Omnibus Politics Thread: Campaign 2016 EditionFollow

You wrote it right to left didn't you!

I'm not the one portraying it that way. The protesters marching around with signs opposing a "ban on Muslims" are.



Are you saying it is a "ban on Muslims"? Or a temporary travel restriction? Seems to me you're plenty capable of repeating the emotion charged rhetoric, while simultaneously arguing that it's wrong to point out that people are repeating emotion charged rhetoric. Which I find somewhat amusing.

I'm not even taking a position on the travel ban/restriction/whatever itself. Just questioning the labeling of it as somehow an anti-religion thing. The ban affects all people who've traveled in said list of countries, regardless of their religion. I happen to think this is a bit of an over reaction on his part, but it's not like Trump is unique in doing something like this. Obama wrote an executive order with the same form of travel ban from Iran. The only difference was that it was just the one country, and that no one in the media decided to frame that order as anti-muslim when he did it, which means most of us never heard about it, much less protested it.




Yeah. One of the complaints is that during the Obama administration, despite rising rates of terrorist plots, often involving people who traveled to one of a set of countries in the ME, and then returned to the US to plan and carry out said plot, there was little if any vetting being done based on those parameters. Add in the whole bit about rising terrorism in Europe from unvetted refugees from Syria, and a whole lot of election cycle hammering on said point, and you get a result like this.

Is it a bit reactionary? Absolutely. Is it unconstitutional? No. It's step one towards building a better vetting system than what we've been using. As I mentioned before, the requirement that there can't be a religious test forces a broader application of such travel bans than would normally be logical and reasonable. They will have to come up with a vetting process that allows for determining likely terrorists without actually using religion as a baseline. Which is tricky in this case, but not impossible.

My larger point is that we're not even talking about the vetting process yet. There is no "anti-muslim" component here. Only the potential for such, if we choose to imagine that the vetting rules, which have not yet been made, might include religion as part of the vetting process. But that's the cart traveling well ahead of the horse. People are literally claiming religious persecution is going on right now because they believe that those they are attacking will do it in the future. That's their own speculation and assumption though, and not based on fact.



I think the mistake you are making is assuming that when I question the argument made when attacking something that this means I'm defending the thing being attacked. I'm not. I'm merely pointing out the flaw(s) in the argument being made. I personally don't agree at all with the travel ban. I think it's overly broad and disruptive. But I *don't* think that it violates any sort of 1st amendment test, nor is it anti-muslim and will call out those who are saying it is. Argue against what it actually is, not a more emotion laden thing you want to label it. The latter process is just cheap rhetoric IMO.

After being proven wrong just call it an alternative fact or blame fatigue.

She misspoke. The script I gave her talked about the "Greene's Bowling Massacre", which was the time I won State by murdering all my competition. Conveniently, there were plenty of bowling bags handy to carry all the heads out in.

My sources say it was Samira and Joph working together on that Liberal Conspiracy. Secretly voting for Trump and then working to make the anti-Trump protestors bad.

And sometimes you just need a big screen UHD TV.

G, you are kinda all over the place here. If even you do not know what IT actually is ( your words ), how can possibly lowly doom and gloom speculator such myself do any better. Since we are talking about the order itself and you readily agreeing that it was too broad, we are already in agreement as to substance; we do not seem to agree on the characterization.. but I can live with that.



I completely agree. I really do. Does not make my point any less valid.



Am I? Am I really? I am only asking that each person that wields power has it severely restrained. Do you know why? Because if experience taught the human race anything, it is that once we have even a little, we crave more. The standard is not impossible. It is merely common sense. ****, you don't wanna hear my rant about money equals power. You would **** your pants over what I am proposing there.

Just in case I will also ask, since I am looking at glass half-empty, what is the rosy view on this one? Care to elaborate?



Now this is the part that kinda gets me. The vetting is already pretty intrusive and has been for a while now. Are you seriously trying to argue that it is not sufficiently secure? This is not EU where a bunch of roamers show up at the border, yell a little and get the gate opened. Obama did not pass a ban, but, more subtly, made visa approval that much more harder on average Joe Schmoe. So, here, I guess, the question is, how much more secure do you want to get? You gotta think about the diminishing returns, or is no price is too high to pay for an illusion of safety, and for having, finally, freedom of movement restricted. Travel is a privilege citizen; not a right. Surely you do not think it will stop with them brown people? You tell me.




Cool beans. What is it?



I did; just not here. Also, O was the anointed at the time and virtually could do no wrong in the public eye. That's where we got some of the worst precedents that now T uses - he already managed to kill an American citizen without any due process. Here is the good news though. The public in general does not seem to like T ( low ratings for a new pres ), so there is a chance to revert some of the damage O did to the institution. That said, a chance is all we get. Can we count on you?:>



It is nice to dream. Based on how things are aligning, we are looking at repeat of 2008, not the go go 90s. Unless you think removal of fiduciary rule, disbanding CFPB, and culling EPA will make it all go oh so smoothly.



I know it may be contrary to your, apparently, internalized dogma, but I would like you to bear with me. I could give you an opinion, but since pretty much everyone is making up **** these days ( Conway comes to mind... despite her lying boss ) I figured, you may benefit more from more direct approach.

Have you seen the market the past week? It is only today ( once Trump stopped being too crazy ) that the market recovered somewhat. But the guy says whatever he thinks. One day the dollar is too strong, the other, especially, ESPECIALLY under Obama, weak.. and possibly sad. Granted, this stupidity is already being baked into prices, but at the expense of the weight President's word once had. In the meantime

And before I move to the main point, folks in business like predictability. Does anyone really know what he is going to do? But don't take my word for it. Take VIX's. Certainly it can measure predictability of the market better than I can. Alternatively ( if you are contrarian ), look at gold and bask in its quick rise over the past week.

Now for the final point, I do get that Rs and, seemingly, you love uncontrolled growth. You know what also grows uncontrollably? Cancer. Just because something grows fast does not automatically make it better. Actually slowing unsustainable growth may not be bad policy after all if you consider that, eventually, the uncontrolled hunger of the planet's population will almost literally devour it whole. What? You don't care until next 10k is filed? Good to know.

Ok. Back to real life.

Edited, Feb 3rd 2017 8:59pm by angrymnk

Um... I was just pointing out that you used a pronoun (it), without a clear antecedent. I was not sure what you were talking about when you asked how I felt about "it". I could play 20 questions and guess, but I've found that to be less than productive in the past.



Assuming you meant the executive order barring entry from a list of 7 specific countries that Trump passed, then yes, I think it was a poor order. My issue, and my only issue was the mass labeling of it as a "ban on Muslims", and the near hysterical protesting of his "ban on Muslims".

And for the record, the reason I wanted clarification of what "it" was, is that I might assume you mean the executive order broadly, and respond to it as such, only to find out later that you meant a "ban on Muslims", and suddenly I find myself having to argue why a ban on Muslims is ok, or more specifically, why it's constitutional. Then, when I try to point out that this wasn't what I was arguing at all, I'll be accused of backpedaling.

Cause that has never happened on this forum before (that's sarcasm btw). I've learned to force the person I'm speaking with to be very clear about what they are saying, for this very reason. People just love to present very broad statements, and then re-interpret them after the fact to fit the argument. I prefer not to do that.



If your "point" was that his order was a ban on Muslims, then it does. Or, more specifically, the fact that it's easy to just apply the emotion laden label of "ban on Muslims" to Trump's order, as a way to gather easy and broad condemnation, does not make the claim that it *is* a "ban on Muslims" valid.

It doesn't mean it's *not* a "ban on Muslims". But you have to actually make that point and support it with an argument. The "easy" way is to just apply the label and walk away. But that's not a valid argument. Which was the point that I was making.

What was your point again?



Yes, you are. Because the standard appears to be less about the action taken as it is about the person taking the action. You did not protest when Obama passed a nearly identical 6 month travel ban during his term. The only difference was that it was just one country, and was a bit more narrowly focused (and had exception cases built in from day one, which Trump did not, which btw, is why I primarily have a problem with Trump's order). The question is whether this is an abuse of power. It's not. Yet, you're arguing as though it is.



And it is. The president has a very specific set of powers. One of those, quite clearly is control over things like immigration, visas, ports of entry, etc. That is, in fact, absolutely within the power of the executive branch, in a way that things like "health care", and "education" are not. When Bush ordered all air traffic downed and all entry into the US blocked on 9/11, that was a vastly more powerful act in this area, right? Yet, no one said it was a violation of his authority, nor was it declared to be unconstitutional. You understand that the exact same authority is being used here, right?



Yes. I know all of that. The problem is that you're skipping right past the determination of whether a given use of power is abusive, or unconstitutional, and just declaring it so (labeling it, so to speak), and then moving from that point. You're free to disagree with the order. You're free to argue that it wont work, it's overly broad, it'll cause disruptions for many people's travel plans, etc. And I'd likely agree with every one of those arguments. But if you want to argue that it's unconstitutional, you have to actually make that argument.

You have failed to do so.



It's not about rosy or bleak. That's the problem. You seem to equate "constitutional" with "good", and "unconstitutional" with "bad". But that's not what the word actually means. An executive order can be a good or bad order, with good or bad intent, and good or bad outcomes, all completely independent to whether that order is constitutional. The word "constitutional", in this context, only addresses whether the action violates or does not violate the rules in the constitution. And in this case, it quite clearly does not.

Unless you want to make an argument otherwise. Which, I'll point out again, you have not yet done.



Again though, that's a question of whether the ban actually solves a problem, versus creating more problems. It's *not* about whether it's a violation of presidential power, or is unconstitutional.

I'll point out (again) that Obama did essentially the same thing. Back in 2012, he felt that the vetting process was too lax, so he put a temporary 6 month ban on travel (I think it was Syria or Iraq, but can't remember atm), while his administration re-vamped the vetting procedure. Trump has the same authority to do the same thing, right? He's free to decide that the current vetting process isn't good enough, and engage in the same temporary travel ban while re-vamping them to his satisfaction.

It seems as though most of the outrage over this has less to do with the action itself, as the person taking it. Which is a huge case of the cart leading the horse. You perceive Trump and the GOP as being anti-Muslim, so when they take an action like this, it must be driven by some innate bigotry. You perceive Obama and the Dems as not being bigoted, so you are fine with the exact same order, when they do it. But that's your perception tainting reality. Your own assumption is leading the action and causing you to make further assumptions about said action that is not actually supported by the facts.

Ask yourself honestly: If Clinton had won the election and written the exact same executive order, would you be alarmed by it? Heck. Would you even have been aware of it? There certainly would not have been protests. It would have been reported as Clinton being "tough on terrorism", and praised. Right?



Its a travel ban on 7 countries identified as being sources of terrorist plots towards the US until better vetting procedures can be put in place.

[quote]Also, O was the anointed at the time and virtually could do no wrong in the public eye.[/quote]

And that's the real problem. Judging the action, not by the action itself, but by the person doing it. That's a terrible way to measure things. Yet, that's what's going on here.

[quote]That's where we got some of the worst precedents that now T uses - he already managed to kill an American citizen without any due process. Here is the good news though. The public in general does not seem to like T ( low ratings for a new pres ), so there is a chance to revert some of the damage O did to the institution. That said, a chance is all we get. Can we count on you?:>[/quote]

Count on me for what? I'll criticize Trump when I think he's done something wrong, or that I don't agree with, think is not the best way to do something, etc. Just as I have in the past to other presidents. There's no difference here. I don't have an agenda to support or oppose a given person. That's where I think you're misunderstanding this. It's not about the person. It's about what that person does. I judge the actions. I'll do the same with Trump that I did with Obama.

What I'm not going to do is engage in exaggerated language and labeling in order to portray the actions of one as better or worse, based on my personal like or dislike of the person or his party. Can you say the same?


[quote]It is nice to dream. Based on how things are aligning, we are looking at repeat of 2008, not the go go 90s. Unless you think removal of fiduciary rule, disbanding CFPB, and culling EPA will make it all go oh so smoothly.[/quote]

You asked what I thought was positive about Trumps policy directions, and I answered. You're free to believe other outcomes may occur, but that's just you speculating as well.


[quote]I know it may be contrary to your, apparently, internalized dogma, but I would like you to bear with me. I could give you an opinion, but since pretty much everyone is making up **** these days ( Conway comes to mind... despite her lying boss ) I figured, you may benefit more from more direct approach.

Have you seen the market the past week? It is only today ( once Trump stopped being too crazy ) that the market recovered somewhat. But the guy says whatever he thinks. One day the dollar is too strong, the other, especially, ESPECIALLY under Obama, weak.. and possibly sad. Granted, this stupidity is already being baked into prices, but at the expense of the weight President's word once had. In the meantime

And before I move to the main point, folks in business like predictability. Does anyone really know what he is going to do? But don't take my word for it. Take VIX's. Certainly it can measure predictability of the market better than I can. Alternatively ( if you are contrarian ), look at gold and bask in its quick rise over the past week.

Now for the final point, I do get that Rs and, seemingly, you love uncontrolled growth. You know what also grows uncontrollably? Cancer. Just because something grows fast does not automatically make it better. Actually slowing unsustainable growth may not be bad policy after all if you consider that, eventually, the uncontrolled hunger of the planet's population will almost literally devour it whole. What? You don't care until next 10k is filed? Good to know.

Ok. Back to real life.[/quote]

My goodness. So now fast economic growth is like a cancer? Laying it on a bit thick there. The reality is that the economy has sluggishly lumbered along for the last 8 years. Businesses have been waiting for Obama to leave office so they could get back into investing in growth without the fear that some new regulation will be passed that will hurt them.

You're correct about predictability. But you're failing to see that under Obama, the business market has been the definition of unpredictable. And one of the biggest issues has been Obamacare. The language in that law is so broad, and (this comes back to your "too much power" issue) grants so many executive decisions to HHS, that businesses literally do not know from month to month, much less year to year, how the regulations will affect them. The execution of the law is riddled with exceptions. Everyone has to pay for health insurance, well, unless you're on this list of companies. How do you get on the list? Well.... if you lobby the right people and get on the list. Or have the right connections. Or just get lucky. Oh, and we're free to change what qualifies as a "full time employee" as we desire. And we've got regulatory power to punish you if we think you're adjusting hours to get around those other regulations, or changing your company structure to change the number of employees to fit into a different category. And those determinations are more or less arbitrary and whether we take notice of you or not. And we may or may not shuffle money around from one program to another to make up differences, and we may or may not punish companies for putting their employees on the public exchanges. And we more or may not do this, or that, or some other thing.

That's what has been creating so much fear in the marketplace. And it remains to be seen if Trump manages to clean that up. But the market clearly seems to believe that he will at least make things better. Hence the reaction in the markets. We'll see how job creation and wages go, but that'll take longer to determine.

Who are you, and what are you doing in my house?

All I want is for gbaji to admit he supports Trump, and would continue to support him if he ethnically cleansed America of all Muslims.

WAAAAHHHHH.....yeah we get it...you're still majorly butt hurt from the election. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

Jophed s*ck it you radical piece of sh*ts...

Those schools in Wyoming need shotguns in case of another grizzly bear uprising like during the Bowling Green Massacre.