The Trump Era (Jan 20, 2017 – XXXX) Political Discussion Including Foreign Impacts

12021232526

Comments

  • bondjames wrote: »
    The right approach is what Spicer articulated on Monday at the press conference in my view. Both sides must hold the other side accountable for the facts. The trick is to realize that neither side is always right or wrong. They will both make mistakes. Acknowledging and self-correcting that properly when it occurs is the trick, and in a non combative manner.

    The problem is, when one side insists on presenting "alternative facts" (that is, convenient fabrications) as if they were true, then that side is more likely to be consistently wrong. In which case, they need to be held accountable...even if that does lead them to feel that the media is biased against them. As the old saying goes, "Everybody's entitled to their own opinion...but nobody's entitled to their own facts."
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    The right approach is what Spicer articulated on Monday at the press conference in my view. Both sides must hold the other side accountable for the facts. The trick is to realize that neither side is always right or wrong. They will both make mistakes. Acknowledging and self-correcting that properly when it occurs is the trick, and in a non combative manner.

    The problem is, when one side insists on presenting "alternative facts" (that is, convenient fabrications) as if they were true, then that side is more likely to be consistently wrong. In which case, they need to be held accountable...even if that does lead them to feel that the media is biased against them. As the old saying goes, "Everybody's entitled to their own opinion...but nobody's entitled to their own facts."
    Indeed. That cuts both ways. It's not a one way street. Both need to do a better job of it. If one side turns up the rhetoric and negativity, then you will get an equal and opposite reaction from the other side.

    The election coverage was inaccurate on several levels. That's why so many of you were shocked (one in particular almost lost it with a near breakdown on the old thread - it was pathetic to read) on election night.

    Regarding 'alternative facts': Spicer called out the ABC reporter (can't remember his name) on Monday and reiterated again (with explanation) what he said about it being the most watched inauguration (which I believe it was, once all media are included - of course it would be given all the digital access available globally these days). He asked the reporter whether he disagreed - no answer from the reporter (he should have agreed if he was informed and was being fair). Spicer also acknowledged that the transit numbers that he got on Saturday were inaccurate and explained where it came from.

    I've been around long enough and read enough over the years to know when something is being spun. I used to be a financial auditor, so part of it comes with training. I try to get my information from as many sources as possible to strip out bias, but ultimately, if I can't explain my position/view, then I don't hold one.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited January 2017 Posts: 17,801
    Any & everyone can explain their POV without cogent or verifiable facts. My own 'belief' is that the majority, like myself, were working at the time and/or had no inclination to watch the travesty. Yes, many, again like myself, took looks a bits of it online later only to turn it off in disgust. Only Trump fans & professional/amateur historians watched the whole mess. What numbers were actually AT the inauguration is basically indisputable. The nebulous # of watchers of the entire event is not. Gotta love the wiggle room for 'alternative facts', eh? I love the smell of alternative facts in the morning. Smells like fascism!
  • Trump is the man, he's not a lying crook like Hillary, he was by far the best of the sorry ass 2016 GOP run. Hope he stays 'til 2024 for consistency and stability!
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    The Hyde Amendment, just leaving this one here.

    bondjames & Timmer can explain this one away that their beloved Leader has just passed, this isn't overseas this is domestic, so relieved I'm not an American, your human rights record is going right down the toilet.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    chrisisall wrote: »
    What numbers were actually AT the inauguration is basically indisputable.

    The pictures used to show the difference were from different times of the day. The picture from 2009 was taken at the end of the event when the number was at its highest. The picture from this year was from the start of the event when the number was at its lowest.

    That is how you put a spin on it, and exaggerate the difference.
  • There is a lot of bad blood on this thread. Plenty of name calling and hyperbole with very little skill exhibited in actual debating. It would be more helpful if people did a little research. For instance during the initial parts of the previous administration James Rosen from the Fox News was threatened with jail time for accurately reporting on that administrations discussions with North Korea. The Washington Post derided the administration for trying to hinder valid and truthful reporting. While Risen from the New York Times was black listed for almost eight years for reporting information the administration didn’t want to be made public. Reporters who didn’t cooperate were targeted with tax audits, had their phones tapped and were harassed on their media sites. Only journalist who fell in line, were allowed interviews.
    The current administration is noted for being brash, and aggressive, it’s a style that won the election, and to be sure some people don’t like an ‘in your face’ confrontational leader. Politics is a very “dirty” business. Debate coordinators slipping the questions to a candidate before the debate to help them prepare prior to the start of the debate, isn’t exactly impartial neutrality. Words like “Progressive” or “Democratic” or “Conservative” or “Socialist” or “Communist” don’t really reflect the political action, or the actual effects those actions on the populations under those government policies.
    As long as the United States has a Supreme Court, and a Congress no President will be a dictator, though there is no doubt that some or perhaps all would like to have that kind of personal power.

  • Posts: 5,994
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited January 2017 Posts: 17,801
    chrisisall wrote: »
    What numbers were actually AT the inauguration is basically indisputable.

    The pictures used to show the difference were from different times of the day. The picture from 2009 was taken at the end of the event when the number was at its highest. The picture from this year was from the start of the event when the number was at its lowest.

    That is how you put a spin on it, and exaggerate the difference.
    The basically indisputable part is that far more were at the former than the latter. If you want, pay me for my time and I'll seek out data from every available source as well as photos comparing times of day as well. This can be proven. I'm aware that spin can exaggerate. Picayune much TF?
    Give me more guff on this and I'll sic Higgins on you (Thunderpussy will get that).
  • Trump's sweeping Muslim visa/immigration ban does NOT include Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia...

    The three Muslim-majority countries where Trump has business interests.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2017 Posts: 23,883
    CraterGuns wrote: »
    Trump's sweeping Muslim visa/immigration ban does NOT include Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia...

    The three Muslim-majority countries where Trump has business interests.
    It also does not (yet) include 40 other countries where the majority of the population are Muslim. I am not aware if President Trump has business interests in those other 40 countries, but I suspect that he doesn't (at least not in all of them).

    The ban at present is targeted at those countries which were identified in a Feb 2016 (note: before Mr. Trump was elected) law which identified them as 'countries of concern' when it comes to granting visa applications. The recently issued Executive Order doesn't in fact mention these 7 countries. Rather, it refers to the existing section of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) where these particular countries are specifically mentioned.

    https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-made-the-muslim-ban-possible-and-the-media-wont-tell-you/

    I read the full text of the ban. It gives Homeland Security a limited time to determine if these (and other) countries provide sufficient information to allow so called 'extreme vetting' of applicants for visas. Basically, it is believed that they don't currently meet the minimum information standards. They must, or the ban won't be lifted.

    In addition, the four month refugee ban allows the State Department to review the application & screening procedure. In order for refugees to be admitted on the basis of 'religious persecution', they must show that they are from a 'minority religion' in the country in question. Syrians are banned indefinitely due to inadequate vetting procedures in that war torn country.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html?_r=0

    Finally, the executive order asks State, Homeland, National Intelligence and the FBI to develop and implement new stringent immigration procedures, which will include conducting interviews with applicants. Questions will be designed to determine if a candidate bears hostile attitudes towards the US, including bigotry or hatred towards people based on gender or sexual orientation. Other questions will attempt to determine if they have Wahhabi or Salafist (this is the so called 'radical Islamic') inclinations

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_movement

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism
    Shardlake wrote: »
    The Hyde Amendment, just leaving this one here.

    bondjames & Timmer can explain this one away that their beloved Leader has just passed, this isn't overseas this is domestic, so relieved I'm not an American, your human rights record is going right down the toilet.
    The Hyde Amendment currently bans federal funding for abortion in the US. It makes exceptions for women who become pregnant through rape or incest, or whose lives would be endangered by the pregnancy — but not for women who have any other maternal health issues or fetal abnormalities. It has been passed as a budget rider every year since 1976 (i.e. there has been no federal funding for abortions except in the above exceptional instances). The Republican action a few days back (via HR7) codifies this as permanent law.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment

    https://aclj.org/pro-life/us-house-passes-no-taxpayer-funding-of-abortion-act-in-bipartisan-vote

    My personal views on abortion are noted in a post on the previous page. I will not repeat them here.

    Regarding Inauguration crowd sizes: I think it's clear to all reasonable people that the 'in person' crowd was not as large this year as it was 8 years ago. However, it's rarely mentioned that the security screening mechanisms in place this year were far more stringent, and there were threats of protests etc. Ultimately, this probably was the most watched Inauguration, once 'in person' and all other 'media' are included.

    http://www.npr.org/2017/01/15/509721596/security-will-be-massive-at-trumps-inauguration
  • Posts: 4,622
    @bondjames you sure have a good research
    staff.I hope they get bonus for working on weekend.
    I read today in the National Post btw, that the Churchill bust has been restored to the White House.

  • edited January 2017 Posts: 1,661
    Donald Trump should write a new book: The title:

    How To Ruin Foreign Relations In One Week


    I'm sure it will be a bestseller. 8-|
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    chrisisall wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    What numbers were actually AT the inauguration is basically indisputable.

    The pictures used to show the difference were from different times of the day. The picture from 2009 was taken at the end of the event when the number was at its highest. The picture from this year was from the start of the event when the number was at its lowest.

    That is how you put a spin on it, and exaggerate the difference.
    The basically indisputable part is that far more were at the former than the latter. If you want, pay me for my time and I'll seek out data from every available source as well as photos comparing times of day as well. This can be proven. I'm aware that spin can exaggerate. Picayune much TF?
    Give me more guff on this and I'll sic Higgins on you (Thunderpussy will get that).

    Bottom line is that both sides are as dishonest as they accuse the other side of being.
  • Posts: 7,653
    chrisisall wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    What numbers were actually AT the inauguration is basically indisputable.

    The pictures used to show the difference were from different times of the day. The picture from 2009 was taken at the end of the event when the number was at its highest. The picture from this year was from the start of the event when the number was at its lowest.

    That is how you put a spin on it, and exaggerate the difference.
    The basically indisputable part is that far more were at the former than the latter. If you want, pay me for my time and I'll seek out data from every available source as well as photos comparing times of day as well. This can be proven. I'm aware that spin can exaggerate. Picayune much TF?
    Give me more guff on this and I'll sic Higgins on you (Thunderpussy will get that).

    Bottom line is that both sides are as dishonest as they accuse the other side of being.

    As I recall they are called facts and alternative facts by the current folks living in the White House.

  • Posts: 11,119
    The biggest problem I have with this.....absolutely preposterous executive order, is the fact that Homeland Security wasn't involved, and never, never did the Trump administration lay out all possible scenario's of this flawed executive order. Not to mention the shit it causes for people with greencards and double nationalities. This executive order was rashed, and not properly thought of. Trump may have a very active writing hand these days, but let's have a look how much diplomatic damage this Trump administration has caused in a matter of days....9 days. Ooowh, and I haven't even talked about the Geneva Convention. In short: Shit mess!
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    let's have a look how much diplomatic damage this Trump administration has caused in a matter of days....9 days. Ooowh, and I haven't even talked about the Geneva Convention. In short: Shit mess!
    This is indeed the fascist playbook being implemented. And bondjames still tiptoes around it. Why? Is the reality too terrifying to grok? Or is it being wrong about this bunch of carpetbagging goons that scares him? I'd ask him directly but he's not talkin' to me prolly cause I referred to him as Kellyannebondjames a number of times due to his endless theoretical & apologist excuses for the crap these NeoStormtroopers are pulling.
    :))
  • edited January 2017 Posts: 7,507
    chrisisall wrote: »
    let's have a look how much diplomatic damage this Trump administration has caused in a matter of days....9 days. Ooowh, and I haven't even talked about the Geneva Convention. In short: Shit mess!
    This is indeed the fascist playbook being implemented. And bondjames still tiptoes around it. Why? Is the reality too terrifying to grok? Or is it being wrong about this bunch of carpetbagging goons that scares him? I'd ask him directly but he's not talkin' to me prolly cause I referred to him as Kellyannebondjames a number of times due to his endless theoretical & apologist excuses for the crap these NeoStormtroopers are pulling.
    :))


    I have a feeling he is mainly posting to serve his own ego, so for him to admit anything is very unlikely. Must be so nice to be the only one who really understands what is going on. Not like us who are blinded by biased media...
  • edited January 2017 Posts: 4,622
    @chrisiall @jobo

    You two clowns are big men aren't you. Talking about @bondjames in the third person.
    A couple of little bully babies reinforcing each others "bravery"
    Somehow I think @bondjames sees the world a little differently than you two drama clowns.
    I know its terrible that everyone doesn't march to your oh so enlightened world view.
    Differing opinions are such a bitch, especially when one is so sure of one's own utter superiority. Sigh

    @dimi I do believe there is a bedwetters thread where issall & jobo can stroke each other and mock other members.
    If this thread is going to be a second bedwettting thread, maybe we can just close it because we only really need the one don't we?
    Clearly it drives them batty that @bondjames won't give them the time of day, but why would he?
    They dish hyperbole and even make assumptions that @bondjames must suddenly think he's all wrong. Must be! What else. I jobo- mensa member showed him alright.
    High school much? Sandbox maybe.

    @issial, I realize is just losing his poop but
    @jobo , and I do mean this in the nicest, kindest, gentlest, warmest, friendliest, sensitive way, is just an idiot.

    I've flagged both posts on grounds of baiting and bullying another member. I could go on, but that's enough reason there I think.

    Yes Miss Universe, I agree, they really are a couple of wanks.

    Edit: some inane smilies for added juvenile effect :)) 8-} :O)

    gallery_photo1424878102UNI10_3812.jpg
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Once again, many thanks @timmer. I have no more access to knowledge and information than any other poster here, and wasn't aware that I was stating otherwise. As you correctly note, it's just a different opinion. Nothing more. Nothing less. The 'w' word is quite appropriate in this instance (it was going through my mind as I read the earlier posts, and had a laugh seeing that you felt the same way). It's unfortunate there's no emoji for this activity. One day maybe. Your post above clearly articulates the way I feel about the situation as well and I'm grateful that you said it.

    President Trump issued a statement on the Executive Orders today, which I'm including below. It pretty much confirms what I thought was the case after I read the full text of the Order last night. This is temporary, and is to be in effect until vetting procedures and information provision is upgraded. It will not be lifted until such new security provisions are in place:

    6nP1NJW.jpg
    Here is a link to some discussion about whether the Obama Administration had a similar policy in place at one time. The Bush Administration certainly did after 9/11:

    http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/barack-obama-ban-refugees-did-iraq-iraqi-muslim-trump-jimmy-carter-iran-iranian-immigration/

    I agree with @Gustav_Graves that the Order was poorly implemented, particularly with respect to folks with green cards and dual citizenship. However, I don't believe it contravenes Geneva Conventions, nor do I believe it is unconstitutional. Homeland Security was in fact involved in drafting this order, as far as I'm aware. At least, General Kelly was consulted.

    https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/department-homeland-security-response-recent-litigation

    There are challenges underway, and we'll see how it plays out.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    @bondjames directly, why is Saudi Arabia exempt from the list? Business connections? This bullshit makes Cambodia look like Kansas.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Saudi Arabia? You mean the home of Mecca and Medina, the two holy sites of Islam? Also the home of wahhabism & salafism, the very definition of radical Islamic viewpoints? You mean the country that indirectly funds ISIS/ISIL/Daesh? The country whose king both Mr. Obama & Mr. Bush bowed before (the former actually kissed his hand - the photo is online)?

    It should be quite obvious to anyone why they aren't on any list. Obvious also why, despite their county's implicit involvement in the 9/11 attacks and funding global jihadism, both Democrats and Republicans stay mum. You'll certainly find bipartisan cooperation on that one, including their name being blanked out in the 9/11 Commission Report.

    I have already explained where that list of 7 countries comes from. It is a list of high threat countries as identified by Congress & the Obama Administration. Reince Priebus indicated that more countries could be added to the list including Saudi Arabia. Don't bet on it.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    bondjames wrote: »
    Obvious also why, despite their county's implicit involvement in the 9/11 attacks and funding global jihadism, both Democrats and Republicans stay mum.
    Yes, both are complicit, but Trump has business connections, big ones- the BEST. And Russian connections.
    I understand that you see him as a possible global Equalizer, but he's another fuc*ing puppet. He has to be sought out to be pulled back to work because he escapes to watch TV & tweet... he will blow his cork soon, and none of us (including the GOPussygrabbers) wants to see it happen. Pence is a bonefide as*hole, but he's not nitroglycerin. I do not welcome his Presidency but I do expect it soon. It will be a quantum of solace after Trump, and a straight up fight for Democracy vs. this Nazi bulls*it.
    Or, am I too hopeful here......?
    :-?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2017 Posts: 23,883
    To be clear, I don't see him as a great Equalizer or as a great saviour. He is a pragmatist (as indicated even by his predecessor), politically incorrect, & also tough. He proved that during the campaign and he's proving that in office so far. Unpredictably tough.

    The only way to change the direction of ingrained bureaucracies (Nato, IMF, Government in general) is via disruption. This change is necessary in my view, and it is inevitable given America's current fiscal position, declining relative global position as world hegemon, and increasing social costs as baby boomers age.

    Bottom line: He may be a puppet (perhaps they all are or become so), but he is still far more interesting in my view than the alternative that was put forward by the Democrats last year, or the presumptive Republican (i.e. Bush, who I've always believed was initially 'ordained' by the 'Davos lot' to win in the customary 8 year passing of the baton between parties). Cruz and Trump were the surprise disruptors, just like Sanders was on the left.

    Much of this is theatre anyway. The President's antics are a distraction to keep the masses preoccupied with their little bickering and twittering. The press are willingly complicit in keeping the farce that is American domestic politics alive while the real business takes place.

    I don't have an opinion either way on VP Pence. He's a bit too conservative for my tastes, but seems decent enough.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    bondjames wrote: »
    He is a pragmatist (as indicated even by his predecessor), politically incorrect, & also tough. He proved that during the campaign and he's proving that in office so far. Unpredictably tough.
    Tough??? He's a crybaby. Turn off Goldfinger and look at TRUMP!
    :))
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Any man who could stand on a stage with a straight face and debate for 1.5 hrs after the humiliating disgrace of grab em by the pussygate is tough. That was the test and he passed it. Hillary didn't pass her FBI test.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    bondjames wrote: »
    Any man who could stand on a stage with a straight face and debate for 1.5 hrs after the humiliating disgrace of grab em by the pussygate is tough. That was the test and he passed it. Hillary didn't pass her FBI test.
    What little respect I had for you is now gone with this frivolous and insulting reply.
    I made a mistake in visiting this thread.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Oowh come on @BondJames
  • Posts: 1,009
    bondjames wrote: »
    Saudi Arabia? You mean the home of Mecca and Medina, the two holy sites of Islam? Also the home of wahhabism & salafism, the very definition of radical Islamic viewpoints? You mean the country that indirectly funds ISIS/ISIL/Daesh? The country whose king both Mr. Obama & Mr. Bush bowed before (the former actually kissed his hand - the photo is online)?

    It should be quite obvious to anyone why they aren't on any list. Obvious also why, despite their county's implicit involvement in the 9/11 attacks and funding global jihadism, both Democrats and Republicans stay mum. You'll certainly find bipartisan cooperation on that one, including their name being blanked out in the 9/11 Commission Report.

    I have already explained where that list of 7 countries comes from. It is a list of high threat countries as identified by Congress & the Obama Administration. Reince Priebus indicated that more countries could be added to the list including Saudi Arabia. Don't bet on it.

    I had exactly the same thought when I heard the news. Why not Saudi Arabia when it's proven they're the main monetary support of yihaddism? Well, you made it clear: just business as usual.

    And I'm not talking about the USA alone, here, I'm talking about all the countries that suffer this 21st century menace.

    And I think this will be my one and only intervention in this post: I'm a leftist, critical of the progressive "americanization" of the European left (too many self-righteous SJWs instead of actual fighting for the rights of the workers and the cultural minorities), so I admit I'm very biased and, besides, I would need a bigger input on American culture to have a neutral opinion.
This discussion has been closed.