Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm pretty sure some churches are explicitly non-political from their highest leadership down because of these issues.

There's a a general tradition in American Christian groups to keep the religious establishment distinct from the political establishment, which got stronger in the wake of the Progressive Era with the likes of William Jennings Bryan making something of a fool of himself in the Scopes Monkey Trial, and Father Coughlin being a general all around ass.

 LordofHats wrote:
There's a a general tradition in American Christian groups to keep the religious establishment distinct from the political establishment, which got stronger in the wake of the Progressive Era with the likes of William Jennings Bryan making something of a fool of himself in the Scopes Monkey Trial, and Father Coughlin being a general all around ass.

Yep, most organizations now who are religious would revolt I think, especially christian organizations that are normally silent.

Here's the problem... the Johnson amendment isn't just for churches...

It's for ALL organizations that claim tax exemption under Section 501(c)(3):
https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/the-restriction-of-political-campaign-intervention-by-section-501-c-3-tax-exempt-organizations

For clarification, these organizations (including churches) can do just about ANY non-partisan political activities.... just cannot say "vote for this guy over that guy".

So to me, it isn't that big of a deal.

So if we're going to get rid of the Johnson Amendment, look for other 501(c)(3)'s to be impacted.

One of the Berkeley rioters has been identified. He is a Berkeley staff member named Ian Dabney Miller. He posted pictures of his escapades online and bragged about his actions (including physical assault).

He can be positively identified from other videos (even though his face is covered) due to his large and unique neck tattoo. I'm interested to see if the college will actually do anything with him.



In a related note, CNN and the Young Turks are claiming that the rioters were a Right-Wing conspiracy to make liberals look bad.

Well so far, looking that up only seems to find gak like zerohedge, infowars and the fething daily stormer, so I'm somewhat skeptical. Seems more like a doxxing campaign. But I'll wait and see.

Edit: Although seriously, look up his name, the sites "reporting" on this is hilarious.

Are they doing it? Probably not, would they do it? Yes there are some unsavory elements of the Rs that are turning up and I would not put it past them to do something like this

Huffpo has a decent article:
Trump Is Right: Silicon Valley Is Using H-1B Visas To Pay Low Wages To Immigrants

HB1 visa has been a sore spot to those who works in the IT industry...

 whembly wrote:
Huffpo has a decent article:
Trump Is Right: Silicon Valley Is Using H-1B Visas To Pay Low Wages To Immigrants

HB1 visa has been a sore spot to those who works in the IT industry...

HB1s have needed some reform for a while. I don't, however, see Trump as someone who is really up to the task.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Huffpo has a decent article:
Trump Is Right: Silicon Valley Is Using H-1B Visas To Pay Low Wages To Immigrants

HB1 visa has been a sore spot to those who works in the IT industry...

HB1s have needed some reform for a while. I don't, however, see Trump as someone who is really up to the task.

I've been bitching about H-1B abuse for years, even if not in the Dakka forums. I don't mind the concept of the H-1B, nor do I have any grievance against anyone coming in on such a visa. My outrage is directed against those businesses that abuse the H-1B system. These companies need to be brought to heel and hit with significant fines.

You say you don't see Trump as being up to the task? Let's not forget that for over two and a half decades NOBODY has been up to the task, not our Congress and not previous Presidents. What President Trump is doing is more than anyone else has done. So far it is the only issue I actively support President Trump on because so far he is the only one even talking seriously about reforming the H-1B.

It’s maybe a good time to go back and recap what Trump has screwed up in just weeks in the presidency. I’m not going to mention policy, just look at the list of rather incredible political and governing screw ups Trump has already.

On his first day, Trump visits the CIA to mend fences. He gives his speech in front of the memorial for agents lost in duty, fills the front rows of the crowd with his staff, and spends much of the speech making false claims about the size of his inauguration speech and the strength of his electoral win.

Later the same day Sean Spicer gave his first briefing to the press, where he doubles down on the same false claims as Trump. The next day Kellyanne Conway again tries to justify the false claims, using the expression ‘alternative facts’.

On Monday, in his third day in office, Trump made his claim that somewhere between 3m to 5m votes were illegally cast. Trump offers no proof for his claim, which gives a figures many thousands times that estimated by previous studies in to the issue.

Later that day Spicer had another press briefing, where he criticised the press for trying to dismiss Trump’s massive support, and made another false claim that Trump’s inauguration was the most viewed.

On Tuesday, Spicer’s press briefing repeated Trump’s assertions that there was widespread voter fraud. There was still no evidence supplied.

On Wednesay, in Trump’s first interview as president, he again repeated his claim that there was millions of false votes cast. There was still no evidence provided to support his claim. He instead made a claim citing the number of people registered in two states, or the number of people who are deceased who are still registered to vote. Trump claimed it was illegal to be registered in two different states – this is only illegal if they cast votes in both states. It was later found that two members of Trump’s own cabinet were on the roll in two different states.

Later on Wednesday, at the GOP leaders summit, Trump said if Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto didn’t entertain the idea of Mexico paying for the wall, then Trump would cancel their meeting.
On Thursday Nieto cancelled their meeting. Trump floated a 20% import tax in response, seemingly without receiving any briefing from economic analysts. By the next day he was walking the claim back, as just a suggestion.

Trump used his second interview as president to continue talking about the size of his inauguration crowd, and repeat his claims about illegal votes. He also argued in favour of torture, insisting it is effective and legal. This is in direct contrast to the opinion of his Defence Secretary, General James Mattis.

On Friday Trump signs an executive order blocking travellers from seven majority muslim countries. There is no guidance on whether it applies to people with existing visas or green cards, or people from those countries who permanent US residents? There is chaos at airports as officials chase detail to make this an actual working policy.

Finally, to cap off a very busy first week in the office Trump hosts his first foreign leader, British Prime Minister Theresa May. Trump staffers spell her name incorrectly on the official schedule. They spell it wrong three times. British press are refused access to the whitehouse as Trump staff are unable to establish their credentials – they are confused as applications have made giving birth dates as day, month, then year. Finally, Trump spends most of their joint press conference bragging that he predicted Brexit and how good it will be for Britain – whether he was unaware or indifferent to May’s difficult political position of having campaigned against Brexit but now having to implement it is unclear. May would return to the UK and begin distancing herself from Trump.

On Saturday, a federal judge issued a stay on Trump’s executive order to deport holders of valid visas.

Trump speaks with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. He berates Turnbull over the immigration deal agreed with former president Obama, tells him it was the worst call by far, and ends the call early.


Sunday was actually quiet. A Navy SEAL and multiple civilians were killed in a raid in Yemen, but that wasn’t something Trump did.

On Monday, acting AG Sally Yates says she will not defend Trump’s travel ban. She is fired and replaced by another acting AG, until Trump’s pick Jeff Sessions can be confirmed by the senate.

In Spicer’s briefing, he confirms Trump will commit to the deal with Australia, but the refugees will be subject to extreme vetting. There is still no detail on exactly how Trump’s campaign talk of extreme vetting differs from the process currently in place. Later that day Trump staffers begin calling media outlets saying that Trump had still made no commitment to the deal with Australia. The disastrous call with Turnbull is leaked. In his briefing the next day, Spicer would get the name of the Australian leader wrong, calling him Prime Minister Trumble. A whitehouse press briefing would later list the call as having taken place with President Malcolm Turnbull. They did manage to say it was Australia and not Austria, so I guess one out of three ain’t that bad.

The AP reports that during a call with Mexican President Nieto the previous week, Trump said that Mexico had a lot of bad hombres, that the Mexican military was scared of them, and he might send the US military. Nieto denies this happened. Trump said it happened, and was a joke.

On Thurday, Trump gave the traditional address at the National Prayer breakfast. The speech is traditionally non=political, and I guess Trump kind of kept to that. Instead of raising political issues, he mocked the low ratings of The Apprentice, the show he used to host. He asked people to pray for the new host Arnold Schwarzenegger and for his ratings.

Also on Thursday, Trump spoke on black history month. While his language was vague, he appeared to think Douglass is still alive. Later that day, in his press briefing Spicer was asked about Trump’s weird language, Spicer replied talking about the contributions Douglass will make. While a case can be made that Trump knew Douglass died more than 200 years ago, we at least know Spicer had no idea.

On Friday, Trump’s executive order on immigration is halted nationwide by a federal judge. Trump berates the judge, and claims he will be responsible for any new act of terror in the US. He also calls him a ‘so-called’ judge, indicating he either doesn’t know how qualifications work, or doesn’t understand what ‘so-called’ means.

Trump would round out the day by giving a brief statement to reflect on National Holocaust Remembrance Day, in which he would neglect mentioning that two thirds of the nine million victims were Jewish, nor did he mention the state sponsored anti-semitism that was essential to the genocide. It was later discovered that the State Dept had prepared their own statement for National Holocaust Day in the belief that it was to be used by the Whitehouse. It did mention the Jewish victims. It is unclear whether this was a communication error and both parties worked on their own briefings unaware of the other, or if the Whitehouse expected and received the State Dept version, then wrote their own once they found the State Dept version to be politically unacceptable.

That’s all in two weeks. That’s without even getting in to any of the policy details, just looking at the political screw ups.

Don't forget he gakked all over the one china policy early on potentially souring that situation for a long time

 cuda1179 wrote:
In a related note, CNN and the Young Turks are claiming that the rioters were a Right-Wing conspiracy to make liberals look bad.

Nope, a guest, Robert Reich suggested it. The opinions of guests are not, in fact, the claims of the TV station itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:
Don't forget he gakked all over the one china policy early on potentially souring that situation for a long time

To be fair to Trump, something I don't particularly enjoy , that was before his presidency actually began.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
I've been bitching about H-1B abuse for years, even if not in the Dakka forums. I don't mind the concept of the H-1B, nor do I have any grievance against anyone coming in on such a visa. My outrage is directed against those businesses that abuse the H-1B system. These companies need to be brought to heel and hit with significant fines.

You say you don't see Trump as being up to the task? Let's not forget that for over two and a half decades NOBODY has been up to the task, not our Congress and not previous Presidents. What President Trump is doing is more than anyone else has done. So far it is the only issue I actively support President Trump on because so far he is the only one even talking seriously about reforming the H-1B.

You're right that H1B visas are abused. This isn't a uniquely US issue, in here in Australia we have a similar scheme, with very similar abuses.

The issue is that such visas are an essential way to access very particular skills that simply aren't available locally, or to relieve temporary shortages in specialist skill areas. The no-one has yet formed anything close to a decent set of rules that would clarify where necessary foreign work ends and cheap labour imports begin. I have no problem with Trump looking at the issue, but given his performances and rhetoric so far, does anyone honestly believe he'll be the guy to build the intelligent framework needed?

 sebster wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
In a related note, CNN and the Young Turks are claiming that the rioters were a Right-Wing conspiracy to make liberals look bad.

Nope, a guest, Robert Reich suggested it. The opinions of guests are not, in fact, the claims of the TV station itself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ustrello wrote:
Don't forget he gakked all over the one china policy early on potentially souring that situation for a long time

To be fair to Trump, something I don't particularly enjoy , that was before his presidency actually began.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
I've been bitching about H-1B abuse for years, even if not in the Dakka forums. I don't mind the concept of the H-1B, nor do I have any grievance against anyone coming in on such a visa. My outrage is directed against those businesses that abuse the H-1B system. These companies need to be brought to heel and hit with significant fines.

You say you don't see Trump as being up to the task? Let's not forget that for over two and a half decades NOBODY has been up to the task, not our Congress and not previous Presidents. What President Trump is doing is more than anyone else has done. So far it is the only issue I actively support President Trump on because so far he is the only one even talking seriously about reforming the H-1B.

You're right that H1B visas are abused. This isn't a uniquely US issue, in here in Australia we have a similar scheme, with very similar abuses.

The issue is that such visas are an essential way to access very particular skills that simply aren't available locally, or to relieve temporary shortages in specialist skill areas. The no-one has yet formed anything close to a decent set of rules that would clarify where necessary foreign work ends and cheap labour imports begin. I have no problem with Trump looking at the issue, but given his performances and rhetoric so far, does anyone honestly believe he'll be the guy to build the intelligent framework needed?

Overturning decades of political work before he even became president, who did it better Lincoln or Trump?

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/viva-la-resistance-content/515532/

So there’s now a spike in fake news on the left, in the words of the article “ a concerted spike in fake news aimed at liberals since the inauguration”. The article points out this in no way creates an equivalency between the left and right on this issue;
“She emphasized that there’s no equivalence between the falsehoods coming from the American left and the right in the past two weeks. Individual Democrats on Facebook may cling to pleasant stories and wishful thinking, but the Republican White House press secretary spouts off lies beneath the presidential seal. On Thursday, Kellyanne Conway, a senior advisor to the president, referenced a terrorist attack that never happened.”

However, while the issue is still nowhere near as bad on the left, it should still be very worrying to anyone who cares about the US left falling in to the same hole that has taken the US right wing. It started small on the right as well, a way to energise the base and boost votes. 20 years on and the crazies make up a decent share of the Republican congress, even the sensible Republicans have to be wary of upsetting the crazies, and Trump just won the presidency either because he is one of the crazies, or at least played one on TV.

With the likes of Trump as such a polarising force, it won’t take anywhere near 20 years for this to happen to the left.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Expressing disappointment is all the PotUS can do when the court strikes down an EO. Whether it's Obama's DAPA immigration EO or Trump's travel ban immigration EO there's no further recourse after SCotUS adjudicates the lower court ruling. The Trump dictatorship concern trolling is just hyperbolic fear mongering. There's nothing Trump can do to change court rulings. Trump was unprofessional and rude with his comments about the judge but he can't do anything to the judge, that's the whole point of our separation of powers set up of checks and balances.

Sort of. I agree that talk of a Trump dictatorship is hyperbole, and you're right about separation of powers limiting Trump's response, but you're wrong in thinking it then becomes merely an issue of unprofessionalism and rudeness. There are very good reasons that direct attacks like this are unacceptable coming from presidents. The president holds vast power, beyond the limits of his formal power there vastly more informal, coercive power. Beneath any president, even one as isolated as Trump, there is a vast network of political reps and staffers, lobbyists, and headkickers to make sure the right people are on board with the presidents.

While Trump almost certainly lacks the ambition and ability, it is by this coercive power that tyrants usurp normal democratic processes. As such, even the suggestion of a president targeting a judge for direct criticism must be absolutely unacceptable to everyone.

This is the real danger of Trump, that he may degrade democratic norms, so that in future a more skilled, better organised and truly ruthless president will find it that much easier to actually dismantle US democracy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Steve steveson wrote:
I assume it's not even that. They can say whatever they wish in a personal capacity, they just have limits on what they can say in the capacity as a representative of that organisation, like many other organisations?

There's actually very little meaningful substance to the Johnson amendment. As you say, leaders of churches can say anything they want in a personal capacity, and they can also make all kinds of morale arguments that leads their listeners towards a political conclusion. "Banning abortion is the biggest issue facing America today" is fine, you would only get in trouble if you add 'so vote Republican' to the end of it. And even if you did, the chance of enforcement is close to zero. I mean, look at the IRS mess, there they investigated non-religious groups involved in political advocacy, and as soon as questions were raised the IRS folded like a wet newspaper. The idea of taking on a church over advocacy is next to zero, the church would almost have to try and break the rule as obviously as possible to goad the IRS in to action.

The reason this is an issue is because right wing, activist churches need to feel oppressed. It is essential to their worldview.

 sebster wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Expressing disappointment is all the PotUS can do when the court strikes down an EO. Whether it's Obama's DAPA immigration EO or Trump's travel ban immigration EO there's no further recourse after SCotUS adjudicates the lower court ruling. The Trump dictatorship concern trolling is just hyperbolic fear mongering. There's nothing Trump can do to change court rulings. Trump was unprofessional and rude with his comments about the judge but he can't do anything to the judge, that's the whole point of our separation of powers set up of checks and balances.

Sort of. I agree that talk of a Trump dictatorship is hyperbole, and you're right about separation of powers limiting Trump's response, but you're wrong in thinking it then becomes merely an issue of unprofessionalism and rudeness. There are very good reasons that direct attacks like this are unacceptable coming from presidents. The president holds vast power, beyond the limits of his formal power there vastly more informal, coercive power. Beneath any president, even one as isolated as Trump, there is a vast network of political reps and staffers, lobbyists, and headkickers to make sure the right people are on board with the presidents.

While Trump almost certainly lacks the ambition and ability, it is by this coercive power that tyrants usurp normal democratic processes. As such, even the suggestion of a president targeting a judge for direct criticism must be absolutely unacceptable to everyone.

This is the real danger of Trump, that he may degrade democratic norms, so that in future a more skilled, better organised and truly ruthless president will find it that much easier to actually dismantle US democracy.

Jackson defied a SCotUS ruling and forced the Cherokee into the Trail of Tears and out democratic institutions survived. FDR threatened replace SCotUS judges of the court ruled against his programs and our system survived. Obama chastised SCotUS with a disputed summation of a ruling on national television at the state of the union address and we handled it fine. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/politics/29scotus.html
Trump being disrespectful to a federal judge isn't a problem either.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Obama chastised SCotUS with a disputed summation of a ruling on national television at the state of the union address

Obama said "with all due deference to separation of powers", and then criticising the decision that was made. What Obama did still wasn't good, as it opened the door for justices to respond and defend their decision, opening a partisan debate between the presidency and supreme court. It was good that the SC maintained discipline that time.

But it was minor compared to Trump's response. He didn't say he disagreed with the decision, he directly attacked the judge and his qualifications. I believe it is impossible that you cannot understand how different those two things are.

and we handled it fine.

"Our democratic institutions haven't collapsed yet so everyone should just assume they will be fine forever and never express concern about the erosion of accepted practice" is a really, really horrible way to safeguard a liberal democracy.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Jackson defied a SCotUS ruling and forced the Cherokee into the Trail of Tears and out democratic institutions survived. FDR threatened replace SCotUS judges of the court ruled against his programs and our system survived.

Yes, our democratic institutions survived, but doing that kind of thing is like playing Russian roulette. You might get away with it in a particular case, but if you do it enough you're eventually going to break something.

Prestor Jon wrote:


Jackson defied a SCotUS ruling and forced the Cherokee into the Trail of Tears and out democratic institutions survived.

Except he didn't.

This is a myth born by a very bad historian circa the 1890s who really hated Jackson and the Democratic Party that has unfortunately perpetuated itself. This same man is the known origin point for Jackson's famous quote concerning John Marshall as well. The ruling of Cherokee Nation v State of Georgia was actually that SCOTUS had no jurisdiction to rule on the case at all. The subsequent case of Worcester v Georgie only ruled that the State of Georgia had no authority to deport the Cherokee from its borders because the Cherokee constituted a sovereign nation and could only be handled by the Federal Government. While many American history text books say that Worcester v Georgia overturned the Indian Removal Act, it does not. The Indian Removal Act was never in question in Worcester v Georgia which dealt solely with Georgia state law.

While Marshll's opinion on Indian deportation is well known and he certainly loathed Jackson's actions, the Marshall Court never issued requisite requests to the Federal Marshal Service making the decision limited to a precedent case and imposed no obligations or restrictions on the state of Georgia, let alone Andrew Jackson. Basically the court fudged the paperwork to avoid a conflict between the states and the federal government and the court and the executive. They never ruled against Jackson because they issued no ruling that overturned anything he did or planned to do. The only actual outcome of either case was the overturning of Samuel Worcester's conviction for the grave crime of thinking Indians had rights too.

FDR threatened replace SCotUS judges of the court ruled against his programs and our system survived.

That's... not what FDR tried to do. FDR orchestrated an attempt to enlarge the court and pack it with judges who would support his New Deal reforms, highly controversial politically and Constitutionally at the time. There was actually nothing illegal about what he tried to do. It was just kind of sleazy and really really stupid with negative consequences large enough to fill the Great Lakes. You may be thinking of the "Switch in time that save nine" event, which has often been attributed to FDR threatening to put some court justices through impeachment proceedings but there is no evidence of this claim, and is little more than a hypothesis to explain Owen Roberts' sudden shift in attitude. That most of Roberts' papers were burned save one conveniently declaring FDR had nothing to do with his decision in West Coast Hotel Co. v Parrish just adds fuel to the conspiracy theory because it is really convenient.

Obama chastised SCotUS with a disputed summation of a ruling on national television at the state of the union address and we handled it fine

If I had a dime for every politician who offered a disputed summation of a ruling on TV, I'd be richer than Trump. While Obama disputed the court over a decision he doesn't like might be some sour grapes, it's not really comparable to some of rhetoric we're seeing from Trump, and what some Republicans have been saying for decades now.

I am Dissapoint with Our Glorious Leader Trump, where are the Trump Statues? I expect a picture of Our Glorious Leader in every home and his Glorious book "Mein Drumpf"

 Peregrine wrote:
Yes, our democratic institutions survived, but doing that kind of thing is like playing Russian roulette. You might get away with it in a particular case, but if you do it enough you're eventually going to break something.

 LordofHats wrote:
While Obama disputed the court over a decision he doesn't like might be some sour grapes, it's not really comparable to some of rhetoric we're seeing from Trump, and what some Republicans have been saying for decades now.

Just asking - if you guys were to write an article on Trump, how much of the piece would you commit to his attack on the judge that ruled against him? I ask because it is certainly worth mentioning, maybe even including among the bigger points, but I think it would be unlikely to be the major point, certainly not the only point.

But a strange thing happens in debates on forum, things aren't given priority by their importance, but by how willing both sides are to argue on any particular point. Prestor Jon has made an argument that Trump's attack was bad but nothing too serious, and the three of us are disagreeing wth him. This is all fair enough, everyone is making their points according to their own points of view, and as far as I can see everyone is making their points honestly. No complaint there.

But I think this creates a weird kind of effect on a structural level. Because it is the thing we debate, it becomes the thing appears to become important. And because people generally only bother to defend stuff when some kind of defense is possible this means a lot of Trump's absolute, undeniable screw ups just minimised just because they don't get discussed past the original mention, while the more contentious stuff appears to be more important because that's what gets debated back and forth. It ends up with discussion focusing on the more ordinary, run of the mill bad stuff in Trump's presidency, not the unacceptably terrible parts.

I don't think this is the normal state of affairs, simply because presidents don't normally screw up anywhere near this often. Something similar happened as Trump bumbled through first the primary and then the general. He screwed up in his campaign so often, getting basic facts wrong and repeating the mistakes even after correction, getting caught up in dozens of scandals both big and small. This was not normal, even for previous candidates who came to be seen as jokes. Dukakis looked like a goof sitting in a tank - one screw up that sank his campaign. This election cycle Johnson became a punchline after getting Alleppo confused and he was just a minor candidate. Trump didn't know what the nuclear triad was and it got lost and forgotten about within a week as the next two or three screw ups came along. Consider Trump bragging about molesting women, after a couple of feeble attempts at a locker room defence the right wing by and large just stopped trying to defend it, because it was fairly obviously indefensible. But then in just no longer addressing it at all, the attempts by the left to keep coming back to Trump bragging about molestation became a kind of background noise. Compare that to Romney's 47% comment, which dominated that campaign, despite being nowhere near as bad on any level. It was almost because it was partially defensible that people attempted to defend and so it became an outsized issue on that campaign - the comments came to be seen as much more than just a single line of pandering to a wealthy fundraising group.

I'm not sure there's a solution to this. I'm not even sure it's anything more than a Trump thing. But it is interesting to see how so much of the debate naturally falls to areas where Trump there is at least soem defence for what Trump did.

 sebster wrote:
Just asking - if you guys were to write an article on Trump, how much of the piece would you commit to his attack on the judge that ruled against him? I ask because it is certainly worth mentioning, maybe even including among the bigger points, but I think it would be unlikely to be the major point, certainly not the only point.

When I think of things Trump has done that I most want to talk about no. His attacks on the judiciary for the grave sin of disagreeing with glorious leader, while bad, are not immediately dangerous. The Right has been trying to tear down the courts for years and has thus far largely been unsuccessful. Even Republican appointees have shown more often than not to care more about the stability and integrity of the judiciary than about political ideology with only two notable exceptions imo. Go figure. Judges are some of the most educated human beings on the planet, and tend to fall into the category of not being dumb as nuts regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum.

For now the judiciary is safe. Thus far the worst things Trump has done imo are his seemingly purposeful desire to disrupt, block, and even sabotage regulatory agencies for purely ideological reasons. That and being a general embarrassment we should all be ashamed of.

But I think this creates a weird kind of effect on a structural level. Because it is the thing we debate, it becomes the thing appears to become important. And because people generally only bother to defend stuff when some kind of defense is possible this means a lot of Trump's absolute, undeniable screw ups just minimised just because they don't get discussed past the original mention, while the more contentious stuff appears to be more important because that's what gets debated back and forth. It ends up with discussion focusing on the more ordinary, run of the mill bad stuff in Trump's presidency, not the unacceptably terrible parts.

I find this is true of politics in general. Ignore that Bill did a generally good job as President. Probably one of the best men to sit in the White House in my life time. No. Not when there's a debate to be had about the definition of 'is' none of that matters at all. Ignore that Donald Trump is either an evil mastermind or a absurd idiot, no we have to debate Hillary Clinton's emails (and ignore that within 12 hours Donald Trump was already guilty of the same "crime"). It's not just politics either. There are thousands of Feminists in the world with a myriad of different thoughts and ideas, but the only ones that ever seem to get named regularly are the insane ones. Lots of Christians in the US, but I'll bet you more people have heard of the Westboro Baptists Church being complete a-Holes than that time the church down my street offered free blood tests for STDs to anyone who wanted one (and this is a college town so yeah... Actually not a rotten idea).

People tune out of issues when it suits them, and it's easier to focus on the empty and superficial nonsense than it is to engage on a deeper level because engaging on a deeper level requires paying a fair bit more attention than just turning on the evening news.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If a case like this goes all the way to the Supreme Court and they find against Trump, what is he going to do?

Whine, complain judges are traitors of the country, issue new executive orders. The usual.

Pretty pathetic how he attacked integrity of US courts right off the bat. How he can still stay in office after that...

 sebster wrote:
But I think this creates a weird kind of effect on a structural level. Because it is the thing we debate, it becomes the thing appears to become important. And because people generally only bother to defend stuff when some kind of defense is possible this means a lot of Trump's absolute, undeniable screw ups just minimised just because they don't get discussed past the original mention, while the more contentious stuff appears to be more important because that's what gets debated back and forth. It ends up with discussion focusing on the more ordinary, run of the mill bad stuff in Trump's presidency, not the unacceptably terrible parts.

I don't think this is the normal state of affairs, simply because presidents don't normally screw up anywhere near this often. Something similar happened as Trump bumbled through first the primary and then the general. He screwed up in his campaign so often, getting basic facts wrong and repeating the mistakes even after correction, getting caught up in dozens of scandals both big and small. This was not normal, even for previous candidates who came to be seen as jokes.......

I'm not sure there's a solution to this. I'm not even sure it's anything more than a Trump thing. But it is interesting to see how so much of the debate naturally falls to areas where Trump there is at least soem defence for what Trump did.

An interesting point, however, the frequency of gaffes is also quite important. Throughout the campaign and even now, Trump and his team have issued a veritable tsunami of unbelievable rubbish, so much that it's almost hard to keep up. I get the impression that it's intentional, everyone is on the back foot, and it's almost impossible to debate anything as the next ridiculous denial of reality comes along.
Right wingers are still in denial about their collusion in electing a dangerous buffoon, which puts them on the defensive, and true Trump faithful just ignore it, or hand wave with "fake news".
Maybe it is a real tactic, lie, lie hard, and often. It definitely feels like a collusion between Trump, and Bannon.

There is a lot in what your say, Sebster. For example, your play by play record of Trump's first two weeks omitted the point that he put Bannon of Breitbart on the national security committee while banning the joint chiefs of staff from attending meetings where their services àren't going to be involved.

What is good or bad about that decision? Any discussion has been lost in the reporting of other decisions.

 jasper76 wrote:
As for Turkey, well, the United States is not Turkey. And for every church endorsing candidate X, another church will be endorsing candidate Y. Freedom of religion and all that.

Yeah US is not Turkey(at least yet). That's good reason to move US toward being like Turkey?

 sebster wrote:
Just asking - if you guys were to write an article on Trump, how much of the piece would you commit to his attack on the judge that ruled against him?

No, but to clarify what I said I wasn't addressing Trump's complaint about the judge. That's just petty whining with no legal status behind it. The part I was actually responding to was the idea that things like ignoring supreme court rulings or changing the size of the court to skew it in a particular ideological direction are not things we should worry about because they happened before and our country survived. That's simply an absurd argument, and a far more dangerous attitude than anything involving Trump's latest twitter feud.

tneva82 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
As for Turkey, well, the United States is not Turkey. And for every church endorsing candidate X, another church will be endorsing candidate Y. Freedom of religion and all that.

Yeah US is not Turkey(at least yet). That's good reason to move US toward being like Turkey?

I don't think respecting free speech, and getting our government further out of the business of mucking with it, will make us more like Turkey. I think it wil make us more like a country that respects free speech.

I also don't think we need to beat up on Turkey in order to discuss and debate whether or not the United States government should be in the business of tying tax exempt status to a compromise of free speech.

 jasper76 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
As for Turkey, well, the United States is not Turkey. And for every church endorsing candidate X, another church will be endorsing candidate Y. Freedom of religion and all that.

Yeah US is not Turkey(at least yet). That's good reason to move US toward being like Turkey?

I don't think respecting free speech, and getting our government further out of the business of mucking with it, will make us more like Turkey. I think it wil make us more like a country that respects free speech.

I also don't think we need to beat up on Turkey in order to discuss and debate whether or not the United States government should be in the business of tying tax exempt status to a compromise of free speech.

My main issues is the religious right will use this to take baby steps into forcing religion into law. Baby steps is how it always starts.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/us/politics/trump-white-house-aides-strategy.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0

Aides confer in the dark because they cannot figure out how to operate the light switches in the cabinet room. Visitors conclude their meetings and then wander around, testing doorknobs until finding one that leads to an exit.

..sometimes this stuff just writes itself.

But for the moment, Mr. Bannon remains the president’s dominant adviser, despite Mr. Trump’s anger that he was not fully briefed on details of the executive order he signed giving his chief strategist a seat on the National Security Council, a greater source of frustration to the president than the fallout from the travel ban.

....what ?