a muslim ban , that certainly qualifies as far-right wing behavior.

I don't know how many judges they had to try. Maybe they already knew who would play ball and who wouldn't. The point is, there are a lot of judges, and when the criteria for getting this temporary restraining order is so broad, vague, and subjective, it's hard to believe that ALL the judges would say no.

Hmm, you'd think Trump would be able to find a sympathetic judge too then. Why no luck?

Well maybe they caught our Obama-itis. That's the disease where elected officials do whatever they want regardless of what ordinary people think. Last I heard, ordinary people in Canada are leaving pigs heads on Mosque door steps. There's obviously some tension there.

Those aren't ordinary people doing that lol. You try to make it sound like every day some guy stops off at a mosque on his way to work and leaves a pig's head on the doorstep. Stop talking shit.

using your criteria, we could assume that on Sept 10, 2001 we were all totally safe. We know now, that was monumentally untrue. It sounds like you're saying any immigrant who doesn't commit violence after taking his first steps off the plane, must be a good guy. And terrorist organizations wouldn't only sent attackers. They would send planners, recruiters, networkers, messengers, and all kinds of other operatives that we definitely don't want wandering around America.

Again, putting words in my mouth. Why don't you argue with what I say instead of turn it into something I didn't say?

If it's a risk/reward question, what's the risk in a 3 month pause? Why is it such a terrible hardship for a refugee to wait an extra 3 months. I keep hearing about how long and arduous our existing process is, if it takes some folks 20 months instead of 17 months....where is the risk? And who knows, maybe our new vetting process cuts that down to 12 months, or 6. Why does it have to be all bad news for refugees?

60,000 existing visas were cancelled. Families were kept apart, students kept from their universities, doctors not allowed to return to the country. Your country is viewed as an asshole nation ruled by racists. How's that for some risks. But hey, if you're happy with that, so be it.

That's a misrepresentation of motive. Saying I want to stop helping refugees is stating alternative facts. I want to make sure America is safe. And that means we need to know who's coming in and out.

one of the arguments against the travel ban is that we already have a thorough vetting process, and that argument is usually provided by an immigrant/refugee who went through the process or someone with some visibility to the process. They never mention what the FBI, CIA, and other intelligence agencies are doing behind the scenes. All I hear about is how they have to get so many letters from friends about their character, or how they have to endure extensive interviews.

Well none of that proves anything. I don't know what procedures are necessary to adequately vet a Syrian refugee, but the people who do, say it's not good enough. I'm guessing here, but I imagine our intelligence services make a lot of behind the scenes inquiries with other governments regarding someone's education history, work history, where they lived, arrest records, etc etc. etc.

If we can't verify that information with the central government in Syria....we're guessing. Pakistan will tell us that shit. Saudi Arabia will tell us that shit. Sudan either won't, or can't. This was Comey's point. We can query our own databases, and interview the bejeesus out of these people until the end of time, and it won't help us make a confident determination.

You wouldn't be in favor of letting people through with no vetting, but that's essentially what we're doing if one of these refugees has never made a blip on an American radar. 18 months of interviews doesn't seem to help enough. At least that's what the people in charge of this very thing are saying. 18 month, 180 months, or 18 minutes. It makes no difference in our determination. That's what needs to be fixed before we open the doors again. Why is that a religiously prejudicial idea?

That's a dangerous situation for Americans. I don't want to hurt refugees, but I'm more concerned with keeping Americans safe. And if the only downside is that Yemeni people have to sit in the waiting room for a few more months....I really don't give a fuck.

Apparently a lot of your countrymen and women do give a fuck. Hence all the protests and legal challenges.

[Jack Sawyer]

Skip the pleasantries to 8:25

[Jack Sawyer]

That link seems to favor the electoral college. It looks to me that it pretty well refutes the two major objections to the system. I mean, this is an 8th grade debate man. Go read the James Madison quote at the end of that piece you linked. The Majority may not respect the rights of the Minority. If the presidency were selected by popular vote, a candidate could pander to Boston, San Fran, LA, NYC, Chicago, Houston, Denver, Seattle, Atlanta, and be done. What about the rest of the country?

The relevant fact was that the gallup poll itself showed that 63% of Americans wanted to do away with that system. I thought that in a democracy, when two-thirds of a country wants something, it was time to have a cold hard look at that thing. It’s not working. Legitimizing it because it worked this time for your purposes is a completely illogical argument made on clouds.


Plus, 5 times in 56 elections right? Curiously, twice in the last 5. As, dare I say it, Republicans get better and better at gerrymandering on a national level and other kinds of vote manipulation, vote suppression, etc, it’s bound to happen quite more often in the near future. For some reason, it’s always the Republicans making the news for this. Hear me now, quote me later.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...s-working.html
https://thinkprogress.org/2016-a-cas...n-258b5f90ddcd
https://www.salon.com/2016/10/18/its...goes-way-back/
https://www.thenation.com/article/th...story-of-2016/
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...r_america.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/u...ppression.html

Just gonna say, when you link a Washington Post opinion piece that cites a book written by a guy from Salon.com.....heavy duty eye roll.


I skimmed it. Looks like Karl Rove wasn't shy about advertising the plan. If you don't like it, get out and vote.

It’s an opinion yes. Hinted at by the “opinion” at the top of the page. Just like the Forbes page I linked to a while back.


However, if your votes gets systematically nullified or “partisanified”, why get out to vote? When you alienate people because they see and feel that no matter how they vote their district’s votes go to one party anyway, that “winner-takes-all” system at the heart of a two-party system, people are discouraged to vote. And then the problem keeps on going.


An explanation as to how this works, given to you from the animal kingdom side (since you “eyeroll” opinions)

What about the other parties??? Dude....they ran a pothead!!! Seriously man, there are plenty of conservatives with not-great opinions of Trump. Gary Johnson still got single digits. If a third party couldn't make a mark in THIS election....then yeah, they can go suck dick.

That was my point. It doesn’t matter who they ran, the results would be inconsequential nonetheless.




PS.


“Pothead”? I assume you are against marijuana legalization as well?

[BananaStand]

Yes I am serious. It's clearly targeted at muslim countries. Just because it wasn't applied to every single muslim country in the world doesn't mean it wasn't targeted at muslim countries. Don't see how that's so hard to understand.

It's hard to understand because a) It only targets an eighth of muslim majority countries b) Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and atheists are also affected by the policy, and c) It ASSUMES that this order was driven entirely by religious animus toward muslims. There's an obvious and urgent national security angle here that you're completely ignoring, even though it's completely validated by the situation in Europe.

It's politically convenient to have this fact to bring up. Unfortunately, even if it was Obama's military who labeled these as potentially dangerous countries, it wasn't him who decided to do a ban on these countries. It was your guy.

First of all, he's not "my guy". He's the president of the United States. That makes him OUR guy. That makes him everyone's guy. Second of all, you just said that there is a common thread among these particular countries beyond their muslim population. They were determined to be 'potentially dangerous' by two consecutive presidential administrations from opposite parties. Your insistence on ignoring that is the only 'politically convenient' thing here.

One of these countries is openly flaunting their ballistic missile tests. These countries, and only these countries, were named in the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 which was passed by members of both parties, long before Trump.

Are you really gonna tell me that this is just "trump hates muslims"?

Again, talking about yourself here.

You made an argument regarding Trump's animus towards Muslims, and you cited your own imagination as the source. What does that have to do with me?

Just from watching him. He talks utter shit. And ya, when he's advising Trump on a muslim ban , that certainly qualifies as far-right wing behavior.

Stop drinking the liberal kool aid. Proximity to Trump does not qualify as "far right wing behavior". I don't think any intelligent person thinks that Trump is "far right" anyway. You seem to be implying that racism is part of the "far right" platform. I can't respond to any of that because it's "utter shit".

Hmm, you'd think Trump would be able to find a sympathetic judge too then. Why no luck?.

He did. His name is Gorsuch, stay tuned. It could be settled even before that though. The DOJ submitted arguments last night, a new ruling could come as soon as today.

Those aren't ordinary people doing that lol. You try to make it sound like every day some guy stops off at a mosque on his way to work and leaves a pig's head on the doorstep. Stop talking shit.

I'm saying there is clearly tension. Dylan Roof is an extremist, that doesn't mean there is a huge gaping abyss between him and everyone else in this country. There is a whole spectrum of racial tensions among ordinary people. My read is that something similar is happening with Muslims in Canada.

Again, putting words in my mouth. Why don't you argue with what I say instead of turn it into something I didn't say?

no sir, you said clearly that the absence of an attack is evidence of sufficient security. All you have to do is wind back the clock to Sept 10, 2001 and that logic fails completely. I'm not twisting your words at all.

60,000 existing visas were cancelled. Families were kept apart, students kept from their universities, doctors not allowed to return to the country.

Can someone please bring me the world's smallest violin? I feel like playin'

Your country is viewed as an asshole nation ruled by racists. How's that for some risks. But hey, if you're happy with that, so be it.

Who's controlling that perception hmmm? Don't you think that could be tempered quite a bit of the mainstream media were emphasizing the fact that it's temporary, that it only affects a tiny fraction of muslim countries, that the situation in Europe is out of control, and our motives here are firmly rooted in national security, not anything else. Instead the headlines are politically motivated to undermine a president that the mainstream media doesn't like. They're actively working to fool gullible people into believing that this is a "muslim ban" born out of religious animus.

Apparently a lot of your countrymen and women do give a fuck. Hence all the protests and legal challenges.

I will bet a lung that most of those people don't give a shit if refugees come here or not. They're out there to protest Trump. They've got Obama on the record, they've got Schumer on the record, they've got tons of prominent democrats on the record supporting some kind of pause to immigration over the years. None of that gets reported nearly as widely as it should. I'm using my imagination now, but I doubt very much that there would be this much outrage if Hillary ran this same play.

[BananaStand]

The relevant fact was that the gallup poll itself showed that 63% of Americans wanted to do away with that system. I thought that in a democracy, when two-thirds of a country wants something, it was time to have a cold hard look at that thing.

Bad news bro. 63% is less than 2/3.

It’s not working. Legitimizing it because it worked this time for your purposes is a completely illogical argument made on clouds.

Why isn't it working? Objecting to the electoral college has got to be one of the most intellectually lazy arguments a person can make. You can't lose a game you're not playing. If the goal was to win the popular vote, the campaign would have looked alot different. You would have seen Trump spend more time in California, New York and Illinois, and you wouldn't' see any candidates in Maine, Rhode Island, or Montana. Are you starting to see why we don't do that?

When you say "it worked out this time", it's like you're implying that Hillary would most definitely have won a popular vote contest, and that is a completely illogical argument made on clouds.

However, if your votes gets systematically nullified or “partisanified”, why get out to vote? When you alienate people because they see and feel that no matter how they vote their district’s votes go to one party anyway, that “winner-takes-all” system at the heart of a two-party system, people are discouraged to vote. And then the problem keeps on going.

So you're describing the quandry of conservatives in California, New York, Massachussetts, and other places. go back to the article you linked. 10 states have more than half the electoral votes. That's what's even keeping democrats viable. I hate to break it to you man, but I think Republicans would decimate Democrats if we played the 'majority rules' game with our elections.

“Pothead”? I assume you are against marijuana legalization as well?

I can support de-criminalization, but outright legalization is not something I support. Full disclosure, I put away about an ounce a month myself. I have no trouble getting it. I use it in my own home, privately, when my kids aren't there. Also on backcountry hikes and camping trips, miles from any other person. The one time in 20 years that I got pulled over in a hot-boxed car, the cop just let me go with a ticket for 'improper lane change'. I think that's enough progress for weed. Any further than that and we have presidential candidates asking "What is Aleppo?" on television.

[BananaStand]

Not exactly wall-to-wall praise for Trump, but the law is on his side

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/...ation-ban.html

The merits of those TROs, not to mention the president’s order itself, have yet to be fully litigated. The judicial rulings were issued “ex parte”. That is, only one side was represented in court. The Trump administration lawyers haven’t even been given a chance to appear in court to say, “good morning, your honor.” All of that may change once both sides are represented in court.

It is no surprise that the 9th Circuit got it wrong. It is the most overturned appellate court in the nation. There’s a joke among California lawyers: if you lose your case in the 9th Circuit, you’re assured of winning it before the Supreme Court. Get the picture?

Take a look at judge Robart’s decision. It is largely devoid of any legal reasoning or sound analysis. Its brevity is exceeded only by its lack of logic as applied to the law.

In order to sustain a lawsuit, the plaintiffs must demonstrate their alleged injury is direct and real, not merely hypothetical. The harm must be imminent and irreparable, not speculative.

So how have Washington residents been harmed? Lawyers for the state suggest their economy will be adversely impacted because the ban may prevent immigrants from working for Washington-based companies. Taxes might be reduced and its education system could be affected.

However, all of that is pure conjecture. It might happen, but it might not. Hence, it does not constitute immediate “actual harm.” On that basis alone, the lawsuit should be dismissed.

Anyone wanna set the over/under on when the travel ban is back on?

[Poopadoop]

It's hard to understand because a) It only targets an eighth of muslim majority countries b) Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and atheists are also affected by the policy, and c) It ASSUMES that this order was driven entirely by religious animus toward muslims. There's an obvious and urgent national security angle here that you're completely ignoring, even though it's completely validated by the situation in Europe.

a) 56 countries in the world have a muslim majority? Sorry, that's alternative facts. The real number is 50. I only pick up on that since you just bitched out Jack for saying 2/3 as shorthand for 63%. Maybe you should apply the same passion for precision to yourself as you do to others.

b) It's impossible to prove someone's religion, obviously. Therefore a focussed 'muslim' ban is impossible. Trump and his gang are doing the next best thing they can. Those non-muslims are just collateral damage.

c) Urgent national security angle? lol.

First of all, he's not "my guy". He's the president of the United States. That makes him OUR guy. That makes him everyone's guy. Second of all, you just said that there is a common thread among these particular countries beyond their muslim population. They were determined to be 'potentially dangerous' by two consecutive presidential administrations from opposite parties. Your insistence on ignoring that is the only 'politically convenient' thing here.

Sorry, thought my point was obvious but I guess not. If Trump can say 'we didn't make up this list, we're just using it', it sounds a lot better than if they had just randomly banned a bunch of muslim countries.

One of these countries is openly flaunting their ballistic missile tests.

That means their citizens are terrorists? That's a bit of a leap.

Are you really gonna tell me that this is just "trump hates muslims"?

Never said that's all there was to it, so once again you've put words in my mouth. Maybe you should just try addressing what I actually say and not trying to change it into what you'd like to argue about. Having a discussion is a lot more straightforward that way.

Stop drinking the liberal kool aid. Proximity to Trump does not qualify as "far right wing behavior". I don't think any intelligent person thinks that Trump is "far right" anyway. You seem to be implying that racism is part of the "far right" platform. I can't respond to any of that because it's "utter shit".

You're making several different arguments here, none of which accurately reflects what I said.

He did. His name is Gorsuch, stay tuned. It could be settled even before that though. The DOJ submitted arguments last night, a new ruling could come as soon as today.

Ok, I'll wait.

I'm saying there is clearly tension. Dylan Roof is an extremist, that doesn't mean there is a huge gaping abyss between him and everyone else in this country. There is a whole spectrum of racial tensions among ordinary people. My read is that something similar is happening with Muslims in Canada.

The existence of tension does not mean the refugee policy is an overall failure. No-one expects 100% of the population to agree with a gov't policy of any kind.

no sir, you said clearly that the absence of an attack is evidence of sufficient security. All you have to do is wind back the clock to Sept 10, 2001 and that logic fails completely. I'm not twisting your words at all.

Again, changing what I said. What I did say was this:

what criteria do you want to apply to the quality of security? If the lack of an overt attack doesn't count as evidence, I don't know what does.

Let me walk you through the language here 'cause you seem to have some recurring issues with comprehension: When I say 'counts as evidence' I mean it 'supports the argument'. What I don't mean is that it alone is 'conclusive proof'. Therefore, your counter is meaningless since it doesn't address my actual argument. The fact that something hasn't happened in the past is never conclusive proof it can't ever happen in the future. We can only use the evidence we have, not assume things about the future.

Who's controlling that perception hmmm? Don't you think that could be tempered quite a bit of the mainstream media were emphasizing the fact that it's temporary, that it only affects a tiny fraction of muslim countries, that the situation in Europe is out of control, and our motives here are firmly rooted in national security, not anything else.

It so happens they also did report that it was temporary, that it only affected 7 countries, etc. The only thing they didn't do was buy into the propaganda line that it was all about national security because it was obvious to anyone who wasn't a Trumper that this was lol.

Instead the headlines are politically motivated to undermine a president that the mainstream media doesn't like. They're actively working to fool gullible people into believing that this is a "muslim ban" born out of religious animus.

Why do I feel like when Trump goes down the tubes it's going to be the 'media's fault', and not the fault of the man himself. This is such a familiar refrain from the narcissist Trump - everything that goes wrong for him is blamed on someone else, never on himself.

I will bet a lung that most of those people don't give a shit if refugees come here or not.

I will bet they do.

They're out there to protest Trump.

That's not incompatible with the previous point. They can be against the ban and against Trump in general both at the same time.

I'm using my imagination now, but I doubt very much that there would be this much outrage if Hillary ran this same play.

Possibly, but since it's unlikely she would have ever run this play it hardly seems relevant, especially since we're dealing with Trump here and not some hypothetical scenario.

[Savy]

You should both play papers please.

[Poopadoop]

ZOMG terrorists!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manito...toba-1.3969874

[BananaStand]

a) 56 countries in the world have a muslim majority? Sorry, that's alternative facts. The real number is 50. I only pick up on that since you just bitched out Jack for saying 2/3 as shorthand for 63%. Maybe you should apply the same passion for precision to yourself as you do to others.

The 2/3 number is an important threshold that is finite and definitive, not subject to 'rounding'. 63% isn't enough to change the constitution. You need 66.6%. Anything less, and the outcome is different. I think that's an important numerical distinction, and nowhere near the same as rounding 7/50 to 1/8 for simplicity.

b) It's impossible to prove someone's religion, obviously. Therefore a focussed 'muslim' ban is impossible. Trump and his gang are doing the next best thing they can. Those non-muslims are just collateral damage.

It's not impossible to prove religion, we could just have border agents ask incoming people to eat a ham sandwich. Then we'll know. On a serious note, it's outrageous to me that you're just so bent on viewing this as an act motivated purely by hate. You seem to think Trump just wants to hurt muslims for fun. And if he can't hurt them all, he'll just grasp whatever 7 straws he can. You just look foolish when you make such outrageous claims with no justification or proof.

c) Urgent national security angle? lol.

Playing Ostrich? What are you not seeing? those 7 countries will not provide vetting information. Those 7 countries are home to extremist organizations whose stated goal is the destruction of western civilization. They have suggested to their followers that they attempt to enter western society through the refugee program. Japan did the same thing to the Phillipines and it worked. Immigrants in europe are wreaking measurable havoc. And the perpetrator of the Bataclan attack in Paris was able to travel on a faked Syrian passport (meaning the processes to verify his identity failed, and thus need to be improved).

How is it that you can completely ignore these relevant facts and base your opinion solely on your perception that Trump is a racist.

Sorry, thought my point was obvious but I guess not. If Trump can say 'we didn't make up this list, we're just using it', it sounds a lot better than if they had just randomly banned a bunch of muslim countries.

Yesterday, you said the list was the list because it favored Trump's business interests. Now, in the face of facts, you're marginalizing those facts as merely 'convenient for Trump'. When do the facts just become the facts? It should be obvious by now that pretty much everyone agrees that these 7 countries are breeding grounds for violent extremism. Targeting them is a sound national security policy. Dismissing that angle because it doesn't fit your narrative of "Trump just ran for president so he could shit on Muslims", is insane.

That means their citizens are terrorists? That's a bit of a leap.

Who's putting words in who's mouth here? It doesn't mean all of there citizens are terrorists. It DOES mean that their government wouldn't tell us if one was. That's the whole problem here!

Never said that's all there was to it, so once again you've put words in my mouth. Maybe you should just try addressing what I actually say and not trying to change it into what you'd like to argue about. Having a discussion is a lot more straightforward that way.

Well what else is there? I mentioned National Security as the motivation and your response was...and i quote...."LOL". Also, asking you a question is not "putting words in your mouth". The fact that you answer the question with such a defensive, vague, and dismissive response forces me to draw my own conclusions about what your answer actually is. If you want a straightforward discussion, I'm waiting.

You're making several different arguments here, none of which accurately reflects what I said.

Well you've painted a known populist as a "far right nutjob" who talks "utter shit". Those are your words, accurately reflected.

The existence of tension does not mean the refugee policy is an overall failure. No-one expects 100% of the population to agree with a gov't policy of any kind.

That doesn't mean that tension should be tolerated. If it can be mitigated by making citizens feel safe regarding incoming immigrants, then the government has a responsibility to do that.

When I say 'counts as evidence' I mean it 'supports the argument'. What I don't mean is that it alone is 'conclusive proof'. Therefore, your counter is meaningless since it doesn't address my actual argument.

you don't have an actual argument. Your exact words were "I don't know what does [prove security]". For the rest of us, we rely on the men and women sworn to defend this country. And right now, those people are saying they need a better vetting process in order to do their job.

It so happens they also did report that it was temporary, that it only affected 7 countries, etc. The only thing they didn't do was buy into the propaganda line that it was all about national security because it was obvious to anyone who wasn't a Trumper that this was lol.

There you go again, lol-ing the national security angle. And you ripped into me for saying that your opinion is *only* about Trump's religious animus. You seem to have abandoned your argument about Trump's business interests in the remaining 43 muslim countries. So, please, make your argument....what do you think is the motive behind this travel ban?

Why do I feel like when Trump goes down the tubes it's going to be the 'media's fault', and not the fault of the man himself. This is such a familiar refrain from the narcissist Trump - everything that goes wrong for him is blamed on someone else, never on himself.

Trump steps in it plenty himself. No argument there. But if Trump does "go down the tubes", you'd have to be oblivious and retarded to not acknowledge that the media played a significant role

I will bet they do.

What percentage of them do you think bothered to write their Senator?

That's not incompatible with the previous point. They can be against the ban and against Trump in general both at the same time.

Agreed, but my point is would they still protest this if someone else was president? How much of the protest is in opposition to Trump, and how much is in support of refugees. We need our imaginations on this one, and mine is telling me that a rally for Syrian refugees wouldn't have the same draw if Hillary were president.

Possibly, but since it's unlikely she would have ever run this play it hardly seems relevant, especially since we're dealing with Trump here and not some hypothetical scenario.

I disagree that it's unlikely Hillary would have done this. Comey, Clapper, and other top intelligence officials are the ones who called attention to this problem. How do you think Hillary would have handled it? Would she have just ignored them? Or would she have taken a cue from legislation already passed and signed by her predecessor, Obama, and implemented some special procedures for the 7 most dangerous and problematic countries.

You rail against Trump's policy so hard....I'm wondering, what do you think would be a good policy?

[Poopadoop]

The 2/3 number is an important threshold that is finite and definitive, not subject to 'rounding'. 63% isn't enough to change the constitution. You need 66.6%. Anything less, and the outcome is different. I think that's an important numerical distinction, and nowhere near the same as rounding 7/50 to 1/8 for simplicity.

The distinction you make between the two examples is completely arbitrary and pointless.

It's not impossible to prove religion, we could just have border agents ask incoming people to eat a ham sandwich. Then we'll know. On a serious note, it's outrageous to me that you're just so bent on viewing this as an act motivated purely by hate. You seem to think Trump just wants to hurt muslims for fun. And if he can't hurt them all, he'll just grasp whatever 7 straws he can. You just look foolish when you make such outrageous claims with no justification or proof.

IOW, you have no rebuttal to my argument that you can't be sure of an applicant's religion, so you instead make up some stuff about what you would like to believe that I think. Seems like we're finding a common argument tactic you use.

Playing Ostrich?

Being a twat?

What are you not seeing? those 7 countries will not provide vetting information. Those 7 countries are home to extremist organizations whose stated goal is the destruction of western civilization. They have suggested to their followers that they attempt to enter western society through the refugee program. Japan did the same thing to the Phillipines and it worked. Immigrants in europe are wreaking measurable havoc. And the perpetrator of the Bataclan attack in Paris was able to travel on a faked Syrian passport (meaning the processes to verify his identity failed, and thus need to be improved).

I'm not ignoring those facts, I just don't accept them as a reasonable justification for the ban.

How is it that you can completely ignore these relevant facts and base your opinion solely on your perception that Trump is a racist.

Not what I said.

Yesterday, you said the list was the list because it favored Trump's business interests. Now, in the face of facts, you're marginalizing those facts as merely 'convenient for Trump'. When do the facts just become the facts? It should be obvious by now that pretty much everyone agrees that these 7 countries are breeding grounds for violent extremism. Targeting them is a sound national security policy. Dismissing that angle because it doesn't fit your narrative of "Trump just ran for president so he could shit on Muslims", is insane.

Not what I said.

It DOES mean that their government wouldn't tell us if one was. That's the whole problem here!

Fair enough.

Well what else is there? I mentioned National Security as the motivation and your response was...and i quote...."LOL".

That's correct.

Also, asking you a question is not "putting words in your mouth". The fact that you answer the question with such a defensive, vague, and dismissive response forces me to draw my own conclusions about what your answer actually is. If you want a straightforward discussion, I'm waiting.

Ok, fine. This was your question:

Are you really gonna tell me that this is just "trump hates muslims"?

My answer is 'no, I never said that'. Better?

Well you've painted a known populist as a "far right nutjob" who talks "utter shit". Those are your words, accurately reflected.

That's because that's my impression of him.

That doesn't mean that tension should be tolerated. If it can be mitigated by making citizens feel safe regarding incoming immigrants, then the government has a responsibility to do that.

Ok.

we rely on the men and women sworn to defend this country. And right now, those people are saying they need a better vetting process in order to do their job.

Well, many of your citizens apparently disagree with that idea, or at least the way Trump tried to implement it.

There you go again, lol-ing the national security angle. And you ripped into me for saying that your opinion is *only* about Trump's religious animus. You seem to have abandoned your argument about Trump's business interests in the remaining 43 muslim countries. So, please, make your argument....what do you think is the motive behind this travel ban?

I don't know the true motive, I can't get inside the head of the people in power. My suspicion is that it is not about 'national security' pure and simple, or even if that's the main motivation. The people in your country have been made afraid of an outside threat of terror out of all proportion to its real threat, that much I do know. Whether the Trump gang thought this would be a popular move, or whether it was done because they felt a true xenophobia themselves, is a open question. It's also worth noting, as I have, that the countries included don't include anywhere that Trump has business interests. There are reasons to be suspicious of his motives in that regards, not least of which is his refusal to release his tax returns and his unwillingness to distance himself personally from his business assets.

if Trump does "go down the tubes", you'd have to be oblivious and retarded to not acknowledge that the media played a significant role

Sure they will, but that doesn't mean their role would be unfair. Moreover, it's hard to get the media to sympathize with you when you're constantly attacking them. Hardly a week goes by when Trump doesn't tweet something about the 'failing NYTimes'. They can't be expected to just go 'you know what, poor guy, he's right, let's just go easy on him...'.

He's the fucking president, he's meant to be scrutinized and held to a standard.

What percentage of them do you think bothered to write their Senator?

Don't know. How many do you think write their Senator to support the ban?

Agreed, but my point is would they still protest this if someone else was president? How much of the protest is in opposition to Trump, and how much is in support of refugees. We need our imaginations on this one, and mine is telling me that a rally for Syrian refugees wouldn't have the same draw if Hillary were president.

Maybe that's because Hillary isn't already known for expressing racist and xenophobic sentiments, or surrounding herself with those types of people. Maybe that's why the public is so sensitive to this issue, because they see it as a first step down a slippery slope, and don't know where it's going to end.

You rail against Trump's policy so hard....I'm wondering, what do you think would be a good policy?

Don't know, just know this ain't it.

[BananaStand]

The distinction you make between the two examples is completely arbitrary and pointless.

One is in the constitution, the other is on an internet forum. That's not an arbitrary distinction.

IOW, you have no rebuttal to my argument that you can't be sure of an applicant's religion, so you instead make up some stuff about what you would like to believe that I think. Seems like we're finding a common argument tactic you use.

It's not made up. It's wholly based on your own statements. How can you claim outrage at a policy for its' targeting of religion, and then simultaneously say that there is no way to specifically target that religion. You're arguing against yourself there.

Being a twat?

Nice job sticking to the liberal-pundit playbook. When you run out of substantive arguments, name call. Classy.

I'm not ignoring those facts, I just don't accept them as a reasonable justification for the ban.

That's insane. What more justification do you need? What would it take for President Poop to pause immigration from troublesome areas?

Not what I said.

I'm not playing this game where you say outrageous things, I paraphrase, and then you call me out for not quoting you exactly. That's petty nonsense that distracts from the substantive debate. But I'll give you this opportunity to correct the record if you like.

You dismiss the National Security angle, so what then, do you think is Trump's motivation for implementing this policy? What is he trying to accomplish if not national security?

Fair enough.

Finally, some common ground. But if you agree with me on this, then how can you dismiss the common thread among the 7 countries is uncooperative and/or decentralized governments.

That's correct.

Thanks for not calling me a liar. So then if National security is 'lol', then what is the purpose of this order? Apparently I'm making a mistake in paraphrasing your belief that Trump simply wants to target muslims. So enlighten me please.

My answer is 'no, I never said that'. Better?

Fine, you never said the exact words I used in a paraphrased response. So....what would you say. What is the motivation for Trump to implement this travel ban.

That's because that's my impression of him.

Confirmation bias.

Ok.

So you agree that a government has an obligation. Yet you're critical of a government taking steps to meet that obligation. Explain.

Well, many of your citizens apparently disagree with that idea, or at least the way Trump tried to implement it.

What about the larger population of citizens that DO agree with the idea?

The Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 49 percent of Americans agreed with the order and 41 percent disagreed.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us..._medium=Social

I don't know the true motive, I can't get inside the head of the people in power.

So why then are you so confident in dismissing the stated motive of national security?

My suspicion is that it is not about 'national security' pure and simple, or even if that's the main motivation. The people in your country have been made afraid of an outside threat of terror out of all proportion to its real threat, that much I do know.

Been made afraid by whom? I think there is a disagreement over whether terrorist attacks represent an existential threat to national security. There are some who believe it's on a lower tier than Kruschev putting nukes in Cuba, or the current situation with N. Korea. And there are others who believe that a threat to civilians that disrupts our way of life is on the same tier. I don't think those people have been "made afraid". I think they are genuinely afraid, and see ways that our government can do more to protect us.

Whether the Trump gang thought this would be a popular move, or whether it was done because they felt a true xenophobia themselves, is a open question.

It's really not an open question. Trump and his "gang" have stated what their motive is. It's rooted in facts. It's supported by statements made by leaders of national intelligence. Those statements were made BEFORE Trump ever had a chance at the presidency. On the other hand, an alternative motive, like xenophobia, has no supporting evidence and is refuted by the fact that the order has no religious component, and it only covers a tiny fraction of muslim countries. The question is only being kept open by stubborn opponents to Trump himself who are refusing to believe the stated goal of the administration. Inventing their own motives and flip-flopping their opinions whenever it's convenient to align against Trump is making it so that every question remains "open".

It's also worth noting, as I have, that the countries included don't include anywhere that Trump has business interests. There are reasons to be suspicious of his motives in that regards, not least of which is his refusal to release his tax returns and his unwillingness to distance himself personally from his business assets.

It's not worth noting that. Partly because there is no basis for such an accusation whatsoever, and partly because alot of what you said there is categorically untrue. Trump has divested himself from his businesses in ways that satisfy all relevant legal and ethical standards.

Sure they will, but that doesn't mean their role would be unfair. Moreover, it's hard to get the media to sympathize with you when you're constantly attacking them. Hardly a week goes by when Trump doesn't tweet something about the 'failing NYTimes'. They can't be expected to just go 'you know what, poor guy, he's right, let's just go easy on him...'.

He's the fucking president, he's meant to be scrutinized and held to a standard.

If you think the press is being "fair" to Trump, and viewing his policies with an open mind, I want some of what you're smoking. It's not fair for Buzzfeed to post unsubstantiated reports about peeing prostitutes. It's not fair for CNN to accuse DeVos of plaigarism with flimsy and unfounded coincidences. It's not fair for media outlets to continually refer to a "muslim ban" when the order clearly has no religious component. The press has to be scrutinized and held to a standard too.

Don't know. How many do you think write their Senator to support the ban?

How many protesters write their senator in support of the policy they are protesting???? None...I guess. I'm not sure what you're asking here. if you're passionate about an issue, there are ways to affect change. Sidewalk tantrums aren't it.

Maybe that's because Hillary isn't already known for expressing racist and xenophobic sentiments, or surrounding herself with those types of people.

Well, if that's the case, then the protesters are protesting the man, not his policy. How can they expect to be heard if their message is so disingenuous?

Maybe that's why the public is so sensitive to this issue, because they see it as a first step down a slippery slope, and don't know where it's going to end.

So they're protesting hypotheticals? It's ok to take action against a perceived 'slippery slope', but it's not ok to take action against a potential terrorist coming to America?

Don't know, just know this ain't it.

Well, applause for admitting you don't know. Now tell me why you don't respect the opinions and policies of the people who do know.

[Poopadoop]

One is in the constitution, the other is on an internet forum. That's not an arbitrary distinction.

Of course it is. If the majority of citizens are in favour of electoral reform, it's irrelevant if 63% is the same as the 66.7% of the representatives that are needed to change it. You just picked on something he said when it was clear he was referring to the same thing when he said 63% and 2/3, as if that somehow changes the meaning of what he said.

It's not made up. It's wholly based on your own statements. How can you claim outrage at a policy for its' targeting of religion, and then simultaneously say that there is no way to specifically target that religion. You're arguing against yourself there.

The fact that it's impossible to target the religion with precision doesn't prove the religion wasn't targeted.

Nice job sticking to the liberal-pundit playbook. When you run out of substantive arguments, name call. Classy.

So it's ok for you to dish out the insults and imply that those who disagree with you are clueless morons but when you get called something you don't like, it's offensive?

Here's a tip: Start showing others respect around here and you'll get respect in return.

I'm not playing this game where you say outrageous things, I paraphrase, and then you call me out for not quoting you exactly. That's petty nonsense that distracts from the substantive debate. But I'll give you this opportunity to correct the record if you like.

You're not 'paraphrasing' because if you were, there'd be no issue. What you're doing is extrapolating from my argument to some absurd extreme position that I don't hold and I never claimed to hold, like 'Trump hates muslims'. And you keep doing it over and over despite getting called out on it over and over. Stop doing it and I'll stop calling you out on it.

Confirmation bias.

You don't know what confirmation bias is if you think forming an impression of someone based on what they say and do is confirmation bias.

What about the larger population of citizens that DO agree with the idea?

There's no evidence that the majority agree with his decision, in fact the evidence is for the contrary - the majority appear to disagree with the idea.

Been made afraid by whom? I think there is a disagreement over whether terrorist attacks represent an existential threat to national security. There are some who believe it's on a lower tier than Kruschev putting nukes in Cuba, or the current situation with N. Korea. And there are others who believe that a threat to civilians that disrupts our way of life is on the same tier. I don't think those people have been "made afraid". I think they are genuinely afraid, and see ways that our government can do more to protect us.

The media for the large part, because they sensationalize everything. Fact: Since 2001, you're more likely to die by being struck by lightning in the US, shot by your toddler, or have a coconut fall on your head than die at the hands of an islamic terrorist. Yet I don't see any ban on palm trees.

It's really not an open question. Trump and his "gang" have stated what their motive is. It's rooted in facts. It's supported by statements made by leaders of national intelligence. Those statements were made BEFORE Trump ever had a chance at the presidency. On the other hand, an alternative motive, like xenophobia, has no supporting evidence and is refuted by the fact that the order has no religious component, and it only covers a tiny fraction of muslim countries. The question is only being kept open by stubborn opponents to Trump himself who are refusing to believe the stated goal of the administration. Inventing their own motives and flip-flopping their opinions whenever it's convenient to align against Trump is making it so that every question remains "open".

Why do you think so many people oppose Trump? Why were there more protesters at his inauguration weekend than revelers? Maybe ask yourself that.

It's not worth noting that. Partly because there is no basis for such an accusation whatsoever, and partly because alot of what you said there is categorically untrue. Trump has divested himself from his businesses in ways that satisfy all relevant legal and ethical standards.

By any legal expert's standards, he has not. Giving your companies' control over to your kids is not 'divesting your businesses' - it's not even close to removing the obvious conflicts of interest.

if you're passionate about an issue, there are ways to affect change. Sidewalk tantrums aren't it.

What a ridiculous statement. Guess all those civil rights protesters in the 60s had no effect then.

Well, if that's the case, then the protesters are protesting the man, not his policy. How can they expect to be heard if their message is so disingenuous?

Like I said they can protest both the policy and the man. It's perfectly logical to associate one with the other.

So they're protesting hypotheticals? It's ok to take action against a perceived 'slippery slope', but it's not ok to take action against a potential terrorist coming to America?

They have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. If they wait until the country is a dictatorship and no-one's allowed to protest, it's going to be too late.

Well, applause for admitting you don't know. Now tell me why you don't respect the opinions and policies of the people who do know.

I don't know their motives. Why should I assume they're all pure? All I can go on are their actions, and I disagree with them for several reasons: First, it's un-American to discriminate against members of a particular religion the way they do. Second, it's unclear what the ultimate purpose really is (I know what you think it is, but I'm talking about reality, not opinion. And I'm suspicious as to whether they're stated goals match their real goals). Third, it's unfair to all the people who are suffering needlessly because of this overblown paranoia and xenophobia.

[BananaStand]

Of course it is. If the majority of citizens are in favour of electoral reform, it's irrelevant if 63% is the same as the 66.7% of the representatives that are needed to change it. You just picked on something he said when it was clear he was referring to the same thing when he said 63% and 2/3, as if that somehow changes the meaning of what he said.

Check the rulebook. If you want to eliminate the electoral college, you need a 2/3 majority, NOT a 51% majority. 63% is not enough. What are you not getting here?

Furthermore, what you really need is 2/3 of the senate, which would probably require alot more than 2/3 of the population, so 63% is not even in the ballpark.

The fact that it's impossible to target the religion with precision doesn't prove the religion wasn't targeted.

It's certainly strong evidence that targeting a religion was NOT the goal. Setting out on impossible tasks doesn't seem like Trump's style.

So it's ok for you to dish out the insults and imply that those who disagree with you are clueless morons

Fake news.

Here's a tip: Start showing others respect around here and you'll get respect in return.

I don't respect unfounded sensational accusations presented as fact. Other than that, I think I've been a decent guy here.

What you're doing is extrapolating from my argument to some absurd extreme position that I don't hold and I never claimed to hold, like 'Trump hates muslims'.

Well you have clearly stated your belief that this policy "targets" muslims. If it's not hatred or animus, why are they being targeted?

You don't know what confirmation bias is if you think forming an impression of someone based on what they say and do is confirmation bias.

If you pick and choose which things they say and do and use only those things to form your opinion, that's confirmation bias. The general consensus opinion of the Mayor, is nothing close to yours. You have to literally invent a justification for using the term "right wing nutjob", it's not substantiated by his record at all.

There's no evidence that the majority agree with his decision, in fact the evidence is for the contrary - the majority appear to disagree with the idea.

I just gave you a link that completely refutes this. Your first statement there is only true because you used the word "majority", which I never used. I said a larger population agrees than disagrees. That was validated by the Reuters poll. A plurality, not a majority, agrees with the policy.

The media for the large part, because they sensationalize everything. Fact: Since 2001, you're more likely to die by being struck by lightning in the US, shot by your toddler, or have a coconut fall on your head than die at the hands of an islamic terrorist. Yet I don't see any ban on palm trees.

If Palm Trees took over large portions of territory in the middle east by force, trained militants, and organized a violent jihad against the west, then those Palm Trees might see a few chainsaws.

Why were there more protesters at his inauguration weekend than revelers?

Source?

By any legal expert's standards, he has not. Giving your companies' control over to your kids is not 'divesting your businesses' - it's not even close to removing the obvious conflicts of interest.

If he is in violation of the law, why isn't he being prosecuted? I'm guessing that "Legal experts" are satisfied with the steps he has taken.

What a ridiculous statement. Guess all those civil rights protesters in the 60s had no effect then.

Not even close to the same thing. In the 60's there was an obvious and palpable injustice. In 2017 we use inconvenience and injustice interchangeably. That diminishes the meaning and effect of protests.

Like I said they can protest both the policy and the man. It's perfectly logical to associate one with the other.

Fine, but I still believe that if Trump were impeached tomorrow, no one would give a shit what his successor's refugee policy is.

They have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. If they wait until the country is a dictatorship and no-one's allowed to protest, it's going to be too late.

Agreed, but you're not applying the same standard to the other side. If we wait until a terrorist slips through the cracks and kills people, it's going to be too late.

And who said anything about folks "not being allowed to protest". My point is if you do it disingenuously, it diminishes the effect of your protest. And if that happens enough, it diminishes the credibility of all protests. If you want the protests to matter, then be real. When people protest a policy they don't even understand, just to undermine someone they don't like......that's weak fucking sauce.

I don't know their motives. Why should I assume they're all pure?

It's called "benefit of the doubt". You don't know their motives are impure. So why assume that?

All I can go on are their actions, and I disagree with them for several reasons: First, it's un-American to discriminate against members of a particular religion the way they do.

Agreed. Good thing no one is doing that. There is no religious component to this act whatsoever. You're choosing to perceive one. And you're doing so in obvious defiance of known and provable facts. 43 muslim countries are unaffected. Christians in the named countries are affected. The 7 countries named share a common thread that is not related to religion, but related to the structure and cooperativeness of their government. The 43 countries that don't share that thread, are not included. These are facts you insist on ignoring or minimizing because they simply don't fit your desired conclusion.

Second, it's unclear what the ultimate purpose really is (I know what you think it is, but I'm talking about reality, not opinion. And I'm suspicious as to whether they're stated goals match their real goals).

I really can't imagine why you say its unclear. The purpose has been stated, it's been supported by facts, and it's being implemented as a continuation of a law passed by congress and signed by the previous president. I'm all for healthy skepticism, but you've maintained that skepticism despite obvious realities. That's called paranoia.

Third, it's unfair to all the people who are suffering needlessly because of this overblown paranoia and xenophobia.

I thought you just said you didn't know the motivation behind the order. Ive accused you of believing that Trump is doing this out of animus toward Muslims. You've spent pages telling me how wrong I am about that. Now you're saying it's "because of overblown paranoia and xenophobia". Make up your mind dude.

And "suffering" is a strong word

[Poopadoop]

I think I've been a decent guy here.

Your first post was calling surviva all kinds of idiot. Your first interaction with wuf was call him a tin hatter. And you haven't exactly been respectful to others either. Getting a bit better though now, slowly.

Well you have clearly stated your belief that this policy "targets" muslims. If it's not hatred or animus, why are they being targeted?

It can be xenophobia, not hatred. Not necessarily the same thing.

If you pick and choose which things they say and do and use only those things to form your opinion, that's confirmation bias. The general consensus opinion of the Mayor, is nothing close to yours. You have to literally invent a justification for using the term "right wing nutjob", it's not substantiated by his record at all.

What makes you say I pick and choose what Guiliani says or does? Because my evaluation of him differs from yours? First, I only know what I've seen myself, I haven't followed the guy around with a mic to see what he's like 24/7. And second, what I've seen suggests to me that he's a right wing nut. You don't have to agree, it's just an opinion.

I just gave you a link that completely refutes this. Your first statement there is only true because you used the word "majority", which I never used. I said a larger population agrees than disagrees. That was validated by the Reuters poll. A plurality, not a majority, agrees with the policy.

Ah ok, I was misinformed them.

Source?

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...tion-worldwide

Over half a million in Washington DC alone. More than the estimated crowd of revelers.

If he is in violation of the law, why isn't he being prosecuted? I'm guessing that "Legal experts" are satisfied with the steps he has taken.

Guess again. They're not.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/...nterest-ethics

Not even close to the same thing. In the 60's there was an obvious and palpable injustice. In 2017 we use inconvenience and injustice interchangeably. That diminishes the meaning and effect of protests.

Your argument was that protesting was pointless. My argument was it isn't. You can't say it's pointless just when you don't agree with the message of the protests.

Fine, but I still believe that if Trump were impeached tomorrow, no one would give a shit what his successor's refugee policy is.

I'm pretty confident it would still be high on the list of things people would find important.

And who said anything about folks "not being allowed to protest". My point is if you do it disingenuously, it diminishes the effect of your protest. And if that happens enough, it diminishes the credibility of all protests. If you want the protests to matter, then be real. When people protest a policy they don't even understand, just to undermine someone they don't like......that's weak fucking sauce.

You don't know why they are all protesting - you just assume it's for disingenuous reasons. That's weak sauce too.

It's called "benefit of the doubt". You don't know their motives are impure. So why assume that?

With regards to Trump, it's all about history. Nothing he has done has shown him to have an interest in helping anyone but himself.

And "suffering" is a strong word

You can downplay it, doesn't mean it isn't happening.

[BananaStand]

Your first post was calling surviva all kinds of idiot. Your first interaction with wuf was call him a tin hatter. And you haven't exactly been respectful to others either. Getting a bit better though now, slowly.

I don't know what to tell you. I talk exactly the same way in real life, and I have friends.

It can be xenophobia, not hatred. Not necessarily the same thing.

You've got to be kidding. Please look up xenophobia. That would apply to all 190+ countries. We're only talking about 7. It's been clear from the outset that your objection to this policy is your perception that it unfairly targets Muslims.

What makes you say I pick and choose what Guiliani says or does? Because my evaluation of him differs from yours? First, I only know what I've seen myself, I haven't followed the guy around with a mic to see what he's like 24/7. And second, what I've seen suggests to me that he's a right wing nut. You don't have to agree, it's just an opinion.

Fine, but your evaluation of him doesn't just differ from mine, it differs from virtually everyone else's. When you claim that a guy widely known as a populist, is a "right wing nutjob", you need to bring more backup to the table than "he talks utter shit".

Over half a million in Washington DC alone. More than the estimated crowd of revelers.

Estimated? So, no verifiable data? This looks like an "alternative facts" trap. I'm not walking into it. I will say though, it would be naive to ignore how violent the responses have been to any conservative-themed event. A girl got pepper sprayed while giving an interview on camera. Just for wearing a Trump hat. No arrests. I wouldn't go out there either.

Guess again. They're not.

Oh puh-leeeeze. Vanity Fair is far from an authority on the law. And the summation of that article is "Vanity Fair found a bunch of liberal-minded "experts" to slam Trump". They don't seem to cite any actual law, or legal precedent. Or when they do, it's full of conjecture and "what-ifs".

Your argument was that protesting was pointless. My argument was it isn't. You can't say it's pointless just when you don't agree with the message of the protests.

No, that's not my argument. Protesting is pointless if your motive is disguised as something else. Like, if you got fired from KFC and you were pissed off at your former boss, then you joined a PETA protest outside corporate headquarters seeking to end cruelty to chickens. You didn't give a fuck about chickens yesterday. In fact, you served up their fried carcasses with gravy. If you're just there to shit on the Colonel, you're a dick-brain.

I'm pretty confident it would still be high on the list of things people would find important.

Not important enough to stand in a crowded airport all day.

You don't know why they are all protesting - you just assume it's for disingenuous reasons. That's weak sauce too.

You claim to not know why Trump signed the order. But you have assumed that it's NOT for the national security reasons he has stated. How is that any different? I don't believe the protesters are sincerely interested in helping refugees enough to demonstrate this way. It's Anti-Trump sentiment that's fueling these demonstrations. he could have signed an executive order requiring the White House kitchen to keep the ice cubes cold, and some of these people would still be holding signs.

With regards to Trump, it's all about history. Nothing he has done has shown him to have an interest in helping anyone but himself.

This totally ignores the reality, and precedent set by every elected official ever, that says there can, and SHOULD be differences between campaign rhetoric, and actions after taking office. You talk about "history" when the guy was only in office a week when he signed this order.

You can downplay it, doesn't mean it isn't happening.

You can up-play it. That doesn't mean I care about it nearly as much as I care about America's national security. I'm all for the ending of suffering, but when leaders of National Intelligence have said that we can't perform that good deed without putting Americans at risk.....fuck em. They can wait until we get things fixed.

[Poopadoop]

Estimated? So, no verifiable data? This looks like an "alternative facts" trap. I'm not walking into it. I will say though, it would be naive to ignore how violent the responses have been to any conservative-themed event. A girl got pepper sprayed while giving an interview on camera. Just for wearing a Trump hat. No arrests. I wouldn't go out there either.

There is no verifiable data - they didn't do a head count. Still, seems more people went to protest than to support him. There were easily way more protesters than at any other inauguration, and just as easily way more people at Obama's inauguration than Trump's. By just about any measure barring those espoused by the ministers of propaganda Conway and Spicer the guy has been swimming in unpopularity.

They don't seem to cite any actual law, or legal precedent. Or when they do, it's full of conjecture and "what-ifs".

When the chief ethics advisor for the gov't says it's pretty obvious he hasn't resolved his conflicts of interest and is violating the constitution, and you still don't want to believe it, then I don't know what else to tell you.

Protesting is pointless if your motive is disguised as something else. Like, if you got fired from KFC and you were pissed off at your former boss, then you joined a PETA protest outside corporate headquarters seeking to end cruelty to chickens. You didn't give a fuck about chickens yesterday. In fact, you served up their fried carcasses with gravy. If you're just there to shit on the Colonel, you're a dick-brain.

I don't understand this argument. You're suggesting some people who are protesting Trump's policies are actually protesting Trump-in-general instead? How do you divorce the two?

Not important enough to stand in a crowded airport all day.

So, the fact that he has people ready to protest him at the drop of a hat suggests what about him?

You claim to not know why Trump signed the order. But you have assumed that it's NOT for the national security reasons he has stated.

Nope. All I said was that I was skeptical. I don't claim to know the full extent of his reasons. You, OTOH, seem to be happy to believe that whatever reasons they've been spoon-feeding you are the real and only ones, as far as i can tell.

I don't believe the protesters are sincerely interested in helping refugees enough to demonstrate this way. It's Anti-Trump sentiment that's fueling these demonstrations. he could have signed an executive order requiring the White House kitchen to keep the ice cubes cold, and some of these people would still be holding signs.

Why do you think there's so many people against him? I mean what is their beef with him if not what he's doing and saying?

This totally ignores the reality, and precedent set by every elected official ever, that says there can, and SHOULD be differences between campaign rhetoric, and actions after taking office. You talk about "history" when the guy was only in office a week when he signed this order.

History goes back further than two weeks. All you have to do is look at the number of times he's been sued, stiffed contractors, lied, gotten into spats with people over petty things, etc., to see how he behaves. It's not hard to go from that to thinking he's a self-serving narcissist.

Maybe you just have a bit too much respect for your country's institution of president to realise you've elected such a character. Maybe that's the problem here, that you lack perspective. I mean a lot of the rest of the world thinks he's a major twat.

[BananaStand]

Can't do the copy/paste project anymore man. My comments are in blue.

There is no verifiable data - they didn't do a head count. Still, seems more people went to protest than to support him. There were easily way more protesters than at any other inauguration, and just as easily way more people at Obama's inauguration than Trump's. By just about any measure barring those espoused by the ministers of propaganda Conway and Spicer the guy has been swimming in unpopularity.

Old news. Whoever won the election was going to be the most unpopular incoming president ever. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with this 'my protest is bigger than your protest' game. I don't deny that there are more anti-trump demonstrations. But I think one would be naive to ignore the violence and rancor that gets brought upon outspoken conservatives

When the chief ethics advisor for the gov't says it's pretty obvious he hasn't resolved his conflicts of interest and is violating the constitution, and you still don't want to believe it, then I don't know what else to tell you.
He's not violating the constitution. In fact, the one salient fact in that article is that ethics regulations don't apply to the President, and he could legally continue to run his business while serving as President, and it would be fine. The fact that he's taken the steps should be encouraging. Plus, the idea that Trump would make decisions to help his business at the expense of national security or American interests is totally preposterous. He's a 70 year old man with 10 billion dollars sitting in the most powerful seat in teh world. What on earth could possibly tempt him enough to compromise that. Sheesh.

I don't understand this argument. You're suggesting some people who are protesting Trump's policies are actually protesting Trump-in-general instead? How do you divorce the two?
You do understand the argument, that's exactly what I'm saying. I divorce the two when the objection to the policy is based on false premises like the idea that it's a "muslim" ban, or that he's cherry picking the countries that don't affect his business. When those arguments are so demonstrably false, yet stubbornly adhered to, it suggests to me that the demonstrators don't understand, or simply don't care about the thing they claim to be protesting.

That diminishes the credibilty of your protest. And when it happens alot, it diminishes the credibility of all protests.

So, the fact that he has people ready to protest him at the drop of a hat suggests what about him?
American progressives are addicted to outrage? They've been stirred up by combative media that glorifies and glamorizes efforts to de-legitimize Trump. Also, it seems there is at least anecdotal evidence that many of these demonstrators are paid

Nope. All I said was that I was skeptical. I don't claim to know the full extent of his reasons. You, OTOH, seem to be happy to believe that whatever reasons they've been spoon-feeding you are the real and only ones, as far as i can tell.
I thought we weren't doing the ad hominem game. When you say "spoon fed", it implies that I consume things like a baby. I have to eat food to stay alive. The spoon is a convenient food delivery mechanism. And if someone wants to do the heavy lifting for me, great. I work, I raise kids, I climb mountains, I do a lot of things that keep me from personally keeping tabs on the status of middle east immigrants and refugees. I trust my government officials to do that for me, and keep me informed. As a sensible person, I look for other sources to confirm the things being 'spoon fed' to me. I see a man using a faked Syrian passport shoot up a concert in Paris. I see Sweden become the rape capital of the world, overnight. I could go on, but I'd just be repeating myself. Looking beyond that free spoonful, I see enough to make me trust what I'm hearing from government.

Why do you think there's so many people against him? I mean what is their beef with him if not what he's doing and saying?
Do you think it would be different if Hillary were President? Old news man. They were both monumentally disliked. Their beef with Trump is related to their persistent disbelief over the results of the election. You have members of congress stating publicly that Trump is "not legitimate" and citing Russian interference and teh popular vote. They're motivated by a delusional drive to re-write the results of the the election by undermining Trump's policies and neutering his presdiential power.

History goes back further than two weeks. All you have to do is look at the number of times he's been sued, stiffed contractors, lied, gotten into spats with people over petty things, etc., to see how he behaves. It's not hard to go from that to thinking he's a self-serving narcissist.
Narcissist, sure. But that doesn't mean he's not also capable of patriotism. You don't make 10 billion dollars in business without stepping on toes. I'm not really phased by the number of times he's been sued. He's probably been wrong a few times, and I'm sure he's lost and/or settled a few lawsuits over the years. So what? How does that make him incapable of differentiating between business and government?

Maybe you just have a bit too much respect for your country's institution of president to realise you've elected such a character. Maybe that's the problem here, that you lack perspective. I mean a lot of the rest of the world thinks he's a major twat.
Yes, I respect the office of President. I respect the outcome of fair elections. I respect the authority of a federal government. Approaching a new administration with an open mind doesn't mean I lack perspective. I've never said I love the guy's whole playbook. Ten minute ago I texted my girlfriend "I swear, Trump would be the best president ever if he just never talked"

You can't please all of the people all of the time. That's perspective.

[Poopadoop]

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/...g-constitution

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opini...ticle30019623/

[BananaStand]

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/...g-constitution

In case you missed it earlier, ethics regulations do not apply to the President. Trump could spend half his day being President, and half his day being CEO, and it's perfectly legal. He's violating no law.

The only law he's being accused of violating is the emoluments clause, which prevents Trump from receiving gifts from foreign governments. And thus far, he hasn't received one. The entire case is based on a hypothesis, and a completely absurd one at that.

The suggestion is that foreign visitors could attempt to curry favor with Mr. Trump by patronizing his hotels and businesses during their stay. For that to even matter, you'd have to subscribe to the roundabout logic that says patronizing a business constitutes a gift. In the rest of the economy, this is a fair exchange of goods and services. They get a bed, Trump sends them a bill. The emoluments clause does not apply to these exchanges. You'd have to believe that represents a gift to Trump, which is nuts.

Also, the entire premise is silly. Trump is an old man, with all the money in the world, a smokin hot wife, and the most powerful seat in the world. What amount of hotel profits would tempt him to make a foreign policy decision against America's interests? Give me a number?

And if you're still not convinced, Trump has committed to donate those profits to the Treasury. To that, his opposition says "well, he could be lying". We could go on like this forever. Any concession Trump makes, could be a lie, so he can't be president! It's clear that whoever is beating this 'ethics' drum is just out to undermine and de-legitimize Trump. There's no conflict here, no crime. Just petty liberal bullshit.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opini...ticle30019623/

So poverty = crime. That's not news. Should we have an income test for refugees then? This article you've linked admits that poverty only accounts for 75% of the difference in the crime rate. What about the other 25%? It also conflates the facts by referring to a 'crime rate' that includes murders and robberies. Those crimes are indicative of an economic defect. Rape is something different altogether.

In America, black people represent 14% of the population but account for more than 50% of murders and robberies. That difference can be attributed to poverty. If poverty had the same influence on all crimes, including rape, then the numbers should be the same across the board, but they're not. Black people only commit 29% of rapes in America.

"When men first come into contact with crime, they abhor it. If they remain in contact with crime for a time, they become accustomed to it, and endure it. If they remain in contact with it long enough, they finally embrace it, and become influenced by it."
-Napoleon Hill, citing a "famous criminologist"

These people are coming from countries where men keep and trade sex slaves. Certainly that is going to have an 'influence' on their attitudes towards women. The article you linked concedes a 'handful of headline grabbing incidents'. Well, when does a handful become a trend? What's the number?

[Poopadoop]

1. Those are things for a judge to decide. We'll see.

2. I was responding to you arguing that Sweden had become the 'rape capital of the world, overnight', and how you were implying it was because of refugees. Theres' a lot in that article to suggest this is a gross oversimplification of things, such as the change in Sweden's definition of 'rape' for example. This is a perfect example of how your faith in your leaders has led you to accepting the right wing narrative that muslims = bad. You may want to try being a bit more skeptical - i.e., thinking for yourself a bit more, trusting the word of others a bit less.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I think the notion that preventing any non-0 number of terrorists entering the country is worth any expense in human dignity and national taxes - that notion is based on cowardice and short-sighted self-interest.

Some amount of uncertainty and risk is a necessary cost of freedom.
I take issue with paying lip service to the American ideals of liberty and justice for all, then denying those human dignities to non-Americans.

Are we what we say we are? Do we live up to our ideals? Can we? Is it not always important to hold true to our ideals?

[BananaStand]

1. Those are things for a judge to decide. We'll see.

Put your judge's robes on for a minute and tell me, do you think there is an amount of business profits that could possibly tempt Trump to do something against American interests?

2. I was responding to you arguing that Sweden had become the 'rape capital of the world, overnight', and how you were implying it was because of refugees. Theres' a lot in that article to suggest this is a gross oversimplification of things,

Simplified, sure. Untrue, nope. And if you want to talk about 'oversimplifying', how about the part where the article suddenly stops talking about rape numbers, and then zooms out to overall crime stats. There is more than enough in that article to conclude that foreign born people are over-represented in the crime stats.

such as the change in Sweden's definition of 'rape' for example.

Twelve years ago. I don't recall hearing about a "crisis" in Sweden until just recently. And those changes apply to EVERYONE in Sweden. So why then, are foreigners over-represented in the crime stats? Native born swedes seem to be able to handle the change.

This is a perfect example of how your faith in your leaders has led you to accepting the right wing narrative that muslims = bad.

Muslims = bad is NOT a right-wing narrative. I resent the implication that conservatives are racist. That's a left wing narrative that you seem to have swallowed whole after it was spoon fed to you.

You may want to try being a bit more skeptical - i.e., thinking for yourself a bit more, trusting the word of others a bit less.

Skeptical of what? The conclusion here is that poor people = crime. If you add more poor people, crime goes up. If we're going to pick and choose which poor people come in and which don't, it would be nice to be able to query their arrest records, so as to minimize the number of incoming criminals. Most countries in the world give us that information. 7 of them don't, and we need 3 months to set it up ourselves. That's all "the word of others" is telling me.

What you should be skeptical of is demonstrably false ideas like 'Trump targeted these 7 so as not to affect his business'. Or that this was motivated entirely by xenophobia, or Islamophobia. Or that anecdotal evidence about the length of our current vetting process somehow proves that it is effective.

[MadMojoMonkey]

That's a left wing narrative that you seem to have swallowed whole after it was spoon fed to you.

You guys are never going to understand your opposition if you don't have an inner klaxon go off when you generalize away from the individual you're talking to.

There is nothing to gain from arguing with "the liberal agenda" or the "the conservative agenda." No one fully supports either side. Humans are nuanced. It's unfair to attribute other people's ideas onto the person you're talking to. It's at least impolite to avoid really listening to each other and responding to this conversation and not something you heard or saw on TV that triggered you. It's unfortunate that idiots make good entertainment and political idiots get coverage 'cause the intersection of news and entertainment is lame.

I'm not trying to single you out, banananananana. There are dozens of examples from both you and poopadoop on this page where this applies.

[BananaStand]

I think the notion that preventing any non-0 number of terrorists entering the country is worth any expense in human dignity and national taxes - that notion is based on cowardice and short-sighted self-interest.

Some amount of uncertainty and risk is a necessary cost of freedom.
I take issue with paying lip service to the American ideals of liberty and justice for all, then denying those human dignities to non-Americans.

Are we what we say we are? Do we live up to our ideals? Can we? Is it not always important to hold true to our ideals?

I don't see how anyone's human dignity is diminished with a three month pause. And I don't think it's cowardly to recognize the fact that huge percentages of the population in these countries think that their religious laws supersede American laws. Or that huge percentages of these populations support bombing civilian targets for political purposes. Or that someone coming from this area with a fake passport managed to make his way to a western country and kill a fuckload of people.

In light of all that, I don't think it's at all cowardly to place extra scrutiny on people coming from these areas. Actually, it's our duty.

Being willfully blind to it in the interest of political correctness is cowardly. Opening up our country because if we don't ISIS will use it as propaganda to recruit fighters against us, is also cowardly.

And I resent the idea that controlling immigration and refugees equates to an abandoning of our ideals. Extra scrutiny does not equate to a denial of liberty and justice for anybody.

If we convince the other 29 NATO nations to contribute to the construction and security of safe-zones in Syria, why would that be a solution inconsistent with our ideals?

We've reached a point where we are defining american ideals as 'whatever Trump isn't doing'.

[Poopadoop]

Put your judge's robes on for a minute and tell me, do you think there is an amount of business profits that could possibly tempt Trump to do something against American interests?

You're asking me to pretend I'm Trump, and I can't even begin to do that.

That said, the whole argument that he's already super rich and therefore doesn't need any more money is also pretty silly imo. If he is now satisfied with $10b or whatever he's worth, why wasn't he satisfied with $1b?

Further, it's not like no-one would ever do something for personal gain that went against their country's best interests.

I'm sure you'd like to believe kleptocracy could never happen in your country. And I'm just as sure if Trump is using his office for personal gain, he will do so counting on that kind of naivete. And just to be clear I said 'if', not 'when'.

[BananaStand]

That said, the whole argument that he's already super rich and therefore doesn't need any more money is also pretty silly imo. If he is now satisfied with $10b or whatever he's worth, why wasn't he satisfied with $1b?

It's not a question of 'how much money would satisfy him for life'. He's a driven businessman. It's a question of drive.

He had that drive for business, now he doesn't. His drive now is the presidency. At least that's what was spoon fed to me. He could be lying. So I guess he can't be president. Anyone who could be lying, can't be president.

[Poopadoop]

It's not a question of 'how much money would satisfy him for life'. He's a driven businessman. It's a question of drive.

He had that drive for business, now he doesn't. His drive now is the presidency.

Well if he doesn't have that drive, then why not sell off all his businesses, give the money to his kids, and tell them to have fun? Why does he insist on keeping his businesses running and exposing himself to all these criticisms about conflicts of interest? Doesn't sound like someone who's lost their drive for business to me.

But I guess it's easier to believe a guy who's spent his whole life building a fortune has just suddenly decided he's no longer interested in making money now. I guess he's suddenly become a different person with a completely different set of priorities at the age of 70. That's the idea, is it?

[BananaStand]

Well if he doesn't have that drive, then why not sell off all his businesses, give the money to his kids, and tell them to have fun?

It's a catch 22. In order to do that he would have to negotiate the sale of those business, which would expose him to the exact conflicts of interest everyone is worried about. Bottom line is he shouldn't have to and he shouldn't be expected to destroy the business he built. There's no law or precedent for that whatsoever.

But I guess it's easier to believe a guy who's spent his whole life building a fortune has just suddenly decided he's no longer interested in making money now. I guess he's suddenly become a different person with a completely different set of priorities at the age of 70. That's the idea, is it?

Jesus man, did anything else happen over the last 18 months that perhaps changes his priorities?

[Poopadoop]

It's a catch 22. In order to do that he would have to negotiate the sale of those business, which would expose him to the exact conflicts of interest everyone is worried about. Bottom line is he shouldn't have to and he shouldn't be expected to destroy the business he built. There's no law or precedent for that whatsoever.

No he would simply have to put them in a blind trust. Let someone who's not his son sell them off, take the money. That would completely get rid of any conflict of interest. It would certainly be better than having a bunch of blank papers in folders at a press conference, and claiming they're documents he's been signing that rid him of conflicts of interests. That was just lol.

Jesus man, did anything else happen over the last 18 months that perhaps changes his priorities?

Have you even considered the possibility that his run for presidency and the lust for money are related? Have you heard of those guys who get power in order to increase their wealth? Because you talk like it's some kind of completely unthinkable concept.

[Poopadoop]

[Savy]

Have you even considered the possibility that his run for presidency and the lust for money are related? Have you heard of those guys who get power in order to increase their wealth? Because you talk like it's some kind of completely unthinkable concept.

Ultimately this is exactly it. He ran for president as publicity and took it more seriously as things went his way as that was the optimal thing to do.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I don't see how anyone's human dignity is diminished with a three month pause

You don't know what my point is, or you think my point is wrong?

Is the 3 month period significant? Would you have a different opinion if it was shorter or longer? What if it was a 3 week ban? A 3 year ban?
Are you OK with all of these, or is there some line in your head which could (in theory) be crossed?

It is possible that we don't have internal definitions of human dignity that are exactly in line.
Innocent until proven guilty (which is applied on an individual basis, not a regional basis) is something we stand for as an American ideal. Holding people who are not proven to be guilty of any wrong-doing as under the banner of "other people from there do wrong things" is not my understanding of American ideals.

Is it yours?

It's kinda funny that I'd have less of an issue with the ban if it was for ALL countries. I'm fairly certain that the standard non-Trump supporter would be exponentially more ballistic over this if that were the case, though.

And I don't think it's cowardly to recognize the fact that huge percentages of the population in these countries think that their religious laws supersede American laws. Or that huge percentages of these populations support bombing civilian targets for political purposes. Or that someone coming from this area with a fake passport managed to make his way to a western country and kill a fuckload of people.

Do you have any real numbers to back this up?

Thinking your own notion of justice supercedes any other form of justice is so American.
America bombs civilian targets for political purposes.
One bad person doing bad things is reason to bring justice to that person, not other people, even if those people are from the same town as the bad person.

It is definitively cowardly to consider an entire region of people as "a threat to America" when there is 0 indication that they are wrong-doers aside from circumstantial association with "bad guys."
It is definitively cowardly to react to the actions of an individual by fearing more than one person.

In light of all that, I don't think it's at all cowardly to place extra scrutiny on people coming from these areas. Actually, it's our duty.

The only issue I have is the word "extra." I think that having different levels of scrutiny for different areas is ethnic profiling, and goes completely against American justice.

I think it's our duty to always strive to our ideals, especially when it is hard to do so.

I think that we should have an equally strict level of scrutiny for all people entering the country. If that means that certain nations full of white Christians have to meet the same standards as everyone else, that's not only fine, it's appropriate.

Being willfully blind to it in the interest of political correctness is cowardly.

-.-
Only if the motivation is out of fear of retribution from political-correctnessers.

I'm not suggesting willful blindness, though, so I agree with your greater point.

Opening up our country because if we don't ISIS will use it as propaganda to recruit fighters against us, is also cowardly.

Totally agreed.
I'm not in support of open boarders.
I support equal standards for all applicants, regardless of who their neighbors are.

And I resent the idea that controlling immigration and refugees equates to an abandoning of our ideals. Extra scrutiny does not equate to a denial of liberty and justice for anybody.

Those aren't the same things.
I'm in favor of controlled immigration and controlled asylum for refugees.
The part which is an abandonment of our ideals is the part where we set different standards for different people based on the actions of still other people.

Extra scrutiny on you based on actions done by me is definitively a denial of your liberty and an injustice to you.

If we convince the other 29 NATO nations to contribute to the construction and security of safe-zones in Syria, why would that be a solution inconsistent with our ideals?

Using diplomacy to persuade other people to help us achieve our goals is near the core of democracy, which is in line with American ideals, as I understand your scenario.

I don't see how this is on topic.

We've reached a point where we are defining american ideals as 'whatever Trump isn't doing'.

I'm not doing that.
I gather from your tone that you think that's not a good thing to do, so who is the "we" whom are doing that?

[BananaStand]

No he would simply have to put them in a blind trust.

He'd have to liquidate the assets first. You can't transfer a business into a trust, have that business continue to operate in the public domain, and have that trust be "blind". it's not that simple. Former Deputy White House Counsel under Obama called that idea a "non starter"

And even if it were possible, it means transferring his assets to a stranger, and not his children. Why should he have to do that? Conflict of interest laws do not apply to him. He's under no obligation to do anything. So why would he even consider what you're suggesting? Just to appease his critics? Like they'd all become supporters if he stopped selling neckties.

Have you even considered the possibility that his run for presidency and the lust for money are related?

Never. And I'm absolutely AMAZED that you can even entertain this idea. Firstly, it's a vicious accusation with positively no basis whatsoever. Second, this same "what if" standard has never been applied to any other president ever. Did Reagan run because he liked being on TV so much? Did Clinton run just so he could get laid? Did Taft run for the free food? And Thirdly, this idea completely flies in the face of the very logic you've used to support every one of your positions thus far. It completely undermines the entire basis for your opinion of Trump.

All you have to do is look at the number of times he's been sued, stiffed contractors, lied, gotten into spats with people over petty things, etc., to see how he behaves. It's not hard to go from that to thinking he's a self-serving narcissist.

Would a self-serving narcissist be more interested in avoiding public impropriety, or would he be more interested in making a profit by granting favors to foreign governments, against american interests, in return for them patronizing a hotel room that would probably be sold anyway?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Firstly, it's a vicious accusation with positively no basis whatsoever. Second, this same "what if" standard has never been applied to any other president ever. Did Reagan run because he liked being on TV so much? Did Clinton run just so he could get laid? Did Taft run for the free food?

Firstly, it is not an accusation to ask a question. Also, America has always been politically divided / jaded. So the notion that Presidents of the past did not face ridiculous criticisms over inane crap is not borne out by history. I doubt the Southern states were filled with Grant supporters after the Civil War, is the gist of my point.

Also, my following response is appropriate.

Second, I'd say the answer to all of those is "probably" (except for the word "just" in the Clinton part... there were other perks.)
What I don't understand is why it's an issue.
How do you think the man in power got to be in power? By pursuing power?
He got to the top of the power ladder in his local game.. Why should that be any indication that he is sated of his quest for power?
Being sated is not what got him there.

Being enamored of power is not a bad or remotely unusual character trait among powerful leaders.


***
I gotta respond to poopadoop next time. I truly have as much to ask or clarify from each of you, and its giving a poor impression to have responded to you, banananananana, twice w/o responding to poopadoop. (whom I really want to give the nickname "poopy" but it seems rude in an unintended way. 'cause poop)

[BananaStand]

Is the 3 month period significant? Would you have a different opinion if it was shorter or longer?

I don't know how long it can, should, or would take to implement enhanced vetting procedures. There are people that do know, and they've asked for three months. It's not on you or me to question it.

Innocent until proven guilty (which is applied on an individual basis, not a regional basis) is something we stand for as an American ideal. Holding people who are not proven to be guilty of any wrong-doing as under the banner of "other people from there do wrong things" is not my understanding of American ideals.

Who are you talking about? Who is being "held"? Are you talking about people who got stranded in airports two weekends ago? If so, they were guilty of trying to enter the country illegally. And from what I've heard, the vast majority of these people were granted waivers and endured no real hardship. Once again, inconvenience, is not the same as injustice. The DHS secretary came out and admitted that the implementation was poor, and caused unnecessary complications. Governments are run by human beings, mistakes get made. They get fixed. None of that compromises our ideals.

It's kinda funny that I'd have less of an issue with the ban if it was for ALL countries.

Why? What happened to your American ideals. If someone wants to come here from Canada, Brazil, Germany, Kenya, India, Japan, or some other country with a friendly centralized government willing to verify the identity and history of a person, why shouldn't they be let in. A ban on all countries would be totally xenophobic, which is something I thought you had a really big problem with.

Do you have any real numbers to back this up?

Yes I do. http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/01/...-extremism-10/

130 people were killed in Nov 2015 in Paris. Jury seems to be out on the fake passport bit. Seem to be conflicting reports on whether the passport found was a fake belonging to the attacker, or a real one belonging to a victim. In either case though, it doesn't change where the attacker came from.

It is definitively cowardly to consider an entire region of people as "a threat to America" when there is 0 indication that they are wrong-doers aside from circumstantial association with "bad guys."
It is definitively cowardly to react to the actions of an individual by fearing more than one person.

You're ignoring the reasons why these 7 countries were named. It has nothing to do with any individual person. The entire government responsible for that country has given a gigantic middle finger to the efforts of our Intelligence services to screen incoming people.

The only issue I have is the word "extra." I think that having different levels of scrutiny for different areas is ethnic profiling, and goes completely against American justice..

Again, the variable factor here is not ethnic, its diplomatic.

I support equal standards for all applicants, regardless of who their neighbors are..

That's a nice ideal, but somewhat impractical in reality. I mean, we know where the Islamic state is. It's in the last two letters of their acronym. You don't think that warrants some extra attention for people coming from that region? I mean, if you were a cop who got a tip about a load of cocaine being smuggled on a flight....and you looked at the passenger list and saw 98 local yokels, and two columbian nationals....whose luggage are you searching first?

The part which is an abandonment of our ideals is the part where we set different standards for different people based on the actions of still other people.

This 'still other people' you're talking about are governments. Is it in our American ideals to let people be oppressed and live in starvation? Of course not. Are we going to lift sanctions on North Korea and send more aid to the country? Of course not. That would only enable the dictator over there to be even more of a dictator. Sometimes your ideals means choosing the lesser of two evils. It's not all gumdrops and rainbows.

Using diplomacy to persuade other people to help us achieve our goals is near the core of democracy, which is in line with American ideals, as I understand your scenario.

I don't see how this is on topic.

It's on topic because it's demonstrating an alternative method to help refugees, that is in line with American ideals. I don't see why maintaining american ideals means, specifically, that we have to bring them all here.

[Savy]

(whom I really want to give the nickname "poopy" but it seems rude in an unintended way. 'cause poop)

You've called me ImSavy rather than Savy for literally (and I feel old now) over four years. If you give other people a nickname before me I'm gonna cry.

Speaking of which can a mod not just rename me Savy?

[Poopadoop]

Never. And I'm absolutely AMAZED that you can even entertain this idea.

It's kind of cute how you rail about other people's outrage over serious social issues and then have the same reaction yourself to someone posing a hypothetical question about Trump's motivations.

Firstly, it's a vicious accusation with positively no basis whatsoever.

It's a possibility is all I'm saying. Don't confuse that with a declaration that I know the facts.

Second, this same "what if" standard has never been applied to any other president ever. Did Reagan run because he liked being on TV so much? Did Clinton run just so he could get laid? Did Taft run for the free food?

Let's stick to talking about things that actually relate to Trump's situation and not some silly stuff about Taft wanting free food. There's loads of precedents of people seeking political power in order to benefit themselves financially. Not sure what makes you so confident Trump is above that. Especially when there's many things to suggest personal ethics isn't his strong suit.

And btw, I wouldn't be shocked if Clinton's lust for power was related in some significant way to his lust for sex.

And Thirdly, this idea completely flies in the face of the very logic you've used to support every one of your positions thus far. It completely undermines the entire basis for your opinion of Trump.

It's not at all logically inconsistent with him also wanting power for other reasons as well. You can do something for more than one reason. Similarly, it's not inconsistent with him using that power to do things besides increase his own wealth.

Would a self-serving narcissist be more interested in avoiding public impropriety, or would he be more interested in making a profit by granting favors to foreign governments, against american interests, in return for them patronizing a hotel room that would probably be sold anyway?

I'm not sure which answer you want to hear, or what you think it would prove...

but the fact is, I don't know. You'd have to ask a self-serving narcissist or his psychiatrist that question. I don't have that much insight into the workings of other people's minds.

[BananaStand]

Firstly, it is not an accusation to ask a question.

That question was asked, and answered already. He's transferred control of the business to his sons. He's arranged so that the companies will not engage in any new business in foreign markets. He's clear of the emoluments clause, and he's addressed any potential for violating that by promising to donate any profits to the Treasury.

Yet those suing him are now asking a follow up question "What if you're lying?". To me...that's an accusation.

I gotta respond to poopadoop next time. I truly have as much to ask or clarify from each of you, and its giving a poor impression to have responded to you, banananananana, twice w/o responding to poopadoop. (whom I really want to give the nickname "poopy" but it seems rude in an unintended way. 'cause poop)

I'm not keeping score. I'm happy to clarify anything you like.

[Poopadoop]

It's not on you or me to question it.

Actually, it's on everyone to question things and not just take others' word. That's what it means to be an independent, autonomous person as opposed to a blind follower.

[BananaStand]

I'm not sure which answer you want to hear, or what you think it would prove...

How about this then,

How many actual dollars do you think Trump might actually profit if the Chancellor of Monaco chose to stay in a Trump hotel during a diplomatic visit?

You don't have to know exactly, just ballpark guess. Is that number more or less than the President's salary, to which Trump is legally entitled, but declined.

If he's just in it for the money.....he's fucking up.

[Poopadoop]

If you give other people a nickname before me I'm gonna cry.

Can we get that on video?

Just kidding. Savy is a good name for you.

Poop or poopy or whatever is fine with me too.

I really want to call him bananarama but that seems insulting.

[Poopadoop]

How about this then,

How many actual dollars do you think Trump might actually profit if the Chancellor of Monaco chose to stay in a Trump hotel during a diplomatic visit?

You don't have to know exactly, just ballpark guess. Is that number more or less than the President's salary, to which Trump is legally entitled, but declined.

If he's just in it for the money.....he's fucking up.

Right, 'cause his only investment is one hotel in DC. Never mind all those other businesses he owns around the world, those don't count.

Do you really need conflict of interest explained to you? I think you're smarter than that.

[BananaStand]

Right, 'cause his only investment is one hotel in DC. Never mind all those other businesses he owns around the world, those don't count.

Do you really need conflict of interest explained to you? I think you're smarter than that.

You can explain conflict of interest to me, to Trump, to anyone who wants to listen. it doesn't change the fact that laws governing conflicts of interests do not apply to the President of the United States. And despite that he's taken action to separate himself from his business anyway.

The only potential for legal action would be a violation of the emoluments clause, and thus far the only hypothesis put forward has been a roundabout logic that classifies patronization as a gift, citing the most likely sources being hotels and golf courses.

I'm just asking, how much profit can he really make on a round of golf, or a night in a hotel, compared to the $400K annual salary he turned down.

[Poopadoop]

You can explain conflict of interest to me, to Trump, to anyone who wants to listen. it doesn't change the fact that laws governing conflicts of interests do not apply to the President of the United States.

The only potential for legal action would be a violation of the emoluments clause, and thus far the only hypothesis put forward has been a roundabout logic that classifies patronization as a gift.

Never mind the legal arguments then. Let's talk hypotheticals (and I use that word so you don't get excited about thinking I'm 'vicisouly accusing' him of something, though at the same time I think it should be clear that these are plausible scenarios).

Should it not be of concern if he has a huge stake in [insert name of Russian oil company here] if he's the one driving your foreign policy? Should it not be of concern that his own personal business interests in [Russian or whatever oil company] would be improved if he dropped the US out of the Paris Accord? Would you not at least like to know where his business interests are if he is going to be running the country? Should it not be of concern that he refuses to release his tax records, so we can know where his business interests are?

The answer a lot of people give to those questions is 'yes, we should be concerned'. But yours seems to be: 'He's our president and would never do anything that wasn't in the country's interests'. If you really really believe that with 100% confidence and are willing to just give him a pass on everything else I mentioned here then I'm sorry, but you are living on Lollipop Lane.

[MadMojoMonkey]

the President's salary, to which Trump is legally entitled, but declined.

He's said he will decline it. He hasn't done so yet.

If/When he does decline it, that will be gangsta. I'll respect that.

[Poopadoop]

I'm just asking, how much profit can he really make on a round of golf, or a night in a hotel, compared to the $400K annual salary he turned down.

A more apt question is how much could he make if he made a favourable trade deal with a foreign power that benefitted a business interest in that country THAT WE HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA EVEN EXISTS BECAUSE HE WON'T RELEASE HIS TAX RETURNS.

[Savy]

He's said he will decline it. He hasn't done so yet.

If/When he does decline it, that will be gangsta. I'll respect that.

This is such a bullshit line from anyone. The reason you pay people for a job isn't just so they can afford to live.

[Poopadoop]

This is such a bullshit line from anyone. The reason you pay people for a job isn't just so they can afford to live.

Yes, but it pushes the narrative that he's doing this for altruistic reasons, which is great for his image. Meanwhile he could be robbing the country of billions and everyone would just say 'what a guy, he declined his $400k salary'.

[Savy]

Yes, but it pushes the narrative that he's doing this for altruistic reasons, which is great for his image. Meanwhile he could be robbing the country of billions and everyone would just say 'what a guy, he declined his $400k salary'.

I get you want to get your point across but I'm not in anyway implying that any of these things aren't true.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You've called me ImSavy rather than Savy for literally (and I feel old now) over four years. If you give other people a nickname before me I'm gonna cry.

Awww.
I didn't know you cared.


Problem I have is... savy isn't a word. I can never tell if you're savey (thrifty) or savvy (knowledgeable and hip).
It gets deeper, 'cause savey isn't a word, either, but saving a vowel seems clever and thrifty, whereas misspelling savvy seems neither knowledgeable nor hip.

You put me in a real bind, here, dude.

Speaking of which can a mod not just rename me Savy?

:/
I'm not sure. I'll drop a post in the moderator's forum and see if that's possible.

[Savy]

Problem I have is... savy isn't a word. I can never tell if you're savvy (knowledgeable and hip).

Can that not be the joke? (that is the joke)

[Poopadoop]

You put me in a real bind, here, dude.

I'm guessing from the chess handle he used when he cracked Ong's skillful defences that his last name is Savage.

Does that help?

[Poopadoop]

Can that not be the joke? (that is the joke)

Oh, I get it. It's like if Ong called himself 'hardworkingman' or some such.

[Savy]

Oh, I get it. It's like if Ong called himself 'hardworkingman' or some such.

No, it's so much better than that.

The funny thing is (not funny at all really) it was a nickname of a family member which I mispelt when trying to make a PSN nickname as I couldn't. This was about 8 years ago and hence has stuck. I've very rarely, like twice, had people call me saveE which is somewhat interesting.

[BananaStand]

Never mind the legal arguments then. Let's talk hypotheticals ...

I'm going to answer your hypothetical with a hypothetical.....

Let's say Trump negotiates a deal and can demonstrate that it's in American interests. But it also somehow benefits his business. Do you think Trump will get credit for helping America? Or will he be buried with accusations of personal greed? It's a lose-lose for Trump to open up his books. Either he keeps them closed and gets criticized for it, or he opens them up and gets slammed every time foreign policy happens to occur in the same neighborhood as one of his hotels. He's operating in more than a few countries, it's bound to happen. I wouldn't release my taxes either if I were him.

The answer a lot of people give to those questions is 'yes, we should be concerned'.

Holy crap dude....this is WHY we have elections!!! This was already debated for a year and a half, and then settled last November. Those exact questions were posed to every American citizen aged 18 or older, and the results of the election were that people either said "no, I don't give a shit, I trust the guy to do a good job", or "yes I'm concerned, but not as concerned as I am about a jillion other issues where i expect a strong performance from Trump".

We've known forever, at least my entire lifetime, that Trump is a successful business man with massive international investments. That's not news. The potential for these conflicts has always been there. He was asked about his taxes dozens of times during the election, people decided that they don't give a fuck.

The election is over. You shouldn't keep re-living these issues that have already been adjudicated just because you don't like the outcome. You most certainly can't claim that it's evidence of any nefarious intent by Trump, and you certainly can't demonstrate that he's done anything illegal.

This is the nature of democracy. There is always a losing side. People should be able to handle it without accusing Trump of shenanigans, or engaging in coordinated efforts to undermine and de-legitimize him.

But yours seems to be: 'He's our president and would never do anything that wasn't in the country's interests'. If you really really believe that with 100% confidence and are willing to just give him a pass on everything else I mentioned here then I'm sorry, but you are living on Lollipop Lane.

You're putting words in my mouth man. I thought we agreed that was against the rules. I never said the guy is a saint. I never said I give him a pass on everything. I do give him the benefit of the doubt. I believe he's patriotic. I believe he genuinely wants to be a good president. I don't see how that puts me on Lollipop Lane.

I will say we've been doing this for days now and you have thrown out more nefarious hypotheses about Trumps intention than the worst foil-hat wearing conspiracy theorist I've seen to date. Not once have you ever shown that you're even open to the idea that Trump is just trying to do a good job.

[Poopadoop]

I'm going to answer your hypothetical with a hypothetical.....

Let's say Trump negotiates a deal and can demonstrate that it's in American interests. But it also somehow benefits his business. Do you think Trump will get credit for helping America? Or will he be buried with accusations of personal greed? It's a lose-lose for Trump to open up his books. Either he keeps them closed and gets criticized for it, or he opens them up and gets slammed every time foreign policy happens to occur in the same neighborhood as one of his hotels. He's operating in more than a few countries, it's bound to happen. I wouldn't release my taxes if I were him.

So it's fair every other president in how many years has released their taxes but he gets a pass? Ok then.

It's about transparency and accountability. Surely anyone can see those are good qualities for a president to maintain. What he has to gain is people's trust that he's willing to be transparent. What he has to lose is the ability of people to scrutinize every deal he does and wonder if it's motivated by his own greed.

Holy crap dude....this is WHY we have elections!!! This was already debated for a year and a half, and then settled last November. Those exact questions were posed to every American citizen aged 18 or older, and the results of the election were that people either said "no, I don't give a shit, I trust the guy to do a good job", or "yes I'm concerned, but not as concerned as I am about a jillion other issues where i expect a strong performance from Trump".

We've known forever, at least my entire lifetime, that Trump is a successful business man with massive international investments. That's not news. The potential for these conflicts has always been there. He was asked about his taxes dozens of times during the election, people decided that they don't give a fuck.

The election is over. You can't keep re-living these issues that have already been adjudicated just because you don't like the outcome.

Issues don't just 'get settled' because you win an election. People being elected doesn't give them carte blanche to just do whatever the fuck they want 'cause 'well, they voted for me and they knew there were these issues, so the whole country must be ok with that'. Get real.

You're putting words in my mouth man. I thought we agreed that was against the rules. I never said the guy is a saint. I never said I give him a pass on everything. I do give him the benefit of the doubt.

Bullshit. You're putting words in my mouth. Tell me where I said you called him a saint and gave him a pass on 'everything'. I was talking specifically about his business conflicts of interests, and yes, 'giving him a pass' is a fair representation of your position on that, since you're clearly not interested in knowing what or where his interests are or holding him accountable for them.

I believe he's patriotic. I believe he genuinely wants to be a good president. I don't see how that puts me on Lollipop Lane.

It's a very black-and-white interpretation of things isn't it. It's not an either/or situation. He may very well be patriotic, may genuinely want to be a good president (or at least whatever he thinks 'good' is), and still could be doing things that benefit himself financially independent of whether or not they're right for the country. The point is WE'LL NEVER FUCKING KNOW THAT BECAUSE HE'S HIDING THE INFORMATION WE COULD USE TO DETERMINE IT.

I will say we've been doing this for days now and you have thrown out more nefarious hypotheses about Trumps intention than the worst foil-hat wearing conspiracy theorist I've seen to date.

Lol. If having a healthy skepticism regarding a public figure and a willingness to question his motives makes me the worst foil-hat conspiracy theorist you've seen to date in Lollipop Lane, then I can live with that.

Not once have you ever shown that you're even open to the idea that Trump is just trying to do a good job.

Of course I'm open to him just trying to do a good job. That doesn't mean I have to accept things he does I don't agree with, or pretend that problems don't exist with his behaviour.

[BananaStand]

So it's fair every other president in how many years has released their taxes but he gets a pass? Ok then.

Life is not fair. And no other president has had the vast and complex personal wealth that Trump has. Obviously the game is different.

It's about transparency and accountability.

No it isn't. I'm amazed that you can't see that.

What he has to gain is people's trust that he's willing to be transparent.

Why should he not think that he already has people's trust. That's what winning an election means. Voters have entrusted you with the power of the Presidency.

What he has to lose is the ability of people to scrutinize every deal he does and wonder if it's motivated by his own greed.

No, he'll just be giving his detractors a weapon to use against him. Any time foreign policy overlaps, even by geographical coincidence, with his business ( and it WILL happen), it will only fuel the narrative that he's motivated by his own greed. Even with the most pure and patriotic intentions, that's a guaranteed losing scenario for Trump. It's far better for his ability to govern, if he lets people continue to 'wonder'.

Issues don't just 'get settled' because you win an election. People being elected doesn't give them carte blanche to just do whatever the fuck they want 'cause 'well, they voted for me and they knew there were these issues, so the whole country must be ok with that'. Get real.

When you say "doing what ever the fuck he wants", what exactly is he 'doing'? What's the action there? What is he claiming he has 'carte blanche' to do? If you want to "get real", how about you bring the conversation back to reality?? The question was posed, during the election, "Does Donald Trump need to release his Tax returns for voters to trust him?" The voters said "no". That's real. Now live with it.

I mean, the guy obviously went well above and beyond what was legally required, and he's still getting the question "but what if you're lying?". I wouldn't feed these jackals either.

I was talking specifically about his business conflicts of interests, and yes, 'giving him a pass' is a fair representation of your position on that, since you're clearly not interested in knowing what or where his interests are or holding him accountable for them.

What does "hold him accountable" mean? Because it really sounds like you're looking to play "gotchya".

It's a very black-and-white interpretation of things isn't it. It's not an either/or situation. He may very well be patriotic, may genuinely want to be a good president (or at least whatever he thinks 'good' is), and still could be doing things that benefit himself financially independent of whether or not they're right for the country. The point is WE'LL NEVER FUCKING KNOW THAT BECAUSE HE'S HIDING THE INFORMATION WE COULD USE TO DETERMINE IT.

No that's not the point. The point is what you said at the beginning of this paragraph. You're right, it's not an 'either/or' situation. It's plausible, I suppose, that Trump could act in a way that serves his business interest independent of whether or not it's good for the country. It's ALSO plausible that Trump could act in a way that serves the country, but also unwittingly or coincidentally helps his business. When half of congress and virtually all of the mainstream media is actively seeking to undermine him, he will NEVER get a pass for a 'coincidence'. He'll be accused of personal greed and conflicts of interest. There's no plausible scenario where Trump can serve America by design, himself by coincidence, and not get creamed. And with such a broad global presence, that coincidence is sure to occur sometime in the next 4 years.

I mean, let's use YOU as an example. Now you're claiming to not even know where Trump's businesses are. Yesterday, you were absolutely positive that he DOESN'T do business in the 7 countries on the travel ban list. And you are at the very least, open minded to the idea that is what led to them being named in the travel ban. And you continued to state such even in the face of facts that prove someone else came up with the list, long before Trump ever declared he was running.

Why would he open himself up to even more of that noise?

Lol. If having a healthy skepticism regarding a public figure and a willingness to question his motives makes me the worst foil-hat conspiracy theorist you've seen to date in Lollipop Lane, then I can live with that.

No my friend. Stubbornly holding on to every nefarious, odious, and vile motive as plausible while simultaneously dismissing any pure or patriotic motives as something "spoon fed" to people who live on "lollipop lane"......is NOT a 'healthy' skepticism. It's delusional paranoia.

Of course I'm open to him just trying to do a good job. That doesn't mean I have to accept things he does I don't agree with, or pretend that problems don't exist with his behaviour.

Well I guess we differ on the definition of 'accept'. You DO have to accept that he will not release his tax returns, and there isn't shit you can do about it. Sure you can complain about it, but that's like peeing your pants. It feels good, but you look ridiculous.

[Poopadoop]

Life is not fair. And no other president has had the vast and complex personal wealth that Trump has. Obviously the game is different.

It'd be nice if he gets a different set of rules to play by just because he's rich, but he doesn't. Sorry about that.

No it isn't. I'm amazed that you can't see that.

That's nice, but it's not an argument in any sense of the word. Unless the argument is meant to be 'I'm amazed anyone can believe something I don't'. But no, that's not an argument either.

No, he'll just be giving his detractors a weapon to use against him. Any time foreign policy overlaps, even by geographical coincidence, with his business ( and it WILL happen), it will only fuel the narrative that he's motivated by his own greed. Even with the most pure and patriotic intentions, that's a guaranteed losing scenario for Trump.

He's giving them a much bigger weapon by hiding what his interests are.

The question was posed, during the election, "Does Donald Trump need to release his Tax returns for voters to trust him?" The voters said "no". Now live with it.

Such a lame response. 'We won, you lost, live with it.' The kind of argument a ten-year old makes. Is that really the best you can do?

No that's not the point. The point is what you said at the beginning of this paragraph. You're right, it's not an 'either/or' situation. It's plausible, I suppose, that Trump could act in a way that serves his business interest independent of whether or not it's good for the country. It's ALSO plausible that Trump could act in a way that serves the country, but also unwittingly or coincidentally helps his business. When half of congress and virtually all of the mainstream media is actively seeking to undermine him, he will NEVER get a pass for a 'coincidence'. He'll be accused of personal greed and conflicts of interest. There's no plausible scenario where Trump can serve America by design, himself by coincidence, and not get creamed. And with such a broad global presence, that coincidence is sure to occur sometime in the next 4 years.

So the answer is to just hide everything? So, if he wanted to, he COULD in theory sell out the country for himself and no-one would be the wiser. Ya, that doesn't work, sorry.

If it inconveniences Trump politically to make his investments known, well that's just tough shit for him. Giving him a free pass isn't the answer. The country has a right to be able to question his policies, even the ones who voted for him.

Stubbornly holding on to every nefarious, odious, and vile motive as plausible while simultaneously dismissing any pure or patriotic motives as something "spoon fed" to people who live on "lollipop lane"......is NOT a 'healthy' skepticism. It's delusional paranoia.

It certainly would be.

Well I guess we differ on the definition of 'accept'. You DO have to accept that he will not release his tax returns, and there isn't shit you can do about it. Sure you can complain about it, but that's like peeing your pants. It feels good, but you look ridiculous.

The only one looking ridiculous is the one making an analogy between holding a president accountable and how it feels to pee his pants.

[BananaStand]

It'd be nice if he gets a different set of rules to play by just because he's rich, but he doesn't. Sorry about that.

What are you even talking about? what "set of rules" are you looking at? There's no rule that says he has to release his tax returns to the public. If you don't see why Trumps situation is unique, I don't know what to tell you. I guess just waste your time steaming over a perceived infraction against a non-existent rule.

That's nice, but it's not an argument in any sense of the word. Unless the argument is meant to be 'I'm amazed anyone can believe something I don't'. But no, that's not an argument either.

No, I'm amazed that you believe the things you're saying.

He's giving them a much bigger weapon by hiding what his interests are.

No they aren't. It's definitely NOT a 'bigger weapon'. You can't possibly believe that, you just really want to.

Such a lame response. 'We won, you lost, live with it.' The kind of argument a ten-year old makes. Is that really the best you can do?

No, a ten-year old would continue to whine and complain about some perceived 'unfairness' when the rest of the world has moved on.

So the answer is to just hide everything? So, if he wanted to, he COULD in theory sell out the country for himself and no-one would be the wiser. Ya, that doesn't work, sorry.

You're proving my point. Getting worked up over what he COULD do, serves no purpose. All it takes is the mere suspicion of impropriety for his detractors to conclude guilt. Why would he expose himself to that. What is the upside?

If it inconveniences Trump politically to make his investments known, well that's just tough shit for him. Giving him a free pass isn't the answer.

No it's not tough shit for him. Maybe disclosing his taxes publicly would put him at some competitive disadvantage. Other people run hotels and golf courses too. If they get to see Trump's books, that's not a small problem for Trump.

And what are you even talking about when you say "free pass"? A pass on what? he's committed no violation. There is nothing to excuse.

The country has a right to be able to question his policies, even the ones who voted for him.

Agreed. And when those questions get answered, accept the answer. If the answer is inconsistent with provable facts, or reasonably perceived realities, then challenge the answer. That's all fair game in the course of healthy political discussion.

What's offsides is when the answer is honest, sensible, and fair and someone still says "well, what if you're lying?"

You could continue that indefinitely, and with anyone, not just Trump. But I don't recall any other president being subjected to such mean-spirited cynicism.

Let's say Trump has a hotel in Cuba. Then we find out that the Cuban government is up to something no good, and there is a call for the US to sever diplomatic relations again. Now let's say Trump takes a different course of action, gets the Cuban government to sign some new treaty that stops the bad behavior, and that we can enforce. Even though Trump executed superb diplomacy, there will still be people saying "you should have severed diplomatic relations, and you stopped short to save your hotel!!" Why have that? How is it productive?

There is NO UPSIDE to releasing his tax returns. There is no plausible scenario where one of his detractors would look at them and say "oh, ok, this all looks in line, I'm glad Trump is so transparent, maybe I was wrong about the guy". It's far more likely they will start combing through those tax returns looking for a comma out of place. And Trump's supporters, already don't care what's in his taxes. He won't win over a detractor, or validate his policies in their eyes, by releasing his taxes. It won't happen. This is what I meant above. The claim of wanting "transparency" is total garbage. What people really want is that "bigger weapon".

It certainly would be.

I know you don't think that's what you're doing, but it is.

The only one looking ridiculous is the one making an analogy between holding a president accountable and how it feels to pee his pants.

"holding a president accountable". That's such bullshit. . The constitution affords a robust system of checks and balances. A free press maintains accountability. There are already government regulatory agencies that enforce laws. They don't enforce opinions, sorry.

[CoccoBill]

I really want to call him bananarama but that seems insulting.

I'm mentally using BananaStreisand.

[Jack Sawyer]

Interesting interview on Austerity by a guy who was right a few times before on key issues. Debt yo

[Jack Sawyer]

Hahaha, I started answering your post, then I saw this:

The relevant fact was that the gallup poll itself showed that 63% of Americans wanted to do away with that system. I thought that in a democracy, when two-thirds of a country wants something, it was time to have a cold hard look at that thing. It’s not working. Legitimizing it because it worked this time for your purposes is a completely illogical argument made on clouds.

Bad news bro. 63% is less than 2/3.

You are trolling buddy. I didn't bother anymore 'cause you just trollin'


Gonna take Bart's advice:
5881861191_90de8b5bc9.jpg

[BananaStand]

You are trolling buddy. I didn't bother anymore 'cause you just trollin'

Fake news

Not sure what's hard to understand what im saying, or why its trollish.. What you are advocating requires a change to the constitution. Changing the constitution requires a 2/3 vote. 63 percent is not 2/3. I don't get why I'm a troll for not accepting "close enough". These thresholds are important, that's why it's written into law.

A supreme court nominee needs 60 votes. If he gets 58 and doesn't get confirmed, are you gonna call the other 42 senators "trolls" for not rounding?

[CoccoBill]

Since when does a constitution change require a 66.6% public poll?

[BananaStand]

Since when does a constitution change require a 66.6% public poll?

Since never

A public poll can garner attention at any percentage. Jack specifically referred to 2/3 as some kind of finite threshold, in the context of a discussion about changing the constitution. There a rules on that, and they matter

It seems to me that you all know this, and know exactly what my point has been in regards to 2/3. Keepin this argument going is profoundly trollish

[givememyleg]

You've called me ImSavy rather than Savy for literally (and I feel old now) over four years. If you give other people a nickname before me I'm gonna cry.

Speaking of which can a mod not just rename me Savy?

yeah, if you want me to for sure send me a PM.

[Poopadoop]

Since never

A public poll can garner attention at any percentage. Jack specifically referred to 2/3 as some kind of finite threshold, in the context of a discussion about changing the constitution. There a rules on that, and they matter

Jack wasn't talking about a vote to change a law, he was talking about a poll regarding whether the public wanted a change. The fact that he used 63% and 2/3 interchangeably is a tiny bit of laziness in precision that doesn't change the validity of his argument.

Your argument that a hypothetical vote on the constitution and a public poll somehow share the same threshold in order for them to be meaningful is nonsensical.

Keepin this argument going is profoundly trollish

Pointing out that an argument is nonsensical is perfectly legit.

Continuing to defend a nonsensical argument is trolling.



.

[BananaStand]

Jack wasn't talking about a vote to change a law.....
.

I was. And that's how I interpreted his statement. Which I explained ad nauseum in subsequent posts.

Continuing to defend a nonsensical argument is trolling.

Sounds like a confession.

[Poopadoop]

I was. And that's how I interpreted his statement. Which I explained ad nauseum in subsequent posts.

Try reading what people say next time instead of making up your own interpretation.

Sounds like a confession.

Not helping your image any here.

[CoccoBill]

Jack wasn't talking about a vote to change a law.....

I was. And that's how I interpreted his statement. Which I explained ad nauseum in subsequent posts.

Unfortunately the reality doesn't change to reflect your interpretations. What you're describing here is that you misinterpreted what Jack said and continued to beat the strawman you put up, despite several others telling you ad nauseam that you're wrong. I wasn't aware Bannon had published his playbook.