PDA

View Full Version : Politics Thread



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84

Muskie
11-10-2016, 03:25 PM
All political postings shall go here until further notice. When the aftermath cools down, perhaps we will go back to the old way.

xu82
11-10-2016, 03:28 PM
Thank God basketball is about to start!

Muskie
11-10-2016, 03:29 PM
Thank God basketball is about to start!

Indeed.

GoMuskies
11-10-2016, 03:29 PM
Your board, obviously, but there were only four active political threads, one of which was 8 months old. Just seems a bit unnecessary.

ron meXico
11-10-2016, 03:30 PM
All political postings shall go here until further notice. When the aftermath cools down, perhaps we will go back to the old way.

Good suggestion... I'll move onto basketball season.
Go Muskies!

BandAid
11-10-2016, 03:30 PM
Make Xavier Hoops Great Again!

Mrs. Garrett
11-10-2016, 03:30 PM
All political postings shall go here until further notice. When the aftermath cools down, perhaps we will go back to the old way.

You should have shut it down at Trumpslide.

Muskie
11-10-2016, 03:31 PM
Your board, obviously, but there were only four active political threads, one of which was 8 months old. Just seems a bit unnecessary.

I'd agree normally. But I've had 15 Pm's (from 11 different people) today complaining about all 4 of those posts. I was hoping that the introduction of some basketball related items might have encouraged more discussion along those lines.

Caf
11-10-2016, 03:31 PM
This seems like a good time to stop posting about politics for awhile.

Let's go X!

GoMuskies
11-10-2016, 03:33 PM
I've had 15 Pm's (from 11 different people) today complaining about all 4 of those posts.

Ha. 11 different people?!?

ron meXico
11-10-2016, 03:33 PM
Make Xavier Hoops Great Again!
New to the game don't know how to rep but that's pretty funny

Muskie
11-10-2016, 03:37 PM
Yes sir. 11 different posters.

xu82
11-10-2016, 03:41 PM
New to the game don't know how to rep but that's pretty funny

It was funnier with my Buffalo Bills (which Trump threatened to buy) because it's jsut so much more ridiculously improbable.

bobbiemcgee
11-10-2016, 03:52 PM
#4
Smails
Smails is offline
Sophomore
Smails's Avatar

Join Date
Jan 2008
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts
1,707

" After Obama was elected 2008 I decided to start doing copious amounts of cocaine because I said 'hey...if POTUS can do it..I should too" Remember the huge cocaine epidemic that broke out in 08'?"

Thanks a lot Barry

Hey Smails - you have him confused with Bush II

Mrs. Garrett
11-10-2016, 04:17 PM
#4
Smails
Smails is offline
Sophomore
Smails's Avatar

Join Date
Jan 2008
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts
1,707

" After Obama was elected 2008 I decided to start doing copious amounts of cocaine because I said 'hey...if POTUS can do it..I should too" Remember the huge cocaine epidemic that broke out in 08'?"

Thanks a lot Barry

Hey Smails - you have him confused with Bush II

I was going to ask him why he didn't start using coke in 2000.

Juice
11-10-2016, 04:22 PM
http://m.quickmeme.com/img/6d/6da082fbfafcf593d64799e9da4e11b4df2899b7459116a78e 650d8b377a421f.jpg

ArizonaXUGrad
11-10-2016, 04:32 PM
I was hoping to get in and respond to Snipe, FYI Snipe before you quote websites like CIS (Center for Immigration Studies) please do at least a cursory read about it's founder.

John Tanton - now google is your friend there. I don't think you ever want to be quoting or searching through this guy's stuff. He is THAT BAD!

bobbiemcgee
11-10-2016, 04:51 PM
Ruskies confirming they have been communicating with trump throughout campaign. They did a nice job.

Strange Brew
11-10-2016, 05:01 PM
Ruskies confirming they have been communicating with trump throughout campaign. They did a nice job.

So what, they confirmed they contacted team Clinton as well per Bloomberg.

Mexico and Canada both said they'd be open to modernizing NAFTA today. Already MAGA time!

bobbiemcgee
11-10-2016, 05:24 PM
So what, they confirmed they contacted team Clinton as well
I guess so. they stole all the emails.

Strange Brew
11-10-2016, 05:31 PM
I guess so. they stole all the emails.

Hmm, perhaps not

http://http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-20/fact-17-intelligence-agencies-confirmed-russia-behind-email-hacks-isn’t-actually…a-f

May want to look into the staffer killed during a mugging that Assange implicated in the leaks.

GoMuskies
11-10-2016, 05:40 PM
The DJIA closed at its record high today, so the markets seemed to have recovered from their supposed nervousness over Trump from early Wednesday morning (which I think had more to do with markets' hatred of uncertainty and surprise than it had to do with Trump anyway).

For some reason, my particular portfolio got hammered the last two days. Apparently I need to pick some "Trump proof" stocks. What does Trump have against consumer products, tobacco and industrial REITs anyway?!?

Caf
11-10-2016, 05:49 PM
The DJIA closed at its record high today, so the markets seemed to have recovered from their supposed nervousness over Trump from early Wednesday morning (which I think had more to do with markets' hatred of uncertainty and surprise than it had to do with Trump anyway).

For some reason, my particular portfolio got hammered the last two days. Apparently I need to pick some "Trump proof" stocks. What does Trump have against consumer products, tobacco and industrial REITs anyway?!?

Financials and Banking sectors are through the roof. I think this made the rate hike less certain, and some have even talked about Dodd-Frank being repealed. Could be good times for the markets

Snipe
11-10-2016, 07:47 PM
Republicans win an election, and we have to shut down all the political threads. That is amusing.

Our precious little snowflakes, we need to protect their safe spaces, and the whole world needs to be made safe from microagressions.

You should tell them that they have no obligation to click on the political threads. I will tell them that now. You have no obligation to click on the political threads. Make your own safe space!

I don't know if it is my defunct memory and aging, but it seems like we had more political threads in the past. It doesn't seem like it is a huge barrage or anything.

A huge movement has sprung up across the nation, incubated in our universities to suppress speech and opinions that leftists don't like. They are a most intolerant bunch, even though they pride themselves with being the most tolerant. It doesn't surprise me that you are getting pressure to shut it down. These things don't exist in a vacuum.

It is a nation wide movement. It has a lot of momentum now, and I would guess it will have even more in the future. This won't be the last time you will be fielding complaints and closing down threads for them. You would probably save yourself some time just by saying you are closing down political threads for good.

Trump wins an election and you get a massive call to shut down the political threads. Doesn't take much of a detective to figure that one out. And this action just fuels their fire. Now they know if they cry loud enough they can shut it down any time they want. Just ban all the political threads already.

Congrats to the petulant babies. You are the real winners.

X Factor
11-10-2016, 07:51 PM
I doubt the mainstream media will be showing this video.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/10/you-voted-trump-shock-video/

xu82
11-10-2016, 07:58 PM
Moved does not equal shut down. Just sayin'. We are all free to continue venting as we feel approapriate, just somewhere else.

paulxu
11-10-2016, 10:18 PM
He got his twitter machine back!


Just had a very open and successful presidential election. Now professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting. Very unfair!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 11, 2016

Sounds like a lot of schoolyard bullies from grade school. Wonder if he knows freedom of assembly is in the 1st amendment?

paulxu
11-10-2016, 10:21 PM
Also, not too late to join in a victory celebration.

Strange Brew
11-10-2016, 10:34 PM
Republicans win an election, and we have to shut down all the political threads. That is amusing.

Our precious little snowflakes, we need to protect their safe spaces, and the whole world needs to be made safe from microagressions.

You should tell them that they have no obligation to click on the political threads. I will tell them that now. You have no obligation to click on the political threads. Make your own safe space!

I don't know if it is my defunct memory and aging, but it seems like we had more political threads in the past. It doesn't seem like it is a huge barrage or anything.

A huge movement has sprung up across the nation, incubated in our universities to suppress speech and opinions that leftists don't like. They are a most intolerant bunch, even though they pride themselves with being the most tolerant. It doesn't surprise me that you are getting pressure to shut it down. These things don't exist in a vacuum.

It is a nation wide movement. It has a lot of momentum now, and I would guess it will have even more in the future. This won't be the last time you will be fielding complaints and closing down threads for them. You would probably save yourself some time just by saying you are closing down political threads for good.

Trump wins an election and you get a massive call to shut down the political threads. Doesn't take much of a detective to figure that one out. And this action just fuels their fire. Now they know if they cry loud enough they can shut it down any time they want. Just ban all the political threads already.

Congrats to the petulant babies. You are the real winners.

How dare you. Seriously, it is time for some of us to grow up. I totally understand the feelings of those who are struggling with the thought of a man they absolutely, astutely and intelligently unequivocally know is full of distasteful hate need not have their viewpoint challenged in any way. I for one am proud of this board's decision to move away from the divisive rhetoric it has allowed for the past 8 plus years I've been on this board.

Bottom line Snipe, you're HATE, just utter HATE shall no longer be tolerated on the amazing and intellectual new Shining Path. Please keep your incendiary, disgusting viewpoints to yourself from now on....

X Factor
11-10-2016, 10:44 PM
He got his twitter machine back!



Sounds like a lot of schoolyard bullies from grade school. Wonder if he knows freedom of assembly is in the 1st amendment?

They don't have the freedom to shutdown highways and disrupt other people's lives. Yep, just freedom of assembly...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeYm6YFrKh8

Strange Brew
11-10-2016, 10:47 PM
He got his twitter machine back!



Sounds like a lot of schoolyard bullies from grade school. Wonder if he knows freedom of assembly is in the 1st amendment?

Destruction of property however is not.

bobbiemcgee
11-11-2016, 12:17 AM
Just back from Nuggets game. Looked like Venezuela out there.

Strange Brew
11-11-2016, 12:23 AM
Just back from Nuggets game. Looked like Venezuela out there.

How so, did they redistribute the results? :)

bobbiemcgee
11-11-2016, 12:29 AM
How so, did they redistribute the results? :)

No. Hillary still ahead by half a million

http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/embed/public/2014/02/13/venezuela-riots-1.jpg

Strange Brew
11-11-2016, 12:36 AM
No. Hillary still ahead by half a million

http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/styles/embed/public/2014/02/13/venezuela-riots-1.jpg

K, did the Nugs win?

GoMuskies
11-11-2016, 01:23 AM
I've seen lots of idiotic clinging to the popular vote results as if it means something. I guess that's the denial stage of grieving.

ron meXico
11-11-2016, 05:31 AM
What difference at this point does it make if she won the popular vote. You can only get so many illegals and dead people out to vote. Libs got out hustled out maneuvered, and out classed.

Liberalism is almost an eradicated disease... Look at the sweeps and the landslide victories from now the presidency to back in 2010 thru 2014. State houses, legislatures, gubernatorial, congressional, senate, dog catcher, etc. They can cling to their ideology but due to alternative media sources, they've been exposed. 9 million more government jobs than factory jobs, 94 million out of the labor force and a rigged statistic to hide out, 50 million on food stamps. "Well we won the popular vote" Like that matters. You have to count on poor population centers with failed education systems clinging to the hope of a handout to continue your voting patterns. People on this board are still waiting for the votes in Detroit and Broward county still come in, heck I bet some of the libs are still on 538 looking for a path. It was gonna be a landslide you said. I anticipated it being one from the brilliant prognostication on this board.

The GMA complex has tried to bring in the everyone but the middle class taxpayers who matter. They've got NO economic path to prosperity, a failed presidency, and sunk cost debt that doesn't matter. I feel for Donald Trump he's inherited a liberal mess the likes no one can comprehend.

ron meXico
11-11-2016, 05:34 AM
Oh and by the way at least this isn't the first time in Donald trumps adult life he's finally proud of his country.

Masterofreality
11-11-2016, 05:51 AM
Hmm, perhaps not

http://http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-20/fact-17-intelligence-agencies-confirmed-russia-behind-email-hacks-isn’t-actually…a-f

May want to look into the staffer killed during a mugging that Assange implicated in the leaks.


Yeah, might be a good idea. That kid, Rich, went to Creighton, as I understand it.

Masterofreality
11-11-2016, 06:08 AM
I've seen lots of idiotic clinging to the popular vote results as if it means something. I guess that's the denial stage of grieving.

Yep. She "won" the popular vote by 450,000. She won California by 2.5 million and New York by 1.5 million. Let's just ignore the rest of the 48 states though, let California and New York elect the Presidents on their own and ignore this below. VERRRRRRRRRRRY productive.

21092109

Caf
11-11-2016, 06:24 AM
You guys can understand why some people don't like the electoral college. Trump has criticized it during the campaign. It leads to voter apathy and counts some individual votes more than others. Also MOR, not sure if you're new to electoral maps but they are always a majority red.

paulxu
11-11-2016, 07:03 AM
You need to look at a cartogram map.

Square miles don't vote. People vote.

bleedXblue
11-11-2016, 07:38 AM
I have to say that I was embarrassed before the election with the quality of both candidates and the lousy campaigns they both ran. I'm now equally embarrassed for the liberal whiners who suck at losing and are only interested in their own personal agendas. I want happy when Obama won two consecutive elections, but I didn't whine and pout and I surely didn't protest in the streets that he wasn't my President. This is America folks. We've elected a new leader as a people. Get the fu%# over it !

OH.X.MI
11-11-2016, 07:45 AM
Though I don't think it will go anywhere, this new (revived from 2000) fad of electoral college bashing is worrisome to me. The electoral college serves a very important purpose. It was created by the framers for a reason. Though it's often forgotten in an era instant national (international) communication, our country is based on principals of Federalism. The states, and the people who live there, are equal. The electoral college ensures that, to some degree, each state has a voice. Without it, why would politicians care about the states where many of us live in? Pure populous vote would lead candidates to only care and campaign on the coasts and perhaps Chicago. Are the political ideals of people in New York City inherently more right than those in Louisville, Kentucky? The New Yorkers might think so, but that's not what federalism, or equity, dictates.

Caf
11-11-2016, 08:04 AM
Though I don't think it will go anywhere, this new (revived from 2000) fad of electoral college bashing is worrisome to me. The electoral college serves a very important purpose. It was created by the framers for a reason. Though it's often forgotten in an era instant national (international) communication, our country is based on principals of Federalism. The states, and the people who live there, are equal. The electoral college ensures that, to some degree, each state has a voice. Without it, why would politicians care about the states where many of us live in? Pure populous vote would lead candidates to only care and campaign on the coasts and perhaps Chicago. Are the political ideals of people in New York City inherently more right than those in Louisville, Kentucky? The New Yorkers might think so, but that's not what federalism, or equity, dictates.

It's never going anywhere.

I'm honestly curious about what the effect would be. I'd guess it would be understated, as the electoral college result is usually very close to the popular vote. If anything, I think there are massive amounts of people in both parties who don't vote because of it, and they'd lead to significant change.

Yes California and NY are enormous and enormously liberal, but they also have large Republican populations. Californians cast the 3rd most Republican votes, and NY 6th. I'd guess those numbers would be bigger without the Electoral College.

X Factor
11-11-2016, 08:15 AM
Just more innocent protests by the left.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/11/portland-police-declare-riot-third-day-anti-trump-protests/

GoMuskies
11-11-2016, 08:27 AM
You guys can understand why some people don't like the electoral college.

Absolutely, but both sides knew the rules of the game going in and played to win by those rules. It would be like Ohio State beating Michigan in football but Michigan fans claiming they REALLY won because they had more total yards. Not how it works.

American X
11-11-2016, 08:40 AM
I am more bothered by ridiculous places like Delaware and Vermont getting two Senators each.

Caf
11-11-2016, 08:43 AM
Absolutely, but both sides knew the rules of the game going in and played to win by those rules. It would be like Ohio State beating Michigan in football but Michigan fans claiming they REALLY won because they had more total yards. Not how it works.

Fair enough, but you gotta admit that a significant motive of this protesting comes from Trump's taste in divisive rhetoric. I don't remember any protests in 2000, and I saw more signs condemning Trump than the electoral college.

As long as this is the system (forever), people are going to be pissed when the popular vote doesn't match the result. It would be nice if people could just move on, but it's not gonna happen when the new President has already scared and pissed off millions of people.

Xville
11-11-2016, 09:21 AM
I'm guessing that most of these protests...at least the ones that are turning violent, are being led by the professional protestors that we have all seen in Dallas, Ferguson, Baltimore etc etc. These people are despicable human filth.

ChicagoX
11-11-2016, 09:52 AM
Republicans would be just as upset as Democrats if they had won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote in two of the last five elections. In a situation like this, the winning side always thinks that the system works fine and the losing side always feels like they just got jobbed. Both sides have valid points about the merits of the electoral college.

bleedXblue
11-11-2016, 09:53 AM
Fair enough, but you gotta admit that a significant motive of this protesting comes from Trump's taste in divisive rhetoric. I don't remember any protests in 2000, and I saw more signs condemning Trump than the electoral college.

As long as this is the system (forever), people are going to be pissed when the popular vote doesn't match the result. It would be nice if people could just move on, but it's not gonna happen when the new President has already scared and pissed off millions of people.

Really?

Hillary pissed off and scared/scarred lots of people too......

This is just total BS

Caf
11-11-2016, 09:58 AM
Really?

Hillary pissed off and scared/scarred lots of people too......

This is just total BS

Hilary threatened to deport people? Hilary is awful and said some terrible things, but come on, apples and oranges.

I love that people are shocked at protests. Part of Trump's appeal was that he pissed these people off and didn't care what the mainstream thought about it. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

ron meXico
11-11-2016, 09:59 AM
Love Trumps Hate
http://www.infowars.com/video-high-school-girl-viciously-attacked-for-supporting-donald-trump/

Xville
11-11-2016, 10:03 AM
Hilary threatened to deport people? Hilary is awful and said some terrible things, but come on, apples and oranges.

I love that people are shocked at protests. Part of Trump's appeal was that he pissed these people off and didn't care what the mainstream thought about it. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

There is a difference between protests and what is going on with destruction of property, beatings etc.

ron meXico
11-11-2016, 10:05 AM
Hilary threatened to deport people? Hilary is awful and said some terrible things, but come on, apples and oranges.

I love that people are shocked at protests. Part of Trump's appeal was that he pissed these people off and didn't care what the mainstream thought about it. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

I hope they light up and entirely torch their own neighborhoods. They have selective moral outrage. They won't dare come to a conservative neighborhood and do it. Let em trash Oakland Oregon and those sess pools of communism. Maybe they can take out a few of thos liberal beacons called planned parenthood.
I love how you libs call trumps promise of protecting a sovereign nation rights to secure its own borders divisive racist rhetoric... haha good 1. No you're just pissed your funnel of illegal law breaking activities to get non citizens into a sovereign nation to carry out the liberal dream of population dominance of a permanent dependent poverty class may be over.

Caf
11-11-2016, 10:08 AM
There is a difference between protests and what is going on with destruction of property, beatings etc.

Very true - no doubt about it. It's a shame and I think the media deserves a lot of blame for it, but it's still completely unsurprising.

bleedXblue
11-11-2016, 10:08 AM
Hilary threatened to deport people? Hilary is awful and said some terrible things, but come on, apples and oranges.

I love that people are shocked at protests. Part of Trump's appeal was that he pissed these people off and didn't care what the mainstream thought about it. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

Yeah your perspective....

Deporting people who are here illegally is a surprise? It's scaring people?

Holy crap the sensitivity is laughable.

Caf
11-11-2016, 10:10 AM
I hope they light up and entirely torch their own neighborhoods. They have selective moral outrage. They won't dare come to a conservative neighborhood and do it. Let em trash Oakland Oregon and those sess pools of communism. Maybe they can take out a few of thos liberal beacons called planned parenthood.
I love how you libs call trumps promise of protecting a sovereign nation rights to secure its own borders divisive racist rhetoric... haha good 1. No you're just pissed your funnel of illegal law breaking activities to get non citizens into a sovereign nation to carry out the liberal dream of population dominance of a permanent dependent poverty class may be over.

Uh huh

GoMuskies
11-11-2016, 10:10 AM
Republicans would be just as upset as Democrats if they had won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote in two of the last five elections. In a situation like this, the winning side always thinks that the system works fine and the losing side always feels like they just got jobbed. Both sides have valid points about the merits of the electoral college.

I don't think Democrats have a valid point at all. If they want to change the rules going forward, fine. We can talk about that. But complaining about losing under rules they were well aware of going in is just assinine. I mean, who spent any appreciable time campaigning in New York, LA and Chicago during the general election this year? Don't you think the three largest cities in the country might have been more of a focus of both campaigns if the popular vote meant a goddamned thing?

Also, Hillary won the popular vote in the 2008 Democratic primary, so Obama's presidency was illegitimate.

Caf
11-11-2016, 10:12 AM
Deporting people who are here illegally is a surprise? It's scaring people?

It's still far from a reality, but yes. Especially said people. They and their viewpoints don't just disappear because Trump won the election.

If he goes through with said deportation, get used to these flare ups.

GoMuskies
11-11-2016, 10:13 AM
get used to these flair ups.

Is that how you describe Jennifer Anniston's character in Office Space's uniform issues?

ChicagoX
11-11-2016, 10:16 AM
I don't think Democrats have a valid point at all. If they want to change the rules going forward, fine. We can talk about that. But complaining about losing under rules they were well aware of going in is just assinine. I mean, who spent any appreciable time campaigning in New York, LA and Chicago during the general election this year? Don't you think the three largest cities in the country might have been more of a focus of both campaigns if the popular vote meant a goddamned thing?

Also, Hillary won the popular vote in the 2008 Democratic primary, so Obama's presidency was illegitimate.

If Republicans had lost two of the last five elections after winning the popular vote, they would be equally as upset about the result.

GoMuskies
11-11-2016, 10:17 AM
If Republicans had lost two of the last five elections after winning the popular vote, they would be equally as upset about the result.

Maybe, but Republicans are generally idiots, too.

Caf
11-11-2016, 10:19 AM
Is that how you describe Jennifer Anniston's character in Office Space's uniform issues?

Hahah got me. +1

Xville
11-11-2016, 10:19 AM
If Republicans had lost two of the last five elections after winning the popular vote, they would be equally as upset about the result.

Maybe...but there wouldn't be violent protests and destroying of their city's property

Caf
11-11-2016, 10:21 AM
Maybe...but there wouldn't be violent protests and destroying of their city's property

I agree with this. At least in part because Republicans are more spread out, but also because socialists are a fiery bunch. I'd bet a lot of these "protesters" like Bernie a lot more than HRC.

ChicagoX
11-11-2016, 10:23 AM
Maybe...but there wouldn't be violent protests and destroying of their city's property

How do you know this? When people feel disenfranchised or feel like their vote their vote didn't matter as much as someone else's, that can lead to protest. You're making a pretty vast assumption that if the GOP had lost two of five elections after winning more votes than the Democrats, they would just sit on their hands and not say anything. I certainly don't condone violence and destruction of property, but you're making a blanket statement without anything to back it up. I think a lot of conservatives would be pretty pissed off if the tables had been turned on them not once, but twice in 16 years.

GoMuskies
11-11-2016, 10:26 AM
When people feel disenfranchised

When people feel disenfranchised you tell them to join the club. Or move to one of about 6 states that matter. Or take a civics class.

ChicagoX
11-11-2016, 10:33 AM
When people feel disenfranchised you tell them to join the club. Or move to one of about 6 states that matter. Or take a civics class.

So that's your solution? If you feel disenfranchised, join a club or move? You can do better than this.

People feeling upset about the election do have some legitimate complaints. California has about 69 times as many people as Wyoming, but only about 18 times as many electoral votes. Should one state's voters have their voice matter less than another state? I do think there are legitimate points on both sides of the issue. I understand the merits of the electoral college, but people just aren't going to disregard that it's a bit of a flawed system, particularly when the winner of the popular vote has lost two of the last five elections. It's hard to just ignore that.

Xville
11-11-2016, 10:35 AM
How do you know this? When people feel disenfranchised or feel like their vote their vote didn't matter as much as someone else's, that can lead to protest. You're making a pretty vast assumption that if the GOP had lost two of five elections after winning more votes than the Democrats, they would just sit on their hands and not say anything. I certainly don't condone violence and destruction of property, but you're making a blanket statement without anything to back it up. I think a lot of conservatives would be pretty pissed off if the tables had been turned on them not once, but twice in 16 years.

because the GOP don't have professional protestors that destroy property and riot...never have, never will thats how i know

bleedXblue
11-11-2016, 10:36 AM
It's still far from a reality, but yes. Especially said people. They and their viewpoints don't just disappear because Trump won the election.

If he goes through with said deportation, get used to these flare ups.

throwing illegals in jail will be the first step. If they want to voluntarily protest and make it easy for us to round them up......even better

ChicagoX
11-11-2016, 10:36 AM
because the GOP don't have professional protestors that destroy property and riot...never have, never will thats how i know

Do you have a source to back up your claim? This is a pretty blanket statement.

GoMuskies
11-11-2016, 10:37 AM
You don't have to ignore it. Propose changes to the system if you like. I might agree with those changes going forward. But to whine about the system that's been in place for a couple hundred years because you don't like the results of an election is, frankly, idiotic.

The results of the popular vote are less relevant than whether Romain Sato went to Fudruckers yesterday or not.

ChicagoX
11-11-2016, 10:38 AM
You don't have to ignore it. Propose changes to the system if you like. I might agree with those changes going forward. But to whine about the system that's been in place for a couple hundred years because you don't like the results of an election is, frankly, idiotic.

Yet, if this had happened to the GOP in two of the last five elections, they would have the exact same complaints.

GoMuskies
11-11-2016, 10:39 AM
Yet, if this had happened to the GOP in two of the last five elections, they would have the exact same complaints.

And they would be just as idiotic.

Congrats on your rubber and glue argument, though.

xu82
11-11-2016, 10:43 AM
And they would be just as idiotic.

Congrats on your rubber and glue argument, though.

You gotta love the classics!

Caf
11-11-2016, 10:43 AM
You don't have to ignore it. Propose changes to the system if you like. I might agree with those changes going forward. But to whine about the system that's been in place for a couple hundred years because you don't like the results of an election is, frankly, idiotic.

The results of the popular vote are less relevant than whether Romain Sato went to Fudruckers yesterday or not.

Clearly one of those things that will never change. When this happens the winners don't care, on both sides.

GoMuskies
11-11-2016, 10:45 AM
Clearly one of those things that will never change. When this happens the winners don't care, on both sides.

Hell, I think some changes might actually favor the Republicans, so they might want to sneak it through while Democrats are sensitive on the issue. I've been hearing for years how difficult and narrow the path is for a Republican to win the electoral college.

ArizonaXUGrad
11-11-2016, 10:46 AM
This is a useless argument. I deplore Trump and his policies, I equally deplored Hillary but at least could get behind a few things she stands for.

I am a Democrat, but this talk of trashing a system of electoral votes for a popular one is just not the way to go. Candidates would pander to the biggest cities of the nation and skip the rural countryside. Despite these results, that just isn't the best way to elect leaders.

Now if you start arguing about the redrawing of congressional district lines, well now you have something you can discuss. It's the house that has been meddled with and been dealt some real harm. When absolute morons get elected and keep getting elected, worse then receive high level leadership, this is a real problem.

Caf
11-11-2016, 10:46 AM
throwing illegals in jail will be the first step. If they want to voluntarily protest and make it easy for us to round them up......even better

Yes that will definitely happen. I just hope they'll accept our invitation back when the baby boomers stop working and we have a labor shortage.

ChicagoX
11-11-2016, 10:49 AM
I always thought that awarding a state's electoral votes in proportion to the final vote count would bring out more voters in non-swing states. In Illinois, Republicans voting for president know their candidate has no chance of winning the state. Same thing with a red state voting for a Democrat. Having the electoral vote being proportional to each state's final vote count would bring out a lot of voters who would finally feel like their vote actually could make a difference.

I know this will never change since election reform is highly unlikely, but I do think it would do a better job of having all states and all votes matter on Election Day instead of having 10-12 states getting all of the attention during the campaigns.

GoMuskies
11-11-2016, 10:49 AM
Now if you start arguing about the redrawing of congressional district lines, well now you have something you can discuss.

I think the technology is there to do those randomly with computers now to meet all the criteria laid out by the Constitution (as interpreted by the Supreme Court). Of course, it will never happen, because there would be claims of bias or rigging by the writers of the program.

bleedXblue
11-11-2016, 11:00 AM
Yes that will definitely happen. I just hope they'll accept our invitation back when the baby boomers stop working and we have a labor shortage.

I think the logical thing to do is apply to enter the country under the laws that we have in place today? We want and need cheap labor in this country. We don't want this wild west scenario we have today.

Law and order.......

Pretty simple concept that the current administration couldn't get their hands around.

X-band '01
11-11-2016, 11:04 AM
I always thought that awarding a state's electoral votes in proportion to the final vote count would bring out more voters in non-swing states. In Illinois, Republicans voting for president know their candidate has no chance of winning the state. Same thing with a red state voting for a Democrat. Having the electoral vote being proportional to each state's final vote count would bring out a lot of voters who would finally feel like their vote actually could make a difference.

I know this will never change since election reform is highly unlikely, but I do think it would do a better job of having all states and all votes matter on Election Day instead of having 10-12 states getting all of the attention during the campaigns.

Colorado did put such an issue to their voters a few years ago, but it was voted down.

As to what you said earlier about redrawing the districts, this is why I've said that state and national elections in 2018 and 2020 are going to be paramount to Democrats if they want to start progress on that front.

ChicagoX
11-11-2016, 11:19 AM
Colorado did put such an issue to their voters a few years ago, but it was voted down.

As to what you said earlier about redrawing the districts, this is why I've said that state and national elections in 2018 and 2020 are going to be paramount to Democrats if they want to start progress on that front.

That could be the one silver lining for the Dems. They should do well in gubernatorial races in '18 and '20 since they'll be the minority party and hopefully eliminate grossly unfair gerrymandering. I just hope they do this fairly and don't try to get retribution by drawing them up in their favor. There is no rhyme or reason why algorithms shouldn't be doing this instead of partial politicians.

bobbiemcgee
11-11-2016, 11:33 AM
I've seen lots of idiotic clinging to the popular vote results as if it means something. I guess that's the denial stage of grieving.

Guess it wouldn't be so bad except that your candidate vehemently supported it in tweets after 2012:

"The electoral college is a disaster for democracy" and He (Obama) lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election" (before all the votes were counted), oh, and "We should have a revolution in this country"

I think we can all agree we elected a chronic and habitual liar, but don't complain when he calls for revolution and people take to the streets. Usual pub double standard.

GoMuskies
11-11-2016, 11:41 AM
Guess it wouldn't be so bad except that your candidate vehemently supported it in tweets after 2012:


My candidate? LOL. No.

bobbiemcgee
11-11-2016, 11:46 AM
Sorry. Trump has flip-flopped on just about every issue. Guess we'll see what's next for the flopper-in-chief.

Caf
11-11-2016, 12:17 PM
I think the logical thing to do is apply to enter the country under the laws that we have in place today? We want and need cheap labor in this country. We don't want this wild west scenario we have today.

Law and order.......

Pretty simple concept that the current administration couldn't get their hands around.

You say these two sentences as if there's no middle ground. There is. Trump will find it and probably disappoint you.

Masterofreality
11-11-2016, 12:20 PM
Republicans would be just as upset as Democrats if they had won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote in two of the last five elections. In a situation like this, the winning side always thinks that the system works fine and the losing side always feels like they just got jobbed. Both sides have valid points about the merits of the electoral college.

Nope, just nope. The system is flawless. #RespectIt

Masterofreality
11-11-2016, 12:24 PM
You need to look at a cartogram map.

Square miles don't vote. People vote.

People living in Square miles do vote and square miles make up thing that are called "States". You might have heard of them. There are 50, not just 2.

The aggregate of the 50 states voted under our genius system. Hillary Clinton lost. #FactsOnly

Strange Brew
11-11-2016, 12:25 PM
Sorry. Trump has flip-flopped on just about every issue. Guess we'll see what's next for the flopper-in-chief.

No, no his opinion has "evolved"

Lamont Sanford
11-11-2016, 12:26 PM
Hillary Clinton lost. #FactsOnly

+1. Suck it libs.

bleedXblue
11-11-2016, 12:36 PM
You say these two sentences as if there's no middle ground. There is. Trump will find it and probably disappoint you.

Actually its exactly what I expect from him..........

bleedXblue
11-11-2016, 12:38 PM
Sorry. Trump has flip-flopped on just about every issue. Guess we'll see what's next for the flopper-in-chief.

Classic......he's not even in office yet.

Caf
11-11-2016, 12:39 PM
Actually its exactly what I expect from him..........

You're lying to yourself if you think it involves mass deportation.

Xville
11-11-2016, 12:57 PM
You're lying to yourself if you think it involves mass deportation.

If he could just deport the femi-nazis in Hollywood like Lena Dunham that would make me happy....oh and the Kardashians

bleedXblue
11-11-2016, 12:58 PM
You're lying to yourself if you think it involves mass deportation.

Actually, I'm agreeing with you........no way there is mass deportation.

I expect a period where illegals can come forward and voluntarily apply for citizenship.

If you don't, there should and hopefully will be swift consequences.

Caf
11-11-2016, 01:13 PM
Actually, I'm agreeing with you........no way there is mass deportation.

I expect a period where illegals can come forward and voluntarily apply for citizenship.

If you don't, there should and hopefully will be swift consequences.

Haha yeah we're on the same page. My bad. Path to citizenship, new closed borders, everyone's happy (I think).

And yes XVille, someone please show Lena Dunham the door. Kind of impressive how far people can get into their own worlds.

boozehound
11-13-2016, 11:13 AM
This is finally starting to get some press after the election. For those of you that supported Trump: What are your thoughts on this? This ranked as one of my top several concerns RE: a Trump Presidency (after all the policy stuff). Fortunately it seems like he is backing off of many of his claims (Mexico paying for the wall, deportation force, Obamacare, Muslim ban) - but this feels like a very bad idea to me. This seems more like something that would take place in an Eastern European Oligarchy, not a Western Democratic Republic.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/13/news/donald-trump-business-conflicts/index.html

The situation is made even more dubious, IMO, by the failure to release tax returns. Much was made (not without validity) of accusations of pay-to-play politics with respect to the Clinton Foundation. This seems like an even worse conflict of interest, particularly when you consider his role as the President vs. her role as Secretary of State. Are we really OK with him having his kids run is businesses as long as they pinkie swear not to talk to him about it? Are we OK with having no visibility to those business dealings? Not knowing who is funding his ventures?

bjf123
11-13-2016, 12:12 PM
Trump can't simply turn over the operations to his kids. That would be a clear conflict. I'm sure he has trusted people he can turn the day to day operations over to. This is uncharted waters. I'm not sure if any presidents in recent memory had such varied business interests. For them, I think it was mostly investments, stocks, bonds, and passive interests in others entities. Those are easy to turn over to an advisory firm who can operate independently. That's much tougher when you're incredibly active in the running of the operations.

I heard something on one of the news programs this morning that the conflict of interest rules don't technically apply to the President like they do to cabinet members. No idea if that's true.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

bobbiemcgee
11-13-2016, 12:36 PM
The tax returns may have shown his involvement with the Russians. I don't think too many NYC banks wanted his business after he stiffed them so many times, so he may get his money from the Putin oligarchs.
Donald Trump Jr. pretty much covered that saying “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.” He added, “we see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”

xu82
11-13-2016, 04:18 PM
The tax returns may have shown his involvement with the Russians. I don't think too many NYC banks wanted his business after he stiffed them so many times, so he may get his money from the Putin oligarchs.
Donald Trump Jr. pretty much covered that saying “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.” He added, “we see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”

Clever move to get Secret Service protection from the Russian mob. They play by different rules than Wall Street banks.

Strange Brew
11-13-2016, 11:07 PM
This is finally starting to get some press after the election. For those of you that supported Trump: What are your thoughts on this? This ranked as one of my top several concerns RE: a Trump Presidency (after all the policy stuff). Fortunately it seems like he is backing off of many of his claims (Mexico paying for the wall, deportation force, Obamacare, Muslim ban) - but this feels like a very bad idea to me. This seems more like something that would take place in an Eastern European Oligarchy, not a Western Democratic Republic.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/13/news/donald-trump-business-conflicts/index.html

The situation is made even more dubious, IMO, by the failure to release tax returns. Much was made (not without validity) of accusations of pay-to-play politics with respect to the Clinton Foundation. This seems like an even worse conflict of interest, particularly when you consider his role as the President vs. her role as Secretary of State. Are we really OK with him having his kids run is businesses as long as they pinkie swear not to talk to him about it? Are we OK with having no visibility to those business dealings? Not knowing who is funding his ventures?

CNN?

Ha....ha...ha..aaaahahahahaha!

Caf
11-14-2016, 08:09 AM
CNN?

Ha....ha...ha..aaaahahahahaha!

Good to see the Trump victory hasn't gone to your head.

Lamont Sanford
11-14-2016, 08:23 AM
Good to see the Trump victory hasn't gone to your head.

CAF -

If there is one thing we learned from this election, it's that CNN is just a corrupt as Crooked Hillary, the Clinton Foundation, Qatar, Donna Brazelle, Don Lemon, Chris Matthews, and Mick Cronin. For anyone to legitimately get their "news" from CNN, is laughable. I wouldn't trust them to deliver sports scores.

Caf
11-14-2016, 08:31 AM
CAF -

If there is one thing we learned from this election, it's that CNN is just a corrupt as Crooked Hillary, the Clinton Foundation, Qatar, Donna Brazelle, Don Lemon, Chris Matthews, and Mick Cronin. For anyone to legitimately get their "news" from CNN, is laughable. I wouldn't trust them to deliver sports scores.

CNN stinks - not many people are going to challenge you on that. However, you can find this story and question on basically every news outlet. It's a valid question, boozehound set it up well, and a CNN link doesn't somehow invalidate it.

Watchdogs question Trump’s plans to keep his empire in the family (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-business-ties-231269)

boozehound
11-14-2016, 08:32 AM
Good to see the Trump victory hasn't gone to your head.

This mentality is a little frightening to me, and I hope it isn't widespread. CNN isn't Huffington Post. You can make a good argument that they slant their news to the left, but they don't generally report outright falsehoods. It's looking like it's going to be VERY easy for Trump to continue to manipulate the roughly 27% of the population that voted for him. He already has his propaganda minister in Steve Bannon, now he just needs to continually reinforce that Breitbart should be their source for the 'real' news, and that all other media is 'biased' and 'wrong'.

The thing that does give me hope, is that you generally need much more than a quarter of the people in your camp in order to actually seize control of a democratic republic. The question becomes how many of the roughly half of Americans who didn't vote will buy his message. If it under-indexes relative to the people who actually did vote (as I suspect it does), he may have closer to 35%-40% of the people's support, which still isn't really enough to seize power ala Vladimir Putin in Russia. If you can manage to control the media it gets much easier, but I think that would be difficult to do on a large enough scale in America.

I figure probably 20% of the people will believe literally everything he says, with the remainder of the population falling at various other places on the spectrum.

boozehound
11-14-2016, 08:41 AM
CNN stinks - not many people are going to challenge you on that. However, you can find this story and question on basically every news outlet. It's a valid question, boozehound set it up well, and a CNN link doesn't somehow invalidate it.

Watchdogs question Trump’s plans to keep his empire in the family (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-business-ties-231269)

Thank you. See my above post for why this mentality frightens me. To wholesale discount CNN is a little ridiculous. It is, however, highly convenient when they are reporting on things you really don't want to address though.

Donald Trump has done a phenomenal job of convincing his supporters that every media outlet that reports negative things about him is biased and false, even in the face of video evidence to the contrary.

It's one thing to elect Donald Trump. It's another thing entirely to allow him free reign to do whatever he wants. That could be disastrous, particularly when you consider who he is taking advice from (I'm looking at you, Steve Bannon). The question RE: his business is legitimate and valid, and should be addressed. Unless we want to go full oligarchy here.

GoMuskies
11-14-2016, 09:30 AM
I thought the 60 Minutes interview he did last night was encouraging.

kyxu
11-14-2016, 09:33 AM
+1. Suck it libs.

I think we're *all* going to be "sucking it" for the next four years.

Strange Brew
11-14-2016, 09:34 AM
This mentality is a little frightening to me, and I hope it isn't widespread. CNN isn't Huffington Post. You can make a good argument that they slant their news to the left, but they don't generally report outright falsehoods. It's looking like it's going to be VERY easy for Trump to continue to manipulate the roughly 27% of the population that voted for him. He already has his propaganda minister in Steve Bannon, now he just needs to continually reinforce that Breitbart should be their source for the 'real' news, and that all other media is 'biased' and 'wrong'.

The thing that does give me hope, is that you generally need much more than a quarter of the people in your camp in order to actually seize control of a democratic republic. The question becomes how many of the roughly half of Americans who didn't vote will buy his message. If it under-indexes relative to the people who actually did vote (as I suspect it does), he may have closer to 35%-40% of the people's support, which still isn't really enough to seize power ala Vladimir Putin in Russia. If you can manage to control the media it gets much easier, but I think that would be difficult to do on a large enough scale in America.

I figure probably 20% of the people will believe literally everything he says, with the remainder of the population falling at various other places on the spectrum.

CNN was colluding with the DNC and you're going to say they may slant a little left? What a joke.

POTUS Trump will have to figure out his biz above board b/c the unhinged leftist media is foaming at the mouth to find something on him. It's humorous you find my utter contempt (deserved) for CNN to be frightening while your fellow Progs/Dems/domestic terrorists are throwing violent temper tantrums in the streets of major cities.

kyxu
11-14-2016, 09:38 AM
CNN was colluding with the DNC and you're going to say they may slant a little left? What a joke.

POTUS Trump will have to figure out his biz above board b/c the unhinged leftist media is foaming at the mouth to find something on him. It's humorous you find my utter contempt (deserved) for CNN to be frightening while your fellow Progs/Dems/domestic terrorists are throwing violent temper tantrums in the streets of major cities.

Just curious -- what outlets do you rely upon for your information?

Caf
11-14-2016, 09:39 AM
CNN was colluding with the DNC and you're going to say they may slant a little left? What a joke.

POTUS Trump will have to figure out his biz above board b/c the unhinged leftist media is foaming at the mouth to find something on him. It's humorous you find my utter contempt (deserved) for CNN to be frightening while your fellow Progs/Dems/domestic terrorists are throwing violent temper tantrums in the streets of major cities.

The Progs/Dems/Domestic terrorists aren't in charge of the federal government. Get some thicker skin or move under a rock.

kyxu
11-14-2016, 09:40 AM
I expect a period where illegals can come forward and voluntarily apply for citizenship.

If you don't, there should and hopefully will be swift consequences.

The Republican Party would call this "amnesty."

Caf
11-14-2016, 09:41 AM
I thought the 60 Minutes interview he did last night was encouraging.

I agree. It seems he has made a complete 180 in attitude and presentation, pretty much overnight.

cutterX
11-14-2016, 10:09 AM
I just know I'm not sure what's worse, all the whiny anti Trump protesters who can't accept their candidate lost or all the whiny pro-Trump people complaining about them.

paulxu
11-14-2016, 10:21 AM
I think all these news people are corrupt. So, when I want to know what our new president thinks, I don't get the straight story from the news sites.
I get the straight story, straight from the horse's mouth (as it were).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSE-XoVKaXg

Strange Brew
11-14-2016, 11:03 AM
Just curious -- what outlets do you rely upon for your information?

WaPo, NYT, WSJ, LA Times, Wash Times, Drudge and yes, Breitbart as well. When you read from a lot of sources it because very apparent how big of a joke CNN truly is.

Strange Brew
11-14-2016, 11:06 AM
The Progs/Dems/Domestic terrorists aren't in charge of the federal government. Get some thicker skin or move under a rock.

Hmm, so Obama's not the POTUS right now?

Ha, ha my skin is plenty thick. I'm not the one frightened that people correctly believe a news org is biased to the point of being a joke.

Strange Brew
11-14-2016, 11:08 AM
I thought the 60 Minutes interview he did last night was encouraging.

Agree. Thought is was a good interview.

boozehound
11-14-2016, 11:13 AM
I thought the 60 Minutes interview he did last night was encouraging.

I would agree, although it's tough to really nail down where he stands on anything since it seems to be subject to frequent and random change. I'm a little surprised at how fast he has abandoned some of the key (IMO ridiculous) rhetoric that helped him win the election. At the end of the day, I guess it's way more fun to engage in fantasy about Mexico paying for border walls and manufacturing jobs coming back to the rust belt on a massive scale than to have substantive discussions about complex issues.

It will be interesting to see what policies he supports now that he will be forced to deal with reality on reality's terms. The country's jobs issues aren't caused, or solved, by trade deals and tariffs. They are caused by globalization/mechanization and a mis-match between the skills of a large portion of American workers and the needs of our employers. He sold a lot of people on his ability to wave a magic wand and bring those jobs back through 'good negotiation'. I'm not sure that's possible, although I would love to be wrong about that.

The policy proposal of his that has me most worried is his tax plan. I don't really want to add trillions to our National Debt, even if it saves me some money now. I'm not sure what a Republican congress would do if faced with a President who wanted to slash taxes to historical lows. That could be a very difficult political issue if Congress Repubs are forced to vote against their President's tax plan, particularly when it would be a massive windfall in the short term for many people and businesses.


CNN was colluding with the DNC and you're going to say they may slant a little left? What a joke.

POTUS Trump will have to figure out his biz above board b/c the unhinged leftist media is foaming at the mouth to find something on him. It's humorous you find my utter contempt (deserved) for CNN to be frightening while your fellow Progs/Dems/domestic terrorists are throwing violent temper tantrums in the streets of major cities.

Man, you really bought into the Bannon / Trump rhetoric, huh?

What I find frightening is more the wholesale rejection of fact than anything else. Just because CNN reports a fact, doesn't make it any less true. If CNN were to report something that was incorrect or false I would be more understanding of your position. You still haven't really articulated any real stance on the potential conflict of interest. Are you saying that you are fine with the potential conflict of interest, but he will have to 'figure out his biz above board' only because of the unhinged leftist media?

You also may want to take "LOCK HER UP" out of your sig line now that Trump has essentially admitted that he has no intention of doing that, and never really did. It was a great tactic to get people fired up though, so who cares if it was a lie.

kyxu
11-14-2016, 11:17 AM
WaPo, NYT, WSJ, LA Times, Wash Times, Drudge and yes, Breitbart as well. When you read from a lot of sources it because very apparent how big of a joke CNN truly is.

So you basically run the spectrum of partisan news media, which spends a lot of time pointing out how those on the other side are a joke. I guess then I can't blame you for having the perspective that CNN is a farce if you also follow Drudge and (*cough*) Breitbart.

Public Radio is a good alternative to the above, however, with some BBC sprinkled in.

GoMuskies
11-14-2016, 11:18 AM
The policy proposal of his that has me most worried is his tax plan. I don't really want to add trillions to our National Debt, even if it saves me some money now. I'm not sure what a Republican congress would do if faced with a President who wanted to slash taxes to historical lows. That could be a very difficult political issue if Congress Repubs are forced to vote against their President's tax plan, particularly when it would be a massive windfall in the short term for many people and businesses.


The Congressional Republicans aren't going to vote against a tax plan that lowers taxes. They just aren't. I'm excited to see what happens if Trump turns this issue over to Paul Ryan. I think he's a details guy that can come up with a good plan. Hope he doesn't disappoint.

I'm also hoping that Trump will save us some money on military spending. That has the potential to pay for a lot of the tax cut (if Laffer is wrong).

GoMuskies
11-14-2016, 11:19 AM
The WSJ and BBC America are the best. As long as you avoid the WSJ editorial page (or understand that it is mostly for entertainment purposes only).

boozehound
11-14-2016, 11:23 AM
WaPo, NYT, WSJ, LA Times, Wash Times, Drudge and yes, Breitbart as well. When you read from a lot of sources it because very apparent how big of a joke CNN truly is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/09/trumps-conflicts-of-interest-are-without-precedent-in-american-presidential-history/

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/us/politics/how-federal-ethics-laws-will-apply-to-a-trump-presidency.html?_r=0

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-foreign-business-entanglements-would-create-unparalleled-conflicts-1478083150

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trump-financial-conflicts-20160314-story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/09/trumps-conflicts-of-interest-are-without-precedent-in-american-presidential-history/

Does that make it true? I don't consider the Drudge Report or Breitbart to be any less biased than CNN (or Huffington Post for that matter) so I'm not linking to them.

boozehound
11-14-2016, 11:24 AM
The Congressional Republicans aren't going to vote against a tax plan that lowers taxes. They just aren't. I'm excited to see what happens if Trump turns this issue over to Paul Ryan. I think he's a details guy that can come up with a good plan. Hope he doesn't disappoint.

I'm also hoping that Trump will save us some money on military spending. That has the potential to pay for a lot of the tax cut (if Laffer is wrong).

Agreed. I don't know if he will actually get as far as proposing a completely ridiculous piece of legislature to Congress (hopefully someone will stop him if he tries), but I don't think the Republicans would vote against it either.

Military spending is the biggest area for positive impact, IMHO. It's tough to nail down exactly where he stands on that, particularly once the defense industry lobbyists get to him. We has seemed at times to favor both more, and less, military spending.

Strange Brew
11-14-2016, 11:24 AM
So you basically run the spectrum of partisan news media, which spends a lot of time pointing out how those on the other side are a joke. I guess then I can't blame you for having the perspective that CNN is a farce if you also follow Drudge and (*cough*) Breitbart.

Public Radio is a good alternative to the above, however, with some BBC sprinkled in.

I fully understand BBs slant which is why I don't link to it on this board. They did however get Brexit and this election correct and it does provide a viewpoint one doesn't get if they rely on CNN and NPR for news. I'll check out BBC America.

boozehound
11-14-2016, 11:29 AM
I fully understand BBs slant which is why I don't link to it on this board. They did however get Brexit and this election correct and it does provide a viewpoint one doesn't get if they rely on CNN and NPR for news. I'll check out BBC America.

That is fair. I would probably through Drudge in there as well. I actually think Breitbart is a little more credible than Drudge.

Caf
11-14-2016, 11:30 AM
I can't recommend The Hill enough. I think they do a great job of just telling people what's going on with no spin. I also listen to as much CSPAN as I can. You don't have to worry about media bias when you hear it for yourself.

Pete Delkus
11-14-2016, 11:31 AM
A few items of which I have to comment:

Pre existing conditions clause: Prior to the ACA, this clause was instituted for many reasons. Primarily to prevent a individual who elected NOT to have health insurance, purchase an individual plan or join a group plan, just to have a condition or surgery covered while sick, then drop the plan after care was completed. These circumstances raised the cost for everyone, except that individual who essentially "purchased fire protection an hour before the fire started".

Again, prior to Obamacare, if you had continuous coverage (even if you changed jobs, carriers or plans) you would not be "dropped" from your plan due to a pre existing condition. This was always deemed unlawful.

In fact, carriers would allow a new individual (w/o prior coverage) to purchase a plan, but would protect themselves and their members, by only excluding, let's say a knee surgery for 1 year, usually, if that person had history of knee issues, but didn't have continued coverage. If they did have a heart attack, for example, they would be covered "normally", by the traditional financial spilt of that plan.



A Binary choice. 0 or 1. A or B. Trump or Clinton.

I voted for Donald Trump, and while not required, I feel it's important to explain my line of thinking. I guess I care because friends on Social Media have indirectly called me a racist, bigot, sexist, and have indirectly asked to be defriended.

Our presidental choice could have come from the direction we lean politically. It could have come from the words - some imflamatory - or actions of each of the candiates, or thier surrogates. However, my choice, addimttedly was based in self-interest, which is the politically incorrect form of the famous: "...what's best for my family." My choice, primarily, was wrapped in the financials centered around the Affordable Care Act, and the proposed reduction of the corporate tax rate.

"Obamacare" has been a big part of my life, as I work with companies in developing benefits strategies, which are usually centered around the health insurance offering. My income has been directly affected, not only by the tax implications which bussiness had to absorb, but also due to the early-on threat that these tax's and fines were imenent. I've seen half of my industry, especially "Mom & Pop" Helath Insurance Brokerage Shops, wiped away by the inability to afford the cost it would take to define and implement the inane amount of regualtions in which Obamacare put upon the business they serve. I've seen working-class premiums raise, and while there are many causes, the ACA cost burden has had a direct impact. See Bill Clinton's recent remarks to perfectly summeraize the Obamacare-effect on "Middle America".

Another imporant campaign topic to me, to which Trump alluded to, was the proposed reduction of corporate taxes, along with a plan to repatriate overseas money. Money made avialble for research and development, let alone the possibility to increase job creation, would theorectically help both the industries that my wife and I are currently employed.

So there is the top of my thought pyramid - unique to me, and admittedly self-interested - but not nefarious, in my opinion. I'm sure you will see responses disagreeing with the detials of my facts or the cause/effect of these topics. That's fine and even welcomed - topic based dialog is much more beneficial than the alterntive, which has been all to prevelant on Social Media.

boozehound
11-14-2016, 11:39 AM
Pete,

I don't entirely agree with you on the issues, but this is very thoughtful perspective and I appreciate you providing it. I disagree with your choice of candidate, but don't entirely disagree with any of your thoughts above.

Regarding the Pre-Obamacare preexisting condition exclusion: That is good perspective and rationale behind having restrictions on pre-existing conditions. I agree that insurance doesn't work if you can simply sign up once you find out you need it. I believe that was part of what Obamacare was trying to weed out by 'forcing' people to have coverage, although it clearly didn't work out. Healthcare is a complex issue, and I'm not entirely sure what that best solution is over a longer term (say 30+ yr) time horizon. It doesn't seem like the current system, or Obamacare, are the answer.

Strange Brew
11-14-2016, 11:51 AM
I can't recommend The Hill enough. I think they do a great job of just telling people what's going on with no spin. I also listen to as much CSPAN as I can. You don't have to worry about media bias when you hear it for yourself.

Agree. I forgot The Hill. I go there almost daily.

Strange Brew
11-14-2016, 11:53 AM
That is fair. I would probably through Drudge in there as well. I actually think Breitbart is a little more credible than Drudge.

What's interesting about Drudge is the only content he provides Are the headlines. He definitely leans Right/Libertarian but he is the best at breaking stories first.

bobbiemcgee
11-14-2016, 01:01 PM
Apparently Trump's plan "to repeal and replace Obamacare on Day One" has gone out the window. Also, he wants to keep the most expensive provision(s) as to pre-existing conditions, etc. He will replace it with "something" wonderful that doesn't cost much altho page 1 of this plan has yet to be written or proposed. Insurance companies will flock to his new plan that contains language similar to obamacare that they have to cover pre-existing conditions or the reason they are all bailing out now. So He will get rid of the subsidies and it will magically cost less. C'mon.

Caf
11-14-2016, 02:32 PM
Donald Trump has spoken by phone with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Kremlin says - WaPo (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/11/14/donald-trump-has-spoken-by-phone-with-russian-president-vladimir-putin-kremlin-says/)

More on this to come, I'm sure.

GoMuskies
11-14-2016, 02:34 PM
Trump said on 60 Minutes yesterday that he's spoken to a ton of foreign leaders since being elected. Many have called to congratulate him.

xudash
11-14-2016, 02:38 PM
A few items of which I have to comment:

Pre existing conditions clause: Prior to the ACA, this clause was instituted for many reasons. Primarily to prevent a individual who elected NOT to have health insurance, purchase an individual plan or join a group plan, just to have a condition or surgery covered while sick, then drop the plan after care was completed. These circumstances raised the cost for everyone, except that individual who essentially "purchased fire protection an hour before the fire started".

Again, prior to Obamacare, if you had continuous coverage (even if you changed jobs, carriers or plans) you would not be "dropped" from your plan due to a pre existing condition. This was always was deemed unlawful.

In fact, carriers would allow a new individual (w/o prior coverage) to purchase a plan, but would protect themselves and their members, by only excluding, let's say a knee surgery for 1 year, usually, if that person had history of knee issues, but didn't have continued coverage. If they did have a heart attack, for example, they would be covered "normally", by the traditional financial spilt of that plan.



A Binary choice. 0 or 1. A or B. Trump or Clinton.

I voted for Donald Trump, and while not required, I feel it's important to explain my line of thinking. I guess I care because friends on Social Media have indirectly called me a racist, bigot, sexist, and have indirectly asked to be defriended.

Our presidental choice could have come from the direction we lean politically. It could have come from the words - some imflamatory - or actions of each of the candiates, or thier surrogates. However, my choice, addimttedly was based in self-interest, which is the politically incorrect form of the famous: "...what's best for my family." My choice, primarily, was wrapped in the financials centered around the Affordable Care Act, and the proposed reduction of the corporate tax rate.

"Obamacare" has been a big part of my life, as I work with companies in developing benefits strategies, which are usually centered around the health insurance offering. My income has been directly affected, not only by the tax implications which bussiness had to absorb, but also due to the early-on threat that these tax's and fines were imenent. I've seen half of my industry, especially "Mom & Pop" Helath Insurance Brokerage Shops, wiped away by the inability to afford the cost it would take to define and implement the inane amount of regualtions in which Obamacare put upon the business they serve. I've seen working-class premiums raise, and while thier are many causes, the ACA cost burden has had a direct impact. See Bill Clinton's recent remarks to perfectly summeraize the Obamacare-effect on "Middle America".

Another imporant campaign topic to me, to which Trump alluded to, was the proposed reduction of corporate taxes, along with a plan to repatriate overseas money. Money made avialble for research and development, let alone the possibility to increase job creation, would theorectically help both the industries that my wife and I are currently employed.

So there is the top of my thought pyramid - unique to me, and admittedly self-interested - but not nafarius, in my opinion. I'm sure you will see responses disagreeing with the detials of my facts or the cause/effect of these topics. That's fine and even welcomed - topic based dialog is much more beneficial than the alterntive, which has been all to prevelant on Social Media.

Superb post.

As a point of amplification, and beyond the pure idiocy of the Affordable Care Act - what a laughable name - Trump's tax plan isn't a trickle down proposition, yet Hillary played the stupid, tired card of tax cuts for the wealthy.

Caf
11-14-2016, 03:22 PM
Trump said on 60 Minutes yesterday that he's spoken to a ton of foreign leaders since being elected. Many have called to congratulate him.

They've updated/expanded the article now. Sounds like it was what you said, maybe a bit more than just congratulations, but nothing substantial. Non-story, not sure why WaPo blasted it as one.

bobbiemcgee
11-14-2016, 04:25 PM
- Trump's tax plan isn't a trickle down proposition

yep, it will cost us 9.25 trillion according to forbes. LeBron will save 15 million a yr. He should be happy. On the other hand, Trump could care less cuz he doesn't pay any.

SemajParlor
11-14-2016, 09:55 PM
Saying Trump and Putin just spoke for the first time is like saying you had your first beer at 21.

xu82
11-14-2016, 09:58 PM
Saying Trump and Putin just spoke for the first time is like saying you had your first beer at 21.

Was it a 3.2 beer? There could be a gray area. (And some shitty beer.)

Caf
11-15-2016, 10:05 AM
Obama: Trump's victory not my fault - The Hill (http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/306058-obama-trumps-victory-not-my-fault)

Strange Brew
11-15-2016, 11:56 PM
I would agree, although it's tough to really nail down where he stands on anything since it seems to be subject to frequent and random change. I'm a little surprised at how fast he has abandoned some of the key (IMO ridiculous) rhetoric that helped him win the election. At the end of the day, I guess it's way more fun to engage in fantasy about Mexico paying for border walls and manufacturing jobs coming back to the rust belt on a massive scale than to have substantive discussions about complex issues.

It will be interesting to see what policies he supports now that he will be forced to deal with reality on reality's terms. The country's jobs issues aren't caused, or solved, by trade deals and tariffs. They are caused by globalization/mechanization and a mis-match between the skills of a large portion of American workers and the needs of our employers. He sold a lot of people on his ability to wave a magic wand and bring those jobs back through 'good negotiation'. I'm not sure that's possible, although I would love to be wrong about that.

The policy proposal of his that has me most worried is his tax plan. I don't really want to add trillions to our National Debt, even if it saves me some money now. I'm not sure what a Republican congress would do if faced with a President who wanted to slash taxes to historical lows. That could be a very difficult political issue if Congress Repubs are forced to vote against their President's tax plan, particularly when it would be a massive windfall in the short term for many people and businesses.



Man, you really bought into the Bannon / Trump rhetoric, huh?

What I find frightening is more the wholesale rejection of fact than anything else. Just because CNN reports a fact, doesn't make it any less true. If CNN were to report something that was incorrect or false I would be more understanding of your position. You still haven't really articulated any real stance on the potential conflict of interest. Are you saying that you are fine with the potential conflict of interest, but he will have to 'figure out his biz above board' only because of the unhinged leftist media?

You also may want to take "LOCK HER UP" out of your sig line now that Trump has essentially admitted that he has no intention of doing that, and never really did. It was a great tactic to get people fired up though, so who cares if it was a lie.

My sig and avatar are in direct response to those censoring political thought; which was until recently accepted on this hoops board. It has no basis in what I think will happen. A wall of some sort will be built as the Congress and GWB approved it in 06. I think we're entering uncharted territory in terms of trade. I just hope Tump has the intelligence to reject Summers, Krugy and Romer when it comes to policy...

boozehound
11-16-2016, 07:31 AM
My sig and avatar are in direct response to those censoring political thought; which was until recently accepted on this hoops board. It has no basis in what I think will happen. A wall of some sort will be built as the Congress and GWB approved it in 06. I think we're entering uncharted territory in terms of trade. I just hope Tump has the intelligence to reject Summers, Krugy and Romer when it comes to policy...

From what I understand, Trump functions on two main things: Loyalty, and whomever he talked to last.

I don't think this is going particularly well so far. It seems like he is using cabinet positions to rewards loyalists rather than appoint the best people for the job. Too much cronyism, and too many retreads (Gingrich, Bolton) It's also clear that these guys were as surprised as anybody else by the victory, and had given very little thought to cabinet selections and transition details.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/key-figures-purged-from-trump-transition-team/2016/11/15/ed4e2a36-ab6b-11e6-8b45-f8e493f06fcd_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-banner-main_trumpnatsec740p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

It also looks like his family is becoming increasingly intertwined with his White House, which is cause for some concern since they are supposed to be running his businesses and not talking to him about it. Even if he keeps Don, Eric, and Ivanka away from his White House once his term starts, Jared Kushner having a key role in his administration looks likely. Are we to believe that he and Ivanka won't talk shop? At least there's a great spousal privilege firewall if (when) legal issues arise associated with his businesses.

I'm very interested (in a morbid way) to see how this pans out. In my opinion, Donald Trump did not run on a conservative platform at all, which makes sense since he is not (IMHO) a conservative. It seems that he is as likely to grow government as he is to make it smaller. He is proposing massive public works projects with no plans to fund. He is against free trade. He is OK with growing the national debt. These are not conservative values. At some point there is going to have to be a showdown between Trump and actual Republicans.

bobbiemcgee
11-16-2016, 02:00 PM
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/us-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=1614278

Caf
11-16-2016, 02:20 PM
Bill Gross: Trump Will Do Little for U.S. Workers - Barron's (http://www.barrons.com/articles/bill-gross-trump-will-do-little-for-u-s-workers-1479315862?mod=BOL_hp_highlight_1)

GoMuskies
11-16-2016, 02:28 PM
Bill Gross: Trump Will Do Little for U.S. Workers - Barron's (http://www.barrons.com/articles/bill-gross-trump-will-do-little-for-u-s-workers-1479315862?mod=BOL_hp_highlight_1)

Side note: the story of Bill Gross's fall from grace at Pimco is amazing.

Caf
11-16-2016, 02:38 PM
Side note: the story of Bill Gross's fall from grace at Pimco is amazing.

The best story I've heard is that he had a policy which said colleagues couldn't look him in the eye.

xubrew
11-16-2016, 04:11 PM
I'm for getting rid of the electoral college and technically making it what it practically is. An electoral point system. Instead of electing electors, who are now required by law in most states to vote as they are told, why not...yunno....get rid of that and just have electoral points?? When it first started, the electoral college was allowed to vote for the candidate of their choosing whether the people who elected them as an elector wanted them to or not. So, things are a little different now. Why not dissolve the electoral COLLEGE, and just have electoral points since that's pretty much how it practically works anyway??

Philosophically, I'm not a fan of party tickets. When the fathers first laid this all out, there were no parties. The guy who came in second was the VP. It seems like that was representative of more of the people instead of a system where we have two camps with one camp being cut out of the Executive Branch for four years at a time. But, I realize that ain't changing.

This wasn't the result I wanted, but a big part of me feels like this is what should happen when people are ignored and are made to feel like they're not important. I think a lot of people wanted to vote against a system that failed them, and it did fail them, and then proceeded to ignore them. Trump was able to connect with what used to be the Middle Class. It's good that someone finally did. If you like the Gene Shepherd movie "A Christmas Story" (or any of his other movies or books), the Parkers are today's Trump voters. They used to be Democrats, but not anymore and it makes complete sense as to why that is.

I also think that if you're privileged enough to have a "safe space" then your life is actually pretty good. I wish those people would just stop for a second and consider all of the Americans out there that didn't get to go to college, or that aren't able to have a lot of the things that they have for whatever reason. When all this protesting is over, most who are protesting will return to day-to-day lives that are, quite frankly, a lot better than what many Americans that they've been ignoring are able to enjoy. If nothing else, II hope they're not being ignored or thought of as unimportant any more.

I hope that Trump is not dangerous. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't concerned.

kyxu
11-16-2016, 04:59 PM
I also think that if you're privileged enough to have a "safe space" then your life is actually pretty good. I wish those people would just stop for a second and consider all of the Americans out there that didn't get to go to college, or that aren't able to have a lot of the things that they have for whatever reason. When all this protesting is over, most who are protesting will return to day-to-day lives that are, quite frankly, a lot better than what many Americans that they've been ignoring are able to enjoy. If nothing else, II hope they're not being ignored or thought of as unimportant any more.

I hope that Trump is not dangerous. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't concerned.

I think you're painting these protesters with a rather broad brush. You do have your white liberals whose lives likely won't change too much on January 20, but some of these protesters are religious or ethnic minorities who fear what their lives will be like once Donald Trump is president. For the latter, this isn't about "safe spaces." They're concerned for their individual liberties and protections afforded them under the constitution, which is that thing Trump says is very important.

Hell, just today it was reported that Trump is considering a "Muslim registry." That is scary, and is not even on the same planet as a college student clutching his latte, looking for the safe spaces.

xubrew
11-16-2016, 06:36 PM
I think you're painting these protesters with a rather broad brush. You do have your white liberals whose lives likely won't change too much on January 20, but some of these protesters are religious or ethnic minorities who fear what their lives will be like once Donald Trump is president. For the latter, this isn't about "safe spaces." They're concerned for their individual liberties and protections afforded them under the constitution, which is that thing Trump says is very important.

Hell, just today it was reported that Trump is considering a "Muslim registry." That is scary, and is not even on the same planet as a college student clutching his latte, looking for the safe spaces.

Fair point. What I've seen is mostly college students, so I probably am applying what I've simply seen a little too broadly. I like their idealism, but I can't help but think there is some narcissism mixed in with it too. At least in regards to college students who attend very nice institutions.

kyxu
11-16-2016, 06:49 PM
Even if many of them are white upper-class college kids, what would we prefer they do? Sit back because a political event may not affect them? Or join their peers to speak out against something they believe could set forth a series of injustice? Civil action can lose its power if it's just one group in the fight.

bobbiemcgee
11-16-2016, 07:16 PM
Obama got 66 million votes. Half of the people protesting didn't vote at all or voted for someone other than the Democrat. They were told if they didn't go out and vote, the dem would lose. They didn't, she lost. Now they have tremendous energy to go protest. Huh? The protest was last Tuesday. You missed it.
I think People still have the right to protest anything, and if they want to protest every day for 4 yrs., go ahead and maybe next time they'll vote.

xubrew
11-16-2016, 07:19 PM
Even if many of them are white upper-class college kids, what would we prefer they do? Sit back because a political event may not affect them? Or join their peers to speak out against something they believe could set forth a series of injustice? Civil action can lose its power if it's just one group in the fight.

Instead of yelling about how they didn't vote for Trump, maybe trying to understand why so many people did. Hell, maybe do something that's a little more engaging than walking around and yelling about how pissed off they are. Not everybody sees the world the way they do or is living the day to day lives that they are. People who voted for Trump had a reason for doing it. Ask somebody why they did, and actually listen to them. Don't be what I call a "shit listener." A shit listener is someone who while listening, is with the intent of formulating how they're going to respond by shitting all over what they say before they're done talking. Actual listening is listening with the intent of trying to actually understand the other person. A lot of the former occurs. Very little of the latter ever does.

Strange Brew
11-16-2016, 07:44 PM
I think you're painting these protesters with a rather broad brush. You do have your white liberals whose lives likely won't change too much on January 20, but some of these protesters are religious or ethnic minorities who fear what their lives will be like once Donald Trump is president. For the latter, this isn't about "safe spaces." They're concerned for their individual liberties and protections afforded them under the constitution, which is that thing Trump says is very important.

Hell, just today it was reported that Trump is considering a "Muslim registry." That is scary, and is not even on the same planet as a college student clutching his latte, looking for the safe spaces.

The "registry" quoted is not new. It was in effect from 2002-2011. Not saying I agree with it necessarily but it doesn't seem as nefarious as reported.

boozehound
11-16-2016, 07:56 PM
This wasn't the result I wanted, but a big part of me feels like this is what should happen when people are ignored and are made to feel like they're not important. I think a lot of people wanted to vote against a system that failed them, and it did fail them, and then proceeded to ignore them. Trump was able to connect with what used to be the Middle Class. It's good that someone finally did. If you like the Gene Shepherd movie "A Christmas Story" (or any of his other movies or books), the Parkers are today's Trump voters. They used to be Democrats, but not anymore and it makes complete sense as to why that is.


My opinion: Many of the Democrats that Trump 'turned' in this election were manipulated. I don't think it's necessarily a system that failed them. Globalization failed them, but globalization was happening whether they liked it our not. Trump just figured out how to exploit it by telling them their problems weren't their fault, and that government (he) was going to fix them. Ironically its a version of the message that the Dems have been peddling for a while. They haven't been able to deliver on it, because it's impossible to deliver on. Neither will Trump, but at least he was a new person promising them a return to the golden days of the American Middle Class. He also threw in the 'blaming immigrants' line (always a fan favorite) to add a bit of extra 'oomph'.

My take on what happened to the Middle Class: We enjoyed a halcyon period of time from about 1948 to roughly 1988, the core of which ran from about 1948 to 1970. World War II had destroyed most of the world's major cities, save for the United States (through geographical convenience primarily). We got to produce and export a lot of goods, with limited competition. We were able to command comparatively high prices (by today's standards) for our goods which created a period of time in which the American middle class received very high wages for many relatively low skilled positions. It was not sustainable. Japan was back up and running by the 1970's and started producing quality goods in the 1980's. China started producing goods with very low production costs driven by low cost of living and not paying workers anything. China (and eventually Singapore, Bengladesh, et al) are able to produce and export goods very cheaply because they don't pay their workers anything. It doesn't make sense to think that we can/could just continue to live in a world where factory workers get great benefits and a solid middle class wage.

If we want to improve the quality of life for the middle class we should focus on matching workers' skills to the needs of the modern global economy. Not engaging in fantastical dialogue about bringing manufacturing jobs back through tariffs. Even if Trump is minimally successful in bringing back some limited manufacturing jobs, it's certainly not going to happen on a large enough scale to turn back the clock to 1961 so we can all live in 'Happy Days' with Fonzie and gang again.

This is all a giant grift, and we have all been conned. The only lives he is going to improve are him, his family, and his cronies.

kyxu
11-16-2016, 08:06 PM
The "registry" quoted is not new. It was in effect from 2002-2011. Not saying I agree with it necessarily but it doesn't seem as nefarious as reported.

I'm well aware of NSEERS, which was not a Muslim registry, per se, but required additional checks from individuals from countries that just so happened to be predominantly Muslim. As an immigration attorney, I dealt with clients having to maintain their NSEERS registration years back. It was grossly ineffective. The idea of tracking certain individuals in the US based solely on their religion -- US citizen or otherwise -- is nefarious in and of itself.

kyxu
11-16-2016, 08:31 PM
Instead of yelling about how they didn't vote for Trump, maybe trying to understand why so many people did. Hell, maybe do something that's a little more engaging than walking around and yelling about how pissed off they are. Not everybody sees the world the way they do or is living the day to day lives that they are. People who voted for Trump had a reason for doing it. Ask somebody why they did, and actually listen to them. Don't be what I call a "shit listener." A shit listener is someone who while listening, is with the intent of formulating how they're going to respond by shitting all over what they say before they're done talking. Actual listening is listening with the intent of trying to actually understand the other person. A lot of the former occurs. Very little of the latter ever does.

Ha! Thanks for this. I grew up in the south with family sprinkled into Ohio and other parts of the rust belt. I've listened intently to family and friends explain why they were voting for Trump. For the sake of sanity, I've tried to see it all from their perspective and convince myself that they were right, to prevent myself from fear-shitting into my toilet every morning. This past week has made the self-convincing more difficult.

But if we're talking about "shit listening" and listening with intent, how about the protesters? Maybe it's not about whining because their candidate lost (many of them may have not even voted!), but a display to their peers and to the world that not all white people in the US support the KKK-endorsed, alt-right agenda of the president-elect.

Strange Brew
11-16-2016, 09:42 PM
I'm well aware of NSEERS, which was not a Muslim registry, per se, but required additional checks from individuals from countries that just so happened to be predominantly Muslim. As an immigration attorney, I dealt with clients having to maintain their NSEERS registration years back. It was grossly ineffective. The idea of tracking certain individuals in the US based solely on their religion -- US citizen or otherwise -- is nefarious in and of itself.

So, countries predominantly hostile to the US and the West?

waggy
11-17-2016, 12:24 AM
KKK endorsed? WTF?

ron meXico
11-17-2016, 06:30 AM
KKK endorsed? WTF?

Yeah 60 million kkk members now have infiltrated the US...
The labels are by design trying to marginalize I get it, but 60 million people are now white supremacists.

kyxu
11-17-2016, 06:34 AM
So, countries predominantly hostile to the US and the West?

That's how it was attempted to be justified, yes. But when you have a client with no background whatsoever and no intentions other than to work in the US and support his family, having to report for regular monitoring and questioning, it becomes infringing. It also became redundant.

kyxu
11-17-2016, 06:35 AM
KKK endorsed? WTF?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/11/01/the-kkks-official-newspaper-has-endorsed-donald-trump-for-president/

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500352353/kkk-paper-endorses-trump-campaign-calls-outlet-repulsive

ron meXico
11-17-2016, 06:50 AM
Nice linking of two liberal rags with no credibility before or after the election...
Can you bring something credible? Or allow me to provide you with a little fact: Liberal Racist Hillary Clinton looked up to Liberal Racist Robert KKK Byrd as a mentor and icon confirmed BY ALL OUTLETS but oft overlooked by the rags like NPR and the Washington post.
Now you know why 70% of Americans have no trust in media.

Caf
11-17-2016, 07:41 AM
Nice linking of two liberal rags with no credibility before or after the election...
Can you bring something credible? Or allow me to provide you with a little fact: Liberal Racist Hillary Clinton looked up to Liberal Racist Robert KKK Byrd as a mentor and icon confirmed BY ALL OUTLETS but oft overlooked by the rags like NPR and the Washington post.
Now you know why 70% of Americans have no trust in media.

The Washington Post has no credibility? Get real

ron meXico
11-17-2016, 08:20 AM
No the Washington Post has no credibility... Now especially since Bezos bought it and assigned the pool to do every hit piece possible on Trump and coddle the most abhorrent liberal candidate that could've been chosen to run, so Yeah I'd say they have no credibility.

Caf
11-17-2016, 08:33 AM
No the Washington Post has no credibility... Now especially since Bezos bought it and assigned the pool to do every hit piece possible on Trump and coddle the most abhorrent liberal candidate that could've been chosen to run, so Yeah I'd say they have no credibility.

They have definitely gone after Trump, but everything they write is credible and well sourced.

Just because these outlets got polling wrong, like literally all of them did, doesn't mean they're not credible. Trump is still an asshole, they gave evidence many times, they just failed to predict the future.

kyxu
11-17-2016, 08:35 AM
Nice linking of two liberal rags with no credibility before or after the election...
Can you bring something credible? Or allow me to provide you with a little fact: Liberal Racist Hillary Clinton looked up to Liberal Racist Robert KKK Byrd as a mentor and icon confirmed BY ALL OUTLETS but oft overlooked by the rags like NPR and the Washington post.
Now you know why 70% of Americans have no trust in media.

NPR is a liberal rag? You need to get out more. Or at least read something other than Breitbart.

paulxu
11-17-2016, 08:37 AM
Nice linking of two liberal rags with no credibility before or after the election...

Are you saying the KKK newspaper did not endorse Trump?

Xville
11-17-2016, 08:37 AM
NPR is a liberal rag? You need to get out more. Or at least read something other than Breitbart.

Do you seriously think that isn't? Not only is it extremely left leaning, but it's in the hipster's playbook.

XUOWNSUC
11-17-2016, 08:49 AM
NPR is definitely left leaning.

ron meXico
11-17-2016, 08:59 AM
Are you saying the KKK newspaper did not endorse Trump?

I don't have a clue... I'm one of the 60 million trump voters who's not affiliated with the kkk.
But tell me are you saying Hillary and bubba didn't idolize and refer to liberal racist Robert Byrd as a mentor?
In my best bubba voice justifying kkk Byrds membership... "he was just a man from WV doing what he had to do". Are you kidding me that's acceptable to a lib?

Caf
11-17-2016, 09:03 AM
I don't have a clue... I'm one of the 60 million trump voters who's not affiliated with the kkk.
But tell me are you saying Hillary and bubba didn't idolize and refer to liberal racist Robert Byrd as a mentor?
In my best bubba voice justifying kkk Byrds membership... "he was just a man from WV doing what he had to do". Are you kidding me that's acceptable to a lib?

If you look back 1,000 miles you'll see the original point. How did you get here? Who said you and all Trump supporters are white-supremacist?

ron meXico
11-17-2016, 09:13 AM
If you look back 1,000 miles you'll see the original point. How did you get here? Who said you and all Trump supporters are white-supremacist?

Don't ask me... ask KYXU why it's up to me to make sure all the pouty whiny safe spacin protesting libs need me to clarify im not a racist if I'm not already stereotyped in that category. He's the one who said it

Caf
11-17-2016, 09:35 AM
He was endorsed by them, and people don't like him... Uh duh. I don't understand why you're taking this so personally. I actually appreciate this about Trump, he's conquered the left's attempt to frame every conservative candidate as racist and untouchable. (This Election Marks The End Of America’s Racial Détente - The Federalist (http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/14/election-marks-end-americas-racial-detente/)) They're pissed about his election and I'm not surprised. The campaign run by Clinton and left media framed the choice as 'vote for this racist/sexist ' or 'lose'. I'm happy to see that people have broken out of that mindset, but the results will be massive division which will take a long time to heal. They're going to protest - get over it.

kyxu
11-17-2016, 10:09 AM
Don't ask me... ask KYXU why it's up to me to make sure all the pouty whiny safe spacin protesting libs need me to clarify im not a racist if I'm not already stereotyped in that category. He's the one who said it

Not even close to what I said.

waggy
11-17-2016, 10:17 AM
I wasn't doubting the endorsement. Just that it's meaningless imo. The KKK could endorse me. Doesn't make me a racist.

Caf
11-17-2016, 10:36 AM
I wasn't doubting the endorsement. Just that it's meaningless imo. The KKK could endorse me. Doesn't make me a racist.

I agree, but let's not pretend that's the only thing people are citing as proof that Trump's racist.

SemajParlor
11-17-2016, 10:42 AM
This is how I personally feel.

*In before stick to sports, and Popovich is an idiot *


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ2Mi6wa6o0

waggy
11-17-2016, 11:11 AM
This is how I personally feel.



I'm not defending Trump.. I didn't vote for him (nor Hilary).. But people say one can only vote for one or the other.. And the other side of the coin is the party that screams racism, racism, racism, racism, racism, racism, ad nausem, and then justified rioting.. You expect people to vote for more of that? Sorry, but ANYTHING is better than that.

That's what happened here. Obama and the left had 8 years and the result is Donald Trump. Look in the mirror.

ron meXico
11-17-2016, 11:12 AM
I agree, but let's not pretend that's the only thing people are citing as proof that Trump's racist.

Right and let's not overlook how middle of the road news outlets like you call NPR and the Washington post overlooked and underreported on the clintons racism.

Caf
11-17-2016, 11:22 AM
Right and let's not overlook how middle of the road news outlets like you call NPR and the Washington post overlooked and underreported on the clintons racism.

Hahah I'd love to know what you read. I assume the New York Times is middle of the road too? How about WSJ?

EDIT: You truly just don't get it. Go ahead and dig up every single instance of racism you can on the Clintons. I won't contest a single one, because at the end of the day claims of racism surrounding Trump are not from leaked or hidden messages. They're not from endorsements or the refusal to disavow them. They are from statements and actions from a campaign that was built upon the idea that white identity and white america are under siege by democrats.

ron meXico
11-17-2016, 11:31 AM
He was endorsed by them, and people don't like him... Uh duh. I don't understand why you're taking this so personally. I actually appreciate this about Trump, he's conquered the left's attempt to frame every conservative candidate as racist and untouchable. (This Election Marks The End Of America’s Racial Détente - The Federalist (http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/14/election-marks-end-americas-racial-detente/)) They're pissed about his election and I'm not surprised. The campaign run by Clinton and left media framed the choice as 'vote for this racist/sexist ' or 'lose'. I'm happy to see that people have broken out of that mindset, but the results will be massive division which will take a long time to heal. They're going to protest - get over it.

I'm not taking it personally... This stuff is hilarious to me. I hope these doofuses keep protesting, I'm just piling on and throwing it back in the lefts face.
How in this day and age could an opportunistic con man roll right thru the republican primary then take on the Clinton crime syndicate and win?
This is fairy tale man. So by what you're saying had Clinton been elected the nation wouldn't be so divided or is it that conservatives have way more class and wouldn't riot and protest in this manner? How bout that classy liberal who kicked her 6 year son out who voted for trump in school and taped the whole thing and put it on YouTube. It's downright disturbing... and yes the sheriff and CPS are you involved

Caf
11-17-2016, 12:12 PM
Trump got more votes from people of color than Romney did. Here’s the data - Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/11/trump-got-more-votes-from-people-of-color-than-romney-did-heres-the-data/)

Ugh middle of the road journalism.

STL_XUfan
11-17-2016, 12:23 PM
http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/barrier-around-harambe-the-gorilla-s-enclosure-was-not-up-to-code-1.3165318

I think we need a congressional investigation to find out what Hilary knew and when she knew it!!! #D***outforHarambe

paulxu
11-17-2016, 01:00 PM
How in this day and age could an opportunistic con man roll right thru the republican primary then take on the Clinton crime syndicate and win?

That's a tough one. Let me check with some graduates of Trump University and I'll get back to you.

SemajParlor
11-21-2016, 11:46 AM
Trump registered 8 companies in Saudi Arabia during his Presidential campaign.

As the great Omar Little once said, "It's all in the game."

Caf
11-21-2016, 12:08 PM
Trump registered 8 companies in Saudi Arabia during his Presidential campaign.

As the great Omar Little once said, "It's all in the game."

Fact-Check: Yes, the Clinton Foundation Took Millions from Countries That ‘Treat Women Horribly’ -Breitbart (http://www.breitbart.com/live/third-presidential-debate-fact-check-livewire/fact-check-yes-clinton-foundation-took-millions-countries-treat-women-horribly/)


Indeed, Saudi Arabia has donated up to $50 million to the Clinton Foundation, despite there horrid human rights. In fact, Hillary Clinton’s own Sate Department criticized Saudi Arabia for its “lack of equal rights for women and children” and said human trafficking and violence against women are “common” in that country.

SemajParlor
11-21-2016, 12:33 PM
I wonder if this has anything to do with Trump team asking about security clearance for his children. Probably not.

Caf
11-21-2016, 01:02 PM
I wonder if this has anything to do with Trump team asking about security clearance for his children. Probably not.

This is shaping up to be an ugly week for Trump. It's unsurprising he's been keeping his attention on Hamilton.

Report: Trump pressed Argentina's president about stalled building project - The Hill (http://thehill.com/policy/finance/307050-report-trump-pressed-foreign-building-project-in-congratulatory-phone-call)

SemajParlor
11-21-2016, 01:08 PM
This is shaping up to be an ugly week for Trump. [/URL]

I would imagine this will be said a few times the next four years. Kind of like how it was said frequently the past 4 years.

Pete Delkus
11-28-2016, 05:43 AM
Obama & Canada's Justin Trudeau's responce to Castro's death

Vs.

Trump's


Just a little reminder for Obama:

Any political activity outside the Communist Party of Cuba is a criminal offence. Political dissent of any kind is a criminal offence. Dissidents are spied on, harassed and roughed up by the Castros’ neighbourhood vigilante committees. Freedom of movement is non-existent. Last year, the Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation (CCDHRN) documented 8,616 cases of politically-motivated arbitrary arrest. For all our prime minister’s accolades about Cuba’s health care system, basic medicines are scarce to non-existent. For all the claims about high literacy rates, Cubans are allowed to read only what the Castro crime family allows.

Raul Castro’s son Alejandro is the regime’s intelligence chief. His son-in-law, Luis Alberto Rodríguez López-Callejas, runs the Cuban military’s business operations, which now account for 60 per cent of the Cuban economy. The Castro regime owns and control the Cuban news media, which is adept at keeping Cubans in the dark. It wasn’t until 1999, for instance, that Cubans were permitted to know the details of Fidel’s family life: five sons they’d never heard of, all in their 30s.

Independent publications are classified as “enemy propaganda.” Citizen journalists are harassed and persecuted as American spies. Reporters Without Borders ranks Cuba at 171 out of 180 countries in press freedom, worse than Iran, worse than Saudi Arabia, worse than Zimbabwe.

So fine, let’s overlook the 5,600 Cubans Fidel Castro executed by firing squad, the 1,200 known to have been liquidated in extrajudicial murders, the tens of thousands dispatched to forced labour camps, or the fifth of the Cuban population that was either driven into the sea or fled the country in terror.
-Terry Glavin

SemajParlor
11-28-2016, 08:27 AM
Breaking news : Fidel Castro was a really bad guy. I was thankful on Thanksgiving for people reminding me that.

Lumping in Obama's statements with Trudeau's is a little odd.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/11/26/statement-president-passing-fidel-castro

GoMuskies
11-28-2016, 08:35 AM
#TrudeauEulogies has provided a lot of entertainment.

SemajParlor
11-28-2016, 08:47 AM
#TrudeauEulogies has provided a lot of entertainment.

Pretty amazing. Loved the John Wilkes Booth, while controversial, should be remembered for his love of theater. Seriously, Trudeau, Jill Stein, etc. looked like total jackasses. What are you thinking?

GoMuskies
11-28-2016, 08:51 AM
Conservosaurus @conservosaurus
We mourn the death of Vlad the Impaler, who spearheaded initiatives which touched the hearts of millions. #TrudeauEulogies #trudeaueulogy
4:45 PM - 26 Nov 2016

Juice
11-28-2016, 11:55 AM
Trudeau's, Jimmy Carter's, and Jess Jackson's statements on Fidel all were absolute bullshit. F*ck those three. Obama's was also bullshit.

These same people have been crying over the freedoms Trump is allegedly going to take away and they make bullshit statements about a man who did what Trump is being accused and did it on a scale that can't be measured.

Masterofreality
11-28-2016, 01:48 PM
#TrudeauEulogies has provided a lot of entertainment.

It sure has. Many Canadians are not pleased with Justin.

X Factor
11-28-2016, 02:17 PM
“It is with deep sorrow that I learned today of the death of Cuba’s longest serving President.

“Fidel Castro was a larger than life leader who served his people for almost half a century. A legendary revolutionary and orator, Mr. Castro made significant improvements to the education and healthcare of his island nation.

“While a controversial figure, both Mr. Castro’s supporters and detractors recognized his tremendous dedication and love for the Cuban people who had a deep and lasting affection for “el Comandante”.

“I know my father was very proud to call him a friend and I had the opportunity to meet Fidel when my father passed away. It was also a real honour to meet his three sons and his brother President Raúl Castro during my recent visit to Cuba.

“On behalf of all Canadians, Sophie and I offer our deepest condolences to the family, friends and many, many supporters of Mr. Castro. We join the people of Cuba today in mourning the loss of this remarkable leader.”

I can't believe this is the actual statement Trudeau put out. Unbelievable.

X-band '01
11-28-2016, 02:44 PM
ESPN Radio - South Carolina Head Coach Frank Martin (http://www.espn.com/espnradio/play?id=18156035&s=espn)

Don't expect Frank Martin (who is himself Cuban-American) to agree with Trudeau's take on Cuba's education system. In a nutshell, Martin said that Cuba would provide free education for people loyal to Castro and make the remainder of the population completely ignorant as to what goes on outside of Cuba.

Xville
11-28-2016, 02:45 PM
I can't believe this is the actual statement Trudeau put out. Unbelievable.

pretty much the gist of what Jimmy Carter said as well...it is just unbelievable how stupid these people are. I mean they realize he was a ruthless dictator right? They realize people got into boats with about a 20% chance of survival to escape the country right? Geezus...

Obama's statement was pretty freaking stupid but this one and Jimmy's were completely asinine. I guess they believe Adolf was a great guy too.

Juice
11-28-2016, 03:01 PM
ESPN Radio - South Carolina Head Coach Frank Martin (http://www.espn.com/espnradio/play?id=18156035&s=espn)

Don't expect Frank Martin (who is himself Cuban-American) to agree with Trudeau's take on Cuba's education system. In a nutshell, Martin said that Cuba would provide free education for people loyal to Castro and make the remainder of the population completely ignorant as to what goes on outside of Cuba.

This article is from 2007 and deals with their health care but it applies to their education system as well. It's all a bunch of lies and bullshit propaganda that Cuba made up and the left eats it up as some fairy tale exotic island of medicine and books for all.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432680/myth-cuban-health-care

Pete Delkus
11-28-2016, 07:01 PM
CNN

Introduced a story tonight (night of OSU attack) by mentioning the situation....Then going into a 4-5 minute pre-recorded story about how Muslim women are fearful of wearing their head scarfs because of "Trumps racism."

This story was "in the can" waiting to be aired...WHEN the next attack happened.

Incredible.

A leftist's worst nightmare: Muslim immigrant goes on a rampage with a knife. Can't blame guns, can't blame white people.

Juice
11-28-2016, 09:00 PM
CNN

Introduced a story tonight (night of OSU attack) by mentioning the situation....Then going into a 4-5 minute pre-recorded story about how Muslim women are fearful of wearing their head scarfs because of "Trumps racism."

This story was "in the can" waiting to be aired...WHEN the next attack happened.

Incredible.

A leftist's worst nightmare: Muslim immigrant goes on a rampage with a knife. Can't blame guns, can't blame white people.

Read what that asshole said in the OSU student newspaper earlier this year. It will piss you off even more.

https://twitter.com/neilkli/status/803328678910459904

Caf
11-29-2016, 06:48 AM
A leftist's worst nightmare: Muslim immigrant goes on a rampage with a knife. Can't blame guns, can't blame white people.

Pump the brakes. This is everyone's worst nightmare.

xubrew
11-29-2016, 10:30 AM
CNN

Introduced a story tonight (night of OSU attack) by mentioning the situation....Then going into a 4-5 minute pre-recorded story about how Muslim women are fearful of wearing their head scarfs because of "Trumps racism."

This story was "in the can" waiting to be aired...WHEN the next attack happened.

Incredible.

A leftist's worst nightmare: Muslim immigrant goes on a rampage with a knife. Can't blame guns, can't blame white people.

And you can't blame Muslims that don't fall into the category of being young male Sunni extremists. In terms of attacks in the United States, you can be even more specific. Young male Sunni extremists who are legal US citizens.

My worst nightmare is that, despite being rather obvious, NO ONE seems to be able to pinpoint that regardless of what their political ideologies are or what party they identify with. Or, if they can, they're simply choosing not to for whatever reason I guess a different way of putting it is that my worst nightmare is the reality that we live in. I have not heard one single plan that if it were in place thirty years ago would have prevented a single terrorist attack or attempted terrorist attack. I believe it is now 226 of the last 226 attacks or attempted attacks in the US have all been carried out by people who were here legally, and would have been here anyway had those plans been put into place. We don't even know who we should be scared of, so we're scared of the wrong people, and are unable to see where the threat really is.

If you don't like profiling, I understand, but I'm going to do it anyway because I don't like terrorism. Young males who are legal US citizens and who identify with a school within the Sunni denomination is who we kind of need to be watching. Not women, or children, or the vast majority Muslim people who do not fit that demographic.

Caf
11-29-2016, 01:03 PM
And you can't blame Muslims that don't fall into the category of being young male Sunni extremists. In terms of attacks in the United States, you can be even more specific. Young male Sunni extremists who are legal US citizens.

My worst nightmare is that, despite being rather obvious, NO ONE seems to be able to pinpoint that regardless of what their political ideologies are or what party they identify with. Or, if they can, they're simply choosing not to for whatever reason I guess a different way of putting it is that my worst nightmare is the reality that we live in. I have not heard one single plan that if it were in place thirty years ago would have prevented a single terrorist attack or attempted terrorist attack. I believe it is now 226 of the last 226 attacks or attempted attacks in the US have all been carried out by people who were here legally, and would have been here anyway had those plans been put into place. We don't even know who we should be scared of, so we're scared of the wrong people, and are unable to see where the threat really is.

If you don't like profiling, I understand, but I'm going to do it anyway because I don't like terrorism. Young males who are legal US citizens and who identify with a school within the Sunni denomination is who we kind of need to be watching. Not women, or children, or the vast majority Muslim people who do not fit that demographic.

You should do some reading on the Algerian War if you think women aren't involved in attacks.

xubrew
11-29-2016, 01:29 PM
You should do some reading on the Algerian War if you think women aren't involved in attacks.

You mean the war against the French? That was over fifty years ago and has nothing to do with modern day terrorist attacks that threaten the United States. I'm talking about modern day terrorist threats. There is nothing concerning about Algeria. They have free elections, it's not a haven for extremists and they actually fought off a rising threat of Islamism in the 1990s. It's a Sunni nation, but it is not an extremist nation. It's not even remotely threatening. Algeria is not even in the discussion, nor should it be. Bringing it up means that you're looking for things that are dangerous in places where there is no danger, and not seeing what actually is dangerous in the places where there is danger. And, that's kind of my point. If we're worried about keeping ourselves safe from Algerian women then we're definitely in trouble because we clearly don't know what we're doing.

Caf
11-29-2016, 01:43 PM
You mean the war against the French? That was over fifty years ago and has nothing to do with modern day terrorist attacks that threaten the United States. I'm talking about modern day terrorist threats. There is nothing concerning about Algeria. They have free elections, it's not a haven for extremists and they actually fought off a rising threat of Islamism in the 1990s. It's a Sunni nation, but it is not an extremist nation. It's not even remotely threatening. Algeria is not even in the discussion, nor should it be. Bringing it up means that you're looking for things that are dangerous in places where there is no danger, and not seeing what actually is dangerous in the places where there is danger. And, that's kind of my point. If we're worried about keeping ourselves safe from Algerian women then we're definitely in trouble because we clearly don't know what we're doing.

Haha you seriously think I'm implying that Algerian women are a threat to the U.S.?

I bring it up against your claim that monitoring Sunni men will prevent attacks. During the Algerian War, under heightened French security, Algerian women pulled off acts of terror when men couldn't. It's an example of the very well known, and ignored saying, "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."

xubrew
11-29-2016, 02:10 PM
Haha you seriously think I'm implying that Algerian women are a threat to the U.S.?

I bring it up against your claim that monitoring Sunni men will prevent attacks. During the Algerian War, under heightened French security, Algerian women pulled off acts of terror when men couldn't. It's an example of the very well known, and ignored saying, "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."

Well, you brought it up in response to a post about terrorist attacks that threaten the U.S.

Can you name the last terrorist attack or attempted terrorist attack in the United States that did not involve a young male Sunni extremist who had US citizenship?? I don't think there has been one since 9/11, and although those hijackers were not American citizens, I think it's safe to say that Al Qaeda was a Sunni Extremist group who's terrorist attacks were carried out by young males. On a worldwide scale, what was the last terrorist attack anywhere that did not involve young males who were Sunni extremists?? Yet, you're suggesting we should ignore that pattern, which is rather lengthy, because of the role women played in the Algerian War over fifty years ago?? That makes no sense at all. Yeah, talk about "doomed to repeat it." I've yet to see any of our leaders propose a policy or lay out a plan that would have prevented any of these attacks had their proposed policies been in place at the time of the attack, or for that matter for the past fifty years.

You better wear your sunscreen in Canada right now because if you don't think you can get sunburned you should check out how badly people get burned out in the Sahara during the summer months.

That statement makes no sense at all. Neither does bringing up the role women played in the Algerian War when assessing how to best safeguard against terrorist threads.

Caf
11-29-2016, 02:26 PM
Well, you brought it up in response to a post about terrorist attacks that threaten the U.S.

Can you name the last terrorist attack or attempted terrorist attack in the United States that did not involve a young male Sunni extremist who had US citizenship?? I don't think there has been one since 9/11, and although those hijackers were not American citizens, I think it's safe to say that Al Qaeda was a Sunni Extremist group who's terrorist attacks were carried out by young males. On a worldwide scale, what was the last terrorist attack anywhere that did not involve young males who were Sunni extremists?? Yet, you're suggesting we should ignore that pattern, which is rather lengthy, because of the role women played in the Algerian War over fifty years ago?? That makes no sense at all. Yeah, talk about "doomed to repeat it." I've yet to see any of our leaders propose a policy or lay out a plan that would have prevented any of these attacks had their proposed policies been in place at the time of the attack, or for that matter for the past fifty years.

You better wear your sunscreen in Canada right now because if you don't think you can get sunburned you should check out how badly people get burned out in the Sahara during the summer months.

That statement makes no sense at all. Neither does bringing up the role women played in the Algerian War when assessing how to best safeguard against terrorist threads.

Mass surveillance does not work. That's my point. If you watch all of the military aged Sunni men (a very tall order), then the women, children, or elders will get involved. That's my point. And yes, this has been tried many times in the past. It doesn't work. Surveillance is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you sew seeds of distrust towards a group of people, they will act out every. single. time.

xubrew
11-29-2016, 02:45 PM
Mass surveillance does not work. That's my point. If you watch all of the military aged Sunni men (a very tall order), then the women, children, or elders will get involved. That's my point. And yes, this has been tried many times in the past. It doesn't work. Surveillance is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you sew seeds of distrust towards a group of people, they will act out every. single. time.

Okay, that's fair. I think I agree with most of that.

My point was that we can't really classify the problem as "Muslim Immigrants" or "Radical Islamic Terrorists" either. I think that may actually further your point. That's way too broad of a classification and sews the seeds of distrust toward way too many people who aren't really dangerous. We're scared to help refugees, even the ones that fall way outside of the demographic of what's dangerous. That's my point. The people who have been attacking us are American citizens. All of them. I find it worrisome when I hear plans to keep us safe from terrorism that do not even address the fact that the last 225 terrorist attacks or attempted attacks have been carried out by people who are already here, and many of whom were born here.

ChicagoX
11-29-2016, 02:56 PM
The mathematical odds of dying in a terrorist attack (1 in 20,000,000) are about the same as being crushed to death by furniture or large televisions. For as much fear as there is about being killed by terrorism, it's just too bad that more people aren't as concerned about the type of things that are actually going to kill them.

I also find it a bit ironic that the people who live in areas that are least likely to be targets of a terror attack tend to be the ones who fear it the most. I live in the third largest city in the country, and it seems like people in Chicago aren't nearly as fearful of terrorist attacks as people in the small, rural town where I grew up and where terrorism is far less likely to happen.

I'm not saying that we should ignore terrorism and not defend the country, but sometimes the hysteria doesn't match the actual threat. If the general public paid as much attention to preventing heart disease, cancer, strokes, diabetes, etc. as they do terrorism, we'd save far more lives than those that will be lost to terrorist attacks.

paulxu
11-29-2016, 03:07 PM
Well, you brought it up in response to a post about terrorist attacks that threaten the U.S.

Can you name the last terrorist attack or attempted terrorist attack in the United States that did not involve a young male Sunni extremist who had US citizenship?? I don't think there has been one since 9/11, .

Sandy Hook
Mother Emanuel AME

Does it have to be related to radicals claiming a connection to Islam to be a "terrorist" attack?

OH.X.MI
11-29-2016, 03:10 PM
I'm not saying that we should ignore terrorism and not defend the country, but sometimes the hysteria doesn't match the actual threat. If the general public paid as much attention to preventing heart disease, cancer, strokes, diabetes, etc. as they do terrorism, we'd save far more lives than those that will be lost to terrorist attacks.

I fail too see how the rate of death these ailments somehow alters the conversation We all die, it's the means of death that scares people. I'm all for public health initiatives and research to lower death rates caused by cancer, stroke, etc. But those are, in most people eyes, including my own, natural ways of dying. Can and should they be limited? Of course! But were all going out the door one way or another. I'd rather die at 70 as the result a heart attack than as a 20 year old college murdered by a terrorist.

xubrew
11-29-2016, 03:19 PM
Sandy Hook
Mother Emanuel AME

Does it have to be related to radicals claiming a connection to Islam to be a "terrorist" attack?

Good point, and certainly not.

I'm trying to make what I think is a good point, but am going about it badly. In fact I came off sounding like an asshole who's afraid of a specific demographic of people. I don't believe that "Muslim Immigrants" (the term used earlier in the thread) are really what's dangerous. That's painting with far too broad of a brush. There is a lot of hysteria about immigration and refugees because of fears of terrorism. Yet, that's not who's attacking America. Americans are who is attacking America. I was wrong to imply that they were all Muslim Americans. The last 225 terrorist attacks, or mass shootings, were all carried out by legal U.S. citizens. So, freaking about about immigration while completely ignoring that is not going to make us any safer, and it wouldn't have prevented a single attack. That's why I was so baffled at the mention of Algerian women. That's not who's attacking us. Trying to keep them out isn't going to make us any safer. I thought that's what CAF was trying to say.

Caf
11-29-2016, 04:03 PM
I fail too see how the rate of death these ailments somehow alters the conversation We all die, it's the means of death that scares people. I'm all for public health initiatives and research to lower death rates caused by cancer, stroke, etc. But those are, in most people eyes, including my own, natural ways of dying. Can and should they be limited? Of course! But were all going out the door one way or another. I'd rather die at 70 as the result a heart attack than as a 20 year old college murdered by a terrorist.

To Chicago's point, what you're really saying is, "I'd rather have a 1 in 5 chance of dying of a heart attack than a 1 in 20 million chance of being killed in a terrorist attack."

ChicagoX
11-29-2016, 04:13 PM
To Chicago's point, what you're really saying is, "I'd rather have a 1 in 5 chance of dying of a heart attack than a 1 in 20 million chance of being killed in a terrorist attack."

It goes well beyond just health issues. Car accidents, suicides, homicides, etc. are far more likely to kill you than a terrorist attack. Drownings, slipping in the bathtub and lightning strikes kill more Americans than terrorist attacks. Yet, the amount of fear that many Americans have from terrorism is far higher.

SemajParlor
11-29-2016, 04:34 PM
I also find it a bit ironic that the people who live in areas that are least likely to be targets of a terror attack tend to be the ones who fear it the most.

*Assuming we are talking about Islamic terrorism, and I don't mean that in a PC, eye roll worthy way, but I think it's a legitimate way to classify threats/ attacks*

I made a very similar point a few weeks in here almost verbatim. I don't know what to make of that. Maybe level of diversity? Or does it just happen to fall within other conservative / liberal stances based on location.

SemajParlor
11-29-2016, 04:39 PM
I posted the Youtube but realized that language is obviously inappropriate for a message board. Chris Rock's "Crazy Kids" is one of my favorite routines and seems to be fairly relevant.

Lamont Sanford
11-30-2016, 08:10 AM
Does it have to be related to radicals claiming a connection to Islam to be a "terrorist" attack?

Great question Paul. Do most people consider Sandy Hook a mass murder? Or do they consider it a terrorist attack? I have to assume a mass murder since it was committed by a crazy ass American white kid, but what do I know.

Caf
11-30-2016, 08:55 AM
Great question Paul. Do most people consider Sandy Hook a mass murder? Or do they consider it a terrorist attack? I have to assume a mass murder since it was committed by a crazy ass American white kid, but what do I know.

As defined by the FBI, to be a terrorist attack it needs to be orchestrated for political or religious reasons. Per that definition, I don't think you can call Sandy Hook a terrorist attack, but you could call the Charleston Church Shooting one.

The assailants being "crazy American white kids" has no bearing. Looking at historical data, you'd have a pretty hard time arguing that crazy muslim American kids are a greater threat than crazy white American kids, or any crazy American kids for that matter.

ChicagoX
11-30-2016, 09:09 AM
*Assuming we are talking about Islamic terrorism, and I don't mean that in a PC, eye roll worthy way, but I think it's a legitimate way to classify threats/ attacks*

I made a very similar point a few weeks in here almost verbatim. I don't know what to make of that. Maybe level of diversity? Or does it just happen to fall within other conservative / liberal stances based on location.

I think a lot of it has to do with where people get their news. There's a lot of fear-mongering out there to keep eyeballs on web sites and televisions to keep that ad revenue flowing.

paulxu
11-30-2016, 09:57 AM
As defined by the FBI, to be a terrorist attack it needs to be orchestrated for political or religious reasons. Per that definition, I don't think you can call Sandy Hook a terrorist attack, but you could call the Charleston Church Shooting one.

In one way that makes sense. And in another, it seems limiting.
If the "reason" for the attack is "political or religious" then it's a "terrorist" attack. That looks okay on the surface.
But the object would be to sow fear in people, or "terror" if you will.
That fear exists in great measure after an attack like Sandy Hook.
Guess it's splitting hairs, but just as much "terror" is sown after a Sandy Hook as after a single "terrorist" committing a single act against one other person, which might be political or religious.

It often seems to me that applying the wording "terrorist attack" is most commonly a way to focus on a person who claims to be follower of Islam.
It's sort of become a religious marker.

Caf
11-30-2016, 10:33 AM
In one way that makes sense. And in another, it seems limiting.
If the "reason" for the attack is "political or religious" then it's a "terrorist" attack. That looks okay on the surface.
But the object would be to sow fear in people, or "terror" if you will.
That fear exists in great measure after an attack like Sandy Hook.
Guess it's splitting hairs, but just as much "terror" is sown after a Sandy Hook as after a single "terrorist" committing a single act against one other person, which might be political or religious.

It often seems to me that applying the wording "terrorist attack" is most commonly a way to focus on a person who claims to be follower of Islam.
It's sort of become a religious marker.

Agreed. I'd imagine the line is drawn at mental illness. To most people, the difference between "mass murderers" and "terrorists" seems to be that a mass murderer is sick or deranged, while a terrorists is intentionally and consciously evil.

MADXSTER
11-30-2016, 03:26 PM
http://www.poynter.org/2016/how-student-journalists-at-ohio-state-covered-mondays-attack/440665/

Interesting read

In class, there's a big emphasis on social media and how to use it responsibly, sharing information that isn't plagued by rumors, Ruibal said.

"The minute we become another chattering person out there, we lose our credibility," she said.

Breaking news isn't really all that hard, Roll said. You write what you know. And usually, you don't know much. So you don't write much. The tough part is sifting through the rumors.

"I think we've honed that pretty well here," he said.

Nigel Tufnel
12-01-2016, 09:38 PM
Anyone see Trump's speech in Cincy tonight? Surreal.

SemajParlor
12-02-2016, 01:20 PM
Anyone see Trump's speech in Cincy tonight? Surreal.

Very Presidential. Hey, at least America is great again!

boozehound
12-06-2016, 05:28 AM
New Pro Trump Group takes form with Kellyanne Conway possibly at the Helm (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/05/new-pro-trump-group-takes-form-with-kellyanne-conway-possibly-at-the-helm/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_conwaygroup-0946pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.29dd72bb51bf)

Is this getting concerning to anyone yet? Since being elected Trump has continued his assault on the first amendment, provoked China, nominated Ben Carson for secretary of HUD, has his kids (who will be running his business) meeting with foreign leaders, and now this.

Trump appears poised to use propaganda to a level not seen in America since the days of Joe McCarthy, if at all. It already seems that he has little regard for facts, and that many of his followers don't know or don't care. Now he seems to be creating a Propaganda minister. This is escalating quickly.

Lamont Sanford
12-06-2016, 01:39 PM
[QUOTE=boozehound;569299][URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post

Kinda like all those "czars" that Barack Hussein Obama created, right?

Caf
12-06-2016, 01:57 PM
New Pro Trump Group takes form with Kellyanne Conway possibly at the Helm (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/05/new-pro-trump-group-takes-form-with-kellyanne-conway-possibly-at-the-helm/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_conwaygroup-0946pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.29dd72bb51bf)

Is this getting concerning to anyone yet? Since being elected Trump has continued his assault on the first amendment, provoked China, nominated Ben Carson for secretary of HUD, has his kids (who will be running his business) meeting with foreign leaders, and now this.

Trump appears poised to use propaganda to a level not seen in America since the days of Joe McCarthy, if at all. It already seems that he has little regard for facts, and that many of his followers don't know or don't care. Now he seems to be creating a Propaganda minister. This is escalating quickly.

The only part of it that I'm getting concerned about is some of the praise/perception of what he's doing. He's been widely praised for the Carrier deal, which is a bit much seeing as governors, mayors, and other local officials make those kind of deals all of the time. I'm not gonna knock it though, it's just not that big of a deal.

China has been due for provoking really. It's a large step from established policy, but it's refreshing because China has more or less done whatever it wants for at least a decade.

As far as Carson, I'd challenge you to find a Republican nominated Secretary of HUD that wasn't inexperienced.

I agree with your last paragraph. The man just went after Boeing for the cost of Air Force One, which at this point seems to be a fabricated number. Surely he'll accept praise when it's delivered at a number under the one he tweeted. It seems the new MO is to exaggerate or invent a problem and then claim to have solved it.

paulxu
12-06-2016, 04:47 PM
It seems the new MO is to exaggerate or invent a problem and then claim to have solved it.

I'm pretty sure that's not a new MO.

bjf123
12-06-2016, 06:11 PM
Didn't Carson grow up very poor and live in subsidized housing? He has first hand experience with government housing. As for China, do we really want foreign governments telling our President who he can and can't talk to, especially since the Taiwanese president initiated the call?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SemajParlor
12-06-2016, 07:02 PM
Didn't Carson grow up very poor and live in subsidized housing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I ride the train to work everyday. I am not a conductor. With that said, I'm personally not going to sit and criticize every pick the guy makes. Politicians are politicians - it's not as good vs evil as some make it to be.

bobbiemcgee
12-06-2016, 08:43 PM
After the way the commander-in-tweet criticized him in the primary, I have no respect for him or the rest of these surrogates. No balls. I met Ben once and really liked him, but now he's just part of the new swampsters. Head of HUD? Good Luck.

waggy
12-06-2016, 08:51 PM
Didn't Carson claim to be a superhero once? These people are all insane liars.

GoMuskies
12-06-2016, 08:54 PM
Carson sort of was a superhero with a scalpel in his hand.

ChicagoX
12-07-2016, 10:00 AM
Interesting read on trade from the Brookings Institute: What is the future of free trade? 5 facts about US trade policy (https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2016/11/18/what-is-the-future-of-free-trade-5-facts-about-us-trade-policy/)

According to the article, 85% of the job losses in manufacturing are due to automation, not international trade. Trump supporters who think he's going to bring back all of the manufacturing jobs are going to be sorely disappointed.

SemajParlor
12-07-2016, 10:22 AM
Interesting read on trade from the Brookings Institute: What is the future of free trade? 5 facts about US trade policy (https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2016/11/18/what-is-the-future-of-free-trade-5-facts-about-us-trade-policy/)

According to the article, 85% of the job losses in manufacturing are due to automation, not international trade. Trump supporters who think he's going to bring back all of the manufacturing jobs are going to be sorely disappointed.

So you mean to tell me that in the year 2016 it's mostly automation that is losing manufacturing jobs and not outsourcing and illegal immigrants !!!??

STL_XUfan
12-07-2016, 10:26 AM
So you mean to tell me that in the year 2016 it's mostly automation that is losing manufacturing jobs and not outsourcing and illegal immigrants !!!??

Deport the Robots!!

X-band '01
12-07-2016, 10:27 AM
What about manufacturers that manufacture robots?

Smails
12-07-2016, 10:39 AM
Trump supporters who think he's going to bring back all of the manufacturing jobs are going to be sorely disappointed.

So who are these Trump supporters who think he's going to bring back ALL the manufacturing jobs? Has Trump claimed himself that he will bring ALL the jobs back? I think you're just being silly with those statements...

Any movement of that needle at all is a step in the right direction.

Caf
12-07-2016, 10:52 AM
So who are these Trump supporters who think he's going to bring back ALL the manufacturing jobs? Has Trump claimed himself that he will bring ALL the jobs back? I think you're just being silly with those statements...

Any movement of that needle at all is a step in the right direction.

And therein lies Trump's genius. No, he didn't say he would bring back ALL of the jobs, he was conveniently vague about what he would do and how he would do it.

I do believe he'll create jobs, the question is at what costs. He will not bring back a substantial (to be specific 25%) of the manufacturing jobs without becoming a glorified Luddite, slashing tax revenue, or crushing trade and its benefits.

SemajParlor
12-07-2016, 11:02 AM
So who are these Trump supporters who think he's going to bring back ALL the manufacturing jobs? Has Trump claimed himself that he will bring ALL the jobs back? I think you're just being silly with those statements...

Agreed. I hate when people act silly by generalizing groups of people.

bobbiemcgee
12-07-2016, 12:55 PM
Carson sort of was a superhero with a scalpel in his hand.


Would have made a good surgeon general.....but, then that would have actually made sense.

Caf
12-09-2016, 08:35 AM
The right has its own version of political correctness. It’s just as stifling. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/07/the-right-has-its-own-version-of-political-correctness-its-just-as-stifling/?utm_term=.bf8511dbf272)


But conservatives have their own, nationalist version of PC, their own set of rules regulating speech, behavior and acceptable opinions. I call it “patriotic correctness.” It’s a full-throated, un-nuanced, uncompromising defense of American nationalism, history and cherry-picked ideals. Central to its thesis is the belief that nothing in America can’t be fixed by more patriotism enforced by public shaming, boycotts and policies to cut out foreign and non-American influences.

Insufficient displays of patriotism among the patriotically correct can result in exclusion from public life and ruined careers. It also restricts honest criticism of failed public policies, diverting blame for things like the war in Iraq to those Americans who didn’t support the war effort enough.

bobbiemcgee
12-13-2016, 02:38 AM
Trump voters demanding "safe spaces".
http://www.salon.com/2016/12/09/donald-trumps-college-supporters-think-they-should-have-safe-spaces/

SemajParlor
12-13-2016, 08:45 AM
Hey guys, our next President is publicly fighting with CIA about Putin and putting a CEO who is friends and business partners with Putin as Secretary of State.