US Politics: 2017 Edition

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.

**feeder**

Gordon Shumway wrote:

Question: do we have, in the little dakka community, a Trump plant or two? I really doubt it. Do we have a few posters who are doing for trump what the right wing posters said was the initial problem with Obama--essentially religious fanatics? Seems more likely. But still, it doesn't really explain it. Where do the one hit wonders come from? What is their motive?

I suspect that some (nobody specific) are not really Trump supporters. They are in it for the trolling. The Liberal Tears(tm). The lulz.

edit: fix quote derp

**infinite_array**

feeder wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:

Question: do we have, in the little dakka community, a Trump plant or two? I really doubt it. Do we have a few posters who are doing for trump what the right wing posters said was the initial problem with Obama--essentially religious fanatics? Seems more likely. But still, it doesn't really explain it. Where do the one hit wonders come from? What is their motive?

I suspect that some (nobody specific) are not really Trump supporters. They are in it for the trolling. The Liberal Tears(tm). The lulz.

edit: fix quote derp

Yup, that's the reason. They support Trump because it makes SJWs/'Libtards" cry and rage. So they come in, drop a line or two, and then sit back and hope that someone takes the bait.

**Gordon Shumway**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
kronk wrote:
Vash108 wrote:
wuestenfux wrote:
Trump is against the EU. He has planned to build a golf course in Ireland. He has gotten the approval from Ireland, but for some reasons not from the EU. He hates the EU for that.

Are you saying Trump is a wee bit vindictive?

Water is a wee bit wet!

Technically, no it isn't.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gordon Shumway wrote:
Something I've noticed here in the last few days. Trump supporters seem to pop in now and then and offer one sentence summaries of what they like about him/his policies. When confronted with opposing facts, they don't respond . A few days go by, new Trump supporter sentences.

A few of our die hard right leaning supporters stay engaged. Whembly, Frazz, Prestor Jon, and so on. They make claims and counter claims and the thread goes on as usual but they attempt to make clear that they do not like or support Trump explicitly, just some of the policies.

Question: do we have, in the little dakka community, a Trump plant or two? I really doubt it. Do we have a few posters who are doing for trump what the right wing posters said was the initial problem with Obama--essentially religious fanatics? Seems more likely. But still, it doesn't really explain it. Where do the one hit wonders come from? What is their motive?

My opinion? The Trump fans have sublimated the way Trump thinks and talks into their own thoughts and posts. It is a twitter tweet tweet. It is an off hand comment that doesn't really mean anything other than how that person is feeling at that instant. Forget thought, get reaction. Film and post it. Done. Now move on to the next thought. The problem is that doesn't work for thought or analysis or debate.

Alternatively, people simply lead busy lives and not everyone has the time or inclination for long drawn out in depth political discussions on a toy soldier forum...not a right wing conspiracy theory.

Next you'll be calling people Russian trolls.

Fair enough. I would hope, however, that people posting here have thought about what they are actually thinking and can defend their thoughts. The fact that they choose not to suggests that there is not defense for their thoughts or that they haven't thought of a defense. People do lead busy lives, that is fair. If they are going to engage with a discussion about politics online, they have the free time to do so. If you do not want a long drawn out discussion, don't post your tweets in the discussion forum. It's sort of a place to discuss stuff.

**NinthMusketeer**

Gordon Shumway wrote:
Fair enough. I would hope, however, that people posting here have thought about what they are actually thinking and can defend their thoughts. The fact that they choose not to suggests that there is not defense for their thoughts or that they haven't thought of a defense. People do lead busy lives, that is fair. If they are going to engage with a discussion about politics online, they have the free time to do so. If you do not want a long drawn out discussion, don't post your tweets in the discussion forum. It's sort of a place to discuss stuff.

TBF I would rather people do that then continue to defend a position based on faulty logic that was already debunked a half-dozen times.

**feeder**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:
Fair enough. I would hope, however, that people posting here have thought about what they are actually thinking and can defend their thoughts. The fact that they choose not to suggests that there is not defense for their thoughts or that they haven't thought of a defense. People do lead busy lives, that is fair. If they are going to engage with a discussion about politics online, they have the free time to do so. If you do not want a long drawn out discussion, don't post your tweets in the discussion forum. It's sort of a place to discuss stuff.
TBF I would rather people do that then continue to defend a position based on faulty logic that was already debunked a half-dozen times.

While tiresome, it is necessary to strike down those undead arguments every time they are raised from the grave. There are different people lurking in here all the time, and the silent reader is who we are arguing for, not the other side's foot soldiers.

To badly paraphrase someone or other, the price of sensible policy is eternal discourse.

**Gordon Shumway**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:
Fair enough. I would hope, however, that people posting here have thought about what they are actually thinking and can defend their thoughts. The fact that they choose not to suggests that there is not defense for their thoughts or that they haven't thought of a defense. People do lead busy lives, that is fair. If they are going to engage with a discussion about politics online, they have the free time to do so. If you do not want a long drawn out discussion, don't post your tweets in the discussion forum. It's sort of a place to discuss stuff.
TBF I would rather people do that then continue to defend a position based on faulty logic that was already debunked a half-dozen times.

A shot across the bow at whembly. It makes no dent. At least he attempts to defend his claims. If asked for sources, he tries to oblige. If caught in a completely nutty spiral, he either ducks out or will admit his fault if pushed hard enough. The Trump one off posters attempt none of that. Time goes by, they just post some other stupid "alternate fact". Set off a discussion of how dumb Trump is, time goes by, new stupid Trump "fact". Is this the modern discussion of politics?

**Just Tony**

Since I mostly get online on my breaks at work, and do more than just live in the US Politics thread when I AM online, I'll take a brief moment to address this before reading back however many pages to get caught up on Weber's Greatest Hits. I know one had to do with my work from what I skimmed, and I want more time to type for that one...

Gordon Shumway wrote:Something I've noticed here in the last few days. Trump supporters seem to pop in now and then and offer one sentence summaries of what they like about him/his policies. When confronted with opposing facts, they don't respond . A few days go by, new Trump supporter sentences.

A few of our die hard right leaning supporters stay engaged. Whembly, Frazz, Prestor Jon, and so on. They make claims and counter claims and the thread goes on as usual but they attempt to make clear that they do not like or support Trump explicitly, just some of the policies.

Question: do we have, in the little dakka community, a Trump plant or two? I really doubt it. Do we have a few posters who are doing for trump what the right wing posters said was the initial problem with Obama--essentially religious fanatics? Seems more likely. But still, it doesn't really explain it. Where do the one hit wonders come from? What is their motive?

My opinion? The Trump fans have sublimated the way Trump thinks and talks into their own thoughts and posts. It is a twitter tweet tweet. It is an off hand comment that doesn't really mean anything other than how that person is feeling at that instant. Forget thought, get reaction. Film and post it. Done. Now move on to the next thought. The problem is that doesn't work for thought or analysis or debate.

Mr. Nuggaztheninja, Mr. Just Tony, Mr. (Redacted because they have made comments that have greeted them with bans for posting here), please tell me what your rationale for posting here is, if it isn't for actual discussion.

See above, also see below. Also, see that you don't need a justification from me as to why I post. I don't ask you to justify why YOU post.

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
kronk wrote:
Vash108 wrote:
wuestenfux wrote:
Trump is against the EU. He has planned to build a golf course in Ireland. He has gotten the approval from Ireland, but for some reasons not from the EU. He hates the EU for that.

Are you saying Trump is a wee bit vindictive?

Water is a wee bit wet!

Technically, no it isn't.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gordon Shumway wrote:
Something I've noticed here in the last few days. Trump supporters seem to pop in now and then and offer one sentence summaries of what they like about him/his policies. When confronted with opposing facts, they don't respond . A few days go by, new Trump supporter sentences.

A few of our die hard right leaning supporters stay engaged. Whembly, Frazz, Prestor Jon, and so on. They make claims and counter claims and the thread goes on as usual but they attempt to make clear that they do not like or support Trump explicitly, just some of the policies.

Question: do we have, in the little dakka community, a Trump plant or two? I really doubt it. Do we have a few posters who are doing for trump what the right wing posters said was the initial problem with Obama--essentially religious fanatics? Seems more likely. But still, it doesn't really explain it. Where do the one hit wonders come from? What is their motive?

My opinion? The Trump fans have sublimated the way Trump thinks and talks into their own thoughts and posts. It is a twitter tweet tweet. It is an off hand comment that doesn't really mean anything other than how that person is feeling at that instant. Forget thought, get reaction. Film and post it. Done. Now move on to the next thought. The problem is that doesn't work for thought or analysis or debate.

Alternatively, people simply lead busy lives and not everyone has the time or inclination for long drawn out in depth political discussions on a toy soldier forum...not a right wing conspiracy theory.

Next you'll be calling people Russian trolls.

Actually, I'm of Lithuanian descent. That, and I look more like an Orc physically than a Troll.

But here he covers it pretty well. Between work, a special needs 10 month old boy, a massively hyperactive 4 year old girl, a drama filled 15 year old girl, dealing with two sons in college, AND the military, I get on when I can. I tried to simply walk away, but for some reason the odd comment or two will drag me back into posting.

**Gordon Shumway**

Just Tony wrote:
Since I mostly get online on my breaks at work, and do more than just live in the US Politics thread when I AM online, I'll take a brief moment to address this before reading back however many pages to get caught up on Weber's Greatest Hits. I know one had to do with my work from what I skimmed, and I want more time to type for that one...

Gordon Shumway wrote:Something I've noticed here in the last few days. Trump supporters seem to pop in now and then and offer one sentence summaries of what they like about him/his policies. When confronted with opposing facts, they don't respond . A few days go by, new Trump supporter sentences.

A few of our die hard right leaning supporters stay engaged. Whembly, Frazz, Prestor Jon, and so on. They make claims and counter claims and the thread goes on as usual but they attempt to make clear that they do not like or support Trump explicitly, just some of the policies.

Question: do we have, in the little dakka community, a Trump plant or two? I really doubt it. Do we have a few posters who are doing for trump what the right wing posters said was the initial problem with Obama--essentially religious fanatics? Seems more likely. But still, it doesn't really explain it. Where do the one hit wonders come from? What is their motive?

My opinion? The Trump fans have sublimated the way Trump thinks and talks into their own thoughts and posts. It is a twitter tweet tweet. It is an off hand comment that doesn't really mean anything other than how that person is feeling at that instant. Forget thought, get reaction. Film and post it. Done. Now move on to the next thought. The problem is that doesn't work for thought or analysis or debate.

Mr. Nuggaztheninja, Mr. Just Tony, Mr. (Redacted because they have made comments that have greeted them with bans for posting here), please tell me what your rationale for posting here is, if it isn't for actual discussion.

See above, also see below. Also, see that you don't need a justification from me as to why I post. I don't ask you to justify why YOU post.

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
kronk wrote:
Vash108 wrote:
wuestenfux wrote:
Trump is against the EU. He has planned to build a golf course in Ireland. He has gotten the approval from Ireland, but for some reasons not from the EU. He hates the EU for that.

Are you saying Trump is a wee bit vindictive?

Water is a wee bit wet!

Technically, no it isn't.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gordon Shumway wrote:
Something I've noticed here in the last few days. Trump supporters seem to pop in now and then and offer one sentence summaries of what they like about him/his policies. When confronted with opposing facts, they don't respond . A few days go by, new Trump supporter sentences.

A few of our die hard right leaning supporters stay engaged. Whembly, Frazz, Prestor Jon, and so on. They make claims and counter claims and the thread goes on as usual but they attempt to make clear that they do not like or support Trump explicitly, just some of the policies.

Question: do we have, in the little dakka community, a Trump plant or two? I really doubt it. Do we have a few posters who are doing for trump what the right wing posters said was the initial problem with Obama--essentially religious fanatics? Seems more likely. But still, it doesn't really explain it. Where do the one hit wonders come from? What is their motive?

My opinion? The Trump fans have sublimated the way Trump thinks and talks into their own thoughts and posts. It is a twitter tweet tweet. It is an off hand comment that doesn't really mean anything other than how that person is feeling at that instant. Forget thought, get reaction. Film and post it. Done. Now move on to the next thought. The problem is that doesn't work for thought or analysis or debate.

Alternatively, people simply lead busy lives and not everyone has the time or inclination for long drawn out in depth political discussions on a toy soldier forum...not a right wing conspiracy theory.

Next you'll be calling people Russian trolls.

Actually, I'm of Lithuanian descent. That, and I look more like an Orc physically than a Troll.

But here he covers it pretty well. Between work, a special needs 10 month old boy, a massively hyperactive 4 year old girl, a drama filled 15 year old girl, dealing with two sons in college, AND the military, I get on when I can. I tried to simply walk away, but for some reason the odd comment or two will drag me back into posting.

That, is actually a really honest and insightful post. Thank you. Now, please, for the love of your country, if you are going to post about political ideas, discussions, laws, or propositions, take the time to explain why you believe what you are posting and respond to others who might disagree in a similarly insightful way. I want your fellas or (female fellas-couldn't think of female fellas) to grow up in the healthiest, most enriching , thoughtful environment you-or us-could provide for them. I want them to take a cue from their old man that sometimes we can disagree with ideas, but we need to know what your ideas are, why you have them, and what the alternatives are.

**whembly**

Gordon Shumway wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:
Fair enough. I would hope, however, that people posting here have thought about what they are actually thinking and can defend their thoughts. The fact that they choose not to suggests that there is not defense for their thoughts or that they haven't thought of a defense. People do lead busy lives, that is fair. If they are going to engage with a discussion about politics online, they have the free time to do so. If you do not want a long drawn out discussion, don't post your tweets in the discussion forum. It's sort of a place to discuss stuff.
TBF I would rather people do that then continue to defend a position based on faulty logic that was already debunked a half-dozen times.

A shot across the bow at whembly. It makes no dent. At least he attempts to defend his claims. If asked for sources, he tries to oblige. If caught in a completely nutty spiral, he either ducks out or will admit his fault if pushed hard enough. The Trump one off posters attempt none of that. Time goes by, they just post some other stupid "alternate fact". Set off a discussion of how dumb Trump is, time goes by, new stupid Trump "fact". Is this the modern discussion of politics?

<---Zero feths given... that's moi.

We ain't all perfect... but, some are more perfect than others.

(channeling Animal Farm-ish there kiddo)

Just over a week in Trumpesto's Presidency... I think everyone needs to chillax a bit, and pay attention to only things that matters... like what Trumpesto's and his administration are doing... not, over crowd-size arguments.

Those are obvious attempts of stray-voltage and gas lightings...

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Well, for my part, and if I'm being honest about it, I try and be as fair and balanced as possible.

Obviously, I'm not American, so I didn't vote for or against Trump.

In many ways, and I've said this before, I think Trump is and will be an awful President, will HRC being equally as bad, if she had won.

To be fair though, it's a long time since the USA had a 'good president.' Nixon was gifted, but flawed. LBJ was gifted, and a master of getting laws through Congress, but Vietnam was his doom. Harry Truman was another able president who was also undone by a war.

I'm old enough to remember Reagan, and I liked him as a friendly old uncle type, but I never rated him as a politicians.

Trump is no better or worse than Obama, Bush, or Bill Clinton in many respects.

Back to Trump. As somebody who followed Trump for years, due to his involvement with golf courses in Scotland, I draw one conclusion about Trump: if things are going well, he seems a good guy. If things go against him, avoid him like the plague.

That duality will cause problems in the next 4 years. No President, from Washington to Trump can control fate or predict the future.

Something will go wrong. Not if, but when. And I think Trump is ill suited to handle this.

I still think his foreign policy, if he holds true to his campaign talk, is exactly what America needs right now: realpolitik.

I'll give Trump credit for that if it works.

**Gordon Shumway**

whembly wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:
Fair enough. I would hope, however, that people posting here have thought about what they are actually thinking and can defend their thoughts. The fact that they choose not to suggests that there is not defense for their thoughts or that they haven't thought of a defense. People do lead busy lives, that is fair. If they are going to engage with a discussion about politics online, they have the free time to do so. If you do not want a long drawn out discussion, don't post your tweets in the discussion forum. It's sort of a place to discuss stuff.
TBF I would rather people do that then continue to defend a position based on faulty logic that was already debunked a half-dozen times.

A shot across the bow at whembly. It makes no dent. At least he attempts to defend his claims. If asked for sources, he tries to oblige. If caught in a completely nutty spiral, he either ducks out or will admit his fault if pushed hard enough. The Trump one off posters attempt none of that. Time goes by, they just post some other stupid "alternate fact". Set off a discussion of how dumb Trump is, time goes by, new stupid Trump "fact". Is this the modern discussion of politics?

<---Zero feths given... that's moi.

We ain't all perfect... but, some are more perfect than others. (channeling Animal Farm-ish there kiddo)

Just over a week in Trumpesto's Presidency... I think everyone needs to chillax a bit, and pay attention to only things that matters... like what Trumpesto's and his administration are doing... not, over crowd-size arguments.

Those are obvious attempts of stray-voltage and gas lightings...

I agree, but have a question: is an executive order a doing something or saying something? I mean he is doing things with his executive orders by physically moving his pen to sign his name. But he isn't really doing anything about any thing. Nor, I expect with the way that his executive orders have been worded, does he really expect them to do much of anything.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Well, for my part, and if I'm being honest about it, I try and be as fair and balanced as possible.

Obviously, I'm not American, so I didn't vote for or against Trump.

In many ways, and I've said this before, I think Trump is and will be an awful President, will HRC being equally as bad, if she had won.

To be fair though, it's a long time since the USA had a 'good president.' Nixon was gifted, but flawed. LBJ was gifted, and a master of getting laws through Congress, but Vietnam was his doom. Harry Truman was another able president who was also undone by a war.

I'm old enough to remember Reagan, and I liked him as a friendly old uncle type, but I never rated him as a politicians.

Trump is no better or worse than Obama, Bush, or Bill Clinton in many respects.

Back to Trump. As somebody who followed Trump for years, due to his involvement with golf courses in Scotland, I draw one conclusion about Trump: if things are going well, he seems a good guy. If things go against him, avoid him like the plague.

That duality will cause problems in the next 4 years. No President, from Washington to Trump can control fate or predict the future.

Something will go wrong. Not if, but when. And I think Trump is ill suited to handle this.

I still think his foreign policy, if he holds true to his campaign talk, is exactly what America needs right now: realpolitik.

I'll give Trump credit for that if it works.

One thing I don't think many people think about: when you are president, the things you have to address are the gak crap that others couldn't figure out. It is all bad. You have no good days. Bill passed you like? NK also tested a nuclear bomb. It is why their hair all goes grey. What will happen with trump's hair is a serious national discussion. If it doesn't change, like his wife's face, something is wrong.

Edit: I was wrong to say something about his wife's artificially smiling face. Ignore that bit. She isn't bothered by it so why should we be?

**whembly**

Gordon Shumway wrote:
whembly wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:
Fair enough. I would hope, however, that people posting here have thought about what they are actually thinking and can defend their thoughts. The fact that they choose not to suggests that there is not defense for their thoughts or that they haven't thought of a defense. People do lead busy lives, that is fair. If they are going to engage with a discussion about politics online, they have the free time to do so. If you do not want a long drawn out discussion, don't post your tweets in the discussion forum. It's sort of a place to discuss stuff.
TBF I would rather people do that then continue to defend a position based on faulty logic that was already debunked a half-dozen times.

A shot across the bow at whembly. It makes no dent. At least he attempts to defend his claims. If asked for sources, he tries to oblige. If caught in a completely nutty spiral, he either ducks out or will admit his fault if pushed hard enough. The Trump one off posters attempt none of that. Time goes by, they just post some other stupid "alternate fact". Set off a discussion of how dumb Trump is, time goes by, new stupid Trump "fact". Is this the modern discussion of politics?

<---Zero feths given... that's moi.

We ain't all perfect... but, some are more perfect than others. (channeling Animal Farm-ish there kiddo)

Just over a week in Trumpesto's Presidency... I think everyone needs to chillax a bit, and pay attention to only things that matters... like what Trumpesto's and his administration are doing... not, over crowd-size arguments.

Those are obvious attempts of stray-voltage and gas lightings...

I agree, but have a question: is an executive order a doing something or saying something? I mean he is doing things with his executive orders by physically moving his pen to sign his name. But he isn't really doing anything about any thing. Nor, I expect with the way that his executive orders have been worded, does he really expect them to do much of anything.

I would categorically call signing EO "doing something" as they're directive from the top to the agencies...

Here's his EO so far (sans proclamations/memoranda):

Multi-pronged orders on border security and immigration enforcement including: the authorization of a U.S.-Mexico border wall; the stripping of federal grant money to sanctuary cities; hiring 5,000 more Border Patrol agents; ending “catch-and-release” policies for illegal immigrants; and reinstating local and state immigration enforcement partnerships.

Two orders reviving the Keystone XL pipeline and Dakota Access piplines. He also signed three other related orders that would: expedite the environmental permitting process for infrastructure projects related to the pipelines; direct the Commerce Department to streamline the manufacturing permitting process; and give the Commerce Department 180 days to maximize the use of U.S. steel in the pipeline.

An order to reinstate the so-called "Mexico City Policy" – a ban on federal funds to international groups that perform abortions or lobby to legalize or promote abortion. The policy was instituted in 1984 by President Reagan, but has gone into and out of effect depending on the party in power in the White House.

He signed a notice that the U.S. will begin withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. Trump called the order "a great thing for the American worker."

An order imposing a hiring freeze for some federal government workers as a way to shrink the size of government. This excludes the military, as Trump noted at the signing.

An order that directs federal agencies to ease the “regulatory burdens” of ObamaCare. It orders agencies to “waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement” of ObamaCare that imposes a “fiscal burden on any State or a cost, fee, tax, penalty, or regulatory burden on individuals, families, healthcare providers, health insurers, patients, recipients of healthcare services, purchasers of health insurance, or makers of medical devices, products, or medications.”

**r_squared**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
...Trump is no better or worse than Obama, Bush, or Bill Clinton in many respects.

You don't half talk some rubbish sometimes, especially when you go onto say...

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Back to Trump. As somebody who followed Trump for years, due to his involvement with golf courses in Scotland, I draw one conclusion about Trump: if things are going well, he seems a good guy. If things go against him, avoid him like the plague.

That duality will cause problems in the next 4 years. No President, from Washington to Trump can control fate or predict the future.

Something will go wrong. Not if, but when. And I think Trump is ill suited to handle this.

Obama, Bush and Clinton all had things go wrong, and handled them without having an online meltdown over trivia. How can you say hes no better or worse when you then go onto say that he is ill suited? Trump can't even handle criticism of the size of a crowd. He's not even a tenth of the president of any of these you mentioned, the man is a fething joke.

**whembly**

Gordon Shumway wrote:

Edit: I was wrong to say something about his wife's artificially smiling face. Ignore that bit. She isn't bothered by it so why should we be?

That was during a prayer, when Trumpesto turned from her she went to her 'serious payer face'.

However, memes from that episode are hysterical.

**Gordon Shumway**

whembly wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:
whembly wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:
Fair enough. I would hope, however, that people posting here have thought about what they are actually thinking and can defend their thoughts. The fact that they choose not to suggests that there is not defense for their thoughts or that they haven't thought of a defense. People do lead busy lives, that is fair. If they are going to engage with a discussion about politics online, they have the free time to do so. If you do not want a long drawn out discussion, don't post your tweets in the discussion forum. It's sort of a place to discuss stuff.
TBF I would rather people do that then continue to defend a position based on faulty logic that was already debunked a half-dozen times.

A shot across the bow at whembly. It makes no dent. At least he attempts to defend his claims. If asked for sources, he tries to oblige. If caught in a completely nutty spiral, he either ducks out or will admit his fault if pushed hard enough. The Trump one off posters attempt none of that. Time goes by, they just post some other stupid "alternate fact". Set off a discussion of how dumb Trump is, time goes by, new stupid Trump "fact". Is this the modern discussion of politics?

<---Zero feths given... that's moi.

We ain't all perfect... but, some are more perfect than others. (channeling Animal Farm-ish there kiddo)

Just over a week in Trumpesto's Presidency... I think everyone needs to chillax a bit, and pay attention to only things that matters... like what Trumpesto's and his administration are doing... not, over crowd-size arguments.

Those are obvious attempts of stray-voltage and gas lightings...

I agree, but have a question: is an executive order a doing something or saying something? I mean he is doing things with his executive orders by physically moving his pen to sign his name. But he isn't really doing anything about any thing. Nor, I expect with the way that his executive orders have been worded, does he really expect them to do much of anything.

I would categorically call signing EO "doing something" as they're directive from the top to the agencies...

Here's his EO so far (sans proclamations/memoranda):

Multi-pronged orders on border security and immigration enforcement including: the authorization of a U.S.-Mexico border wall; the stripping of federal grant money to sanctuary cities; hiring 5,000 more Border Patrol agents; ending “catch-and-release” policies for illegal immigrants; and reinstating local and state immigration enforcement partnerships.

Two orders reviving the Keystone XL pipeline and Dakota Access piplines. He also signed three other related orders that would: expedite the environmental permitting process for infrastructure projects related to the pipelines; direct the Commerce Department to streamline the manufacturing permitting process; and give the Commerce Department 180 days to maximize the use of U.S. steel in the pipeline.

An order to reinstate the so-called "Mexico City Policy" – a ban on federal funds to international groups that perform abortions or lobby to legalize or promote abortion. The policy was instituted in 1984 by President Reagan, but has gone into and out of effect depending on the party in power in the White House.

He signed a notice that the U.S. will begin withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. Trump called the order "a great thing for the American worker."

An order imposing a hiring freeze for some federal government workers as a way to shrink the size of government. This excludes the military, as Trump noted at the signing.

An order that directs federal agencies to ease the “regulatory burdens” of ObamaCare. It orders agencies to “waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement” of ObamaCare that imposes a “fiscal burden on any State or a cost, fee, tax, penalty, or regulatory burden on individuals, families, healthcare providers, health insurers, patients, recipients of healthcare services, purchasers of health insurance, or makers of medical devices, products, or medications.”

I agree that they should mean something, but look at the waivers attached to them. One of the waivers states that the signature is "irrelevant when questioned in court or when in contradiction with congress". Whoops. Missed the memo. Another one states that the clause is irrelevant if other laws "supersede" it or are passed before the signing. Whoops. No matter, we still like the guy. Another one actually reads "the language herein shall not be taken for determining the law or have any bearing on any laws passed by the legislature". What does that mean? It means that his signature means nothing other than an intention for what the us might do. Possibly. We are working on it. Like the health care stuff. We really don't care, just please like us.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:

Edit: I was wrong to say something about his wife's artificially smiling face. Ignore that bit. She isn't bothered by it so why should we be?

That was during a prayer, when Trumpesto turned from her she went to her 'serious payer face'.

However, memes from that episode are hysterical.

I actually wasn't thinking anything or specifically about it. I just thought she is a human with boobs and a vagina. She must be really salty after listening to her man. Her face tells me that? Yup I am right.

**Future War Cultist**

What did you all think of May and Trump's press conference today?

**Compel**

I commented earlier before randomness happened. In short, WAY, WAY better than I expected.

**NinthMusketeer**

feeder wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:
Fair enough. I would hope, however, that people posting here have thought about what they are actually thinking and can defend their thoughts. The fact that they choose not to suggests that there is not defense for their thoughts or that they haven't thought of a defense. People do lead busy lives, that is fair. If they are going to engage with a discussion about politics online, they have the free time to do so. If you do not want a long drawn out discussion, don't post your tweets in the discussion forum. It's sort of a place to discuss stuff.
TBF I would rather people do that then continue to defend a position based on faulty logic that was already debunked a half-dozen times.

While tiresome, it is necessary to strike down those undead arguments every time they are raised from the grave. There are different people lurking in here all the time, and the silent reader is who we are arguing for, not the other side's foot soldiers.

To badly paraphrase someone or other, the price of sensible policy is eternal discourse.

I actually never thought about it that way. Honestly that is quite enlightening for me, thanks.

Gordon Shumway wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:
Fair enough. I would hope, however, that people posting here have thought about what they are actually thinking and can defend their thoughts. The fact that they choose not to suggests that there is not defense for their thoughts or that they haven't thought of a defense. People do lead busy lives, that is fair. If they are going to engage with a discussion about politics online, they have the free time to do so. If you do not want a long drawn out discussion, don't post your tweets in the discussion forum. It's sort of a place to discuss stuff.
TBF I would rather people do that then continue to defend a position based on faulty logic that was already debunked a half-dozen times.

A shot across the bow at whembly. It makes no dent. At least he attempts to defend his claims. If asked for sources, he tries to oblige. If caught in a completely nutty spiral, he either ducks out or will admit his fault if pushed hard enough. The Trump one off posters attempt none of that. Time goes by, they just post some other stupid "alternate fact". Set off a discussion of how dumb Trump is, time goes by, new stupid Trump "fact". Is this the modern discussion of politics?

If it were just Whembly I wouldn't have mentioned it. If anything Whembly is the most reasonable for reasons you mentioned.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

r_squared wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
...Trump is no better or worse than Obama, Bush, or Bill Clinton in many respects.

You don't half talk some rubbish sometimes, especially when you go onto say...

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Back to Trump. As somebody who followed Trump for years, due to his involvement with golf courses in Scotland, I draw one conclusion about Trump: if things are going well, he seems a good guy. If things go against him, avoid him like the plague.

That duality will cause problems in the next 4 years. No President, from Washington to Trump can control fate or predict the future.

Something will go wrong. Not if, but when. And I think Trump is ill suited to handle this.

Obama, Bush and Clinton all had things go wrong, and handled them without having an online meltdown over trivia. How can you say hes no better or worse when you then go onto say that he is ill suited? Trump can't even handle criticism of the size of a crowd. He's not even a tenth of the president of any of these you mentioned, the man is a fething joke.

I stand by my claim that Trump is no better or worse than Clinton/Bush/Obama and is ill-suited to the job of POTUS, because Clinton, Bush, and Obama weren't up to the job either, IMO.

Bill Clinton was nearly impeached, and failed to reign in Federal power in the wake of the Waco debacle. His sanctions against Iraq were also a disaster. Yeah, he was charming but his penchant for liberal intervention abroad laid the foundations for Bush.

George W Bush wrecked the Middle East, and we're still living with the consequnces of that debacle, so no more to say.

Obama promised a lot, but caved in to the usual suspects on Wall Street. I could mention blanket drone attacks, war on whistleblowers, war against the 4th Amendment and his naive approach to foreign affairs, especially his red line in Syria.

Trump is not a good President, but he's not unique in that respect, as the 3 men before him were hardly modern day FDRs.

**nels1031**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
and failed to reign in Federal power in the wake of the Waco debacle.

Could you expound on that a bit?

**Peregrine**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Bill Clinton was nearly impeached

It should be noted that the impeachment wasn't really legitimate. The "crime" was a joke compared to things presidents regularly do, and the whole process was a straight party-line vote. All that happened was the republican party noticed that they had enough votes to impeach their political opponent (but not to remove him from office) and did it for propaganda purposes. There was no "nearly" about it, everyone knew from the beginning that the senate vote was going to fail and Clinton was going to remain in office.

Trump is not a good President, but he's not unique in that respect, as the 3 men before him were hardly modern day FDRs.

There's a difference between "not a modern FDR" and "completely and utterly unqualified for the job". Clinton, Bush, and Obama were at least legitimate presidents, despite their flaws. Trump is a clown and a narcissist, stumbling from one debacle to the next so quickly that it's hard to keep up. The only real question is if he will go too far and his own party will discard him in favor of Pence.

**thekingofkings**

Peregrine wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Bill Clinton was nearly impeached

It should be noted that the impeachment wasn't really legitimate. The "crime" was a joke compared to things presidents regularly do, and the whole process was a straight party-line vote. All that happened was the republican party noticed that they had enough votes to impeach their political opponent (but not to remove him from office) and did it for propaganda purposes. There was no "nearly" about it, everyone knew from the beginning that the senate vote was going to fail and Clinton was going to remain in office.

Trump is not a good President, but he's not unique in that respect, as the 3 men before him were hardly modern day FDRs.

There's a difference between "not a modern FDR" and "completely and utterly unqualified for the job". Clinton, Bush, and Obama were at least legitimate presidents, despite their flaws. Trump is a clown and a narcissist, stumbling from one debacle to the next so quickly that it's hard to keep up. The only real question is if he will go too far and his own party will discard him in favor of Pence.

like him or not, trump is legitimate, he won the election. IMO its not if, its when they "coup" in favor of pence. Trump has a lot of flaws, many of them exaggerated by lies and bias, but if you are truly supportive of any liberal cause you should hope to God almighty that he stays and pence never touches power, ever.

**Spinner**

thekingofkings wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Bill Clinton was nearly impeached

It should be noted that the impeachment wasn't really legitimate. The "crime" was a joke compared to things presidents regularly do, and the whole process was a straight party-line vote. All that happened was the republican party noticed that they had enough votes to impeach their political opponent (but not to remove him from office) and did it for propaganda purposes. There was no "nearly" about it, everyone knew from the beginning that the senate vote was going to fail and Clinton was going to remain in office.

Trump is not a good President, but he's not unique in that respect, as the 3 men before him were hardly modern day FDRs.

There's a difference between "not a modern FDR" and "completely and utterly unqualified for the job". Clinton, Bush, and Obama were at least legitimate presidents, despite their flaws. Trump is a clown and a narcissist, stumbling from one debacle to the next so quickly that it's hard to keep up. The only real question is if he will go too far and his own party will discard him in favor of Pence.

like him or not, trump is legitimate, he won the election. IMO its not if, its when they "coup" in favor of pence. Trump has a lot of flaws, many of them exaggerated by lies and bias, but if you are truly supportive of any liberal cause you should hope to God almighty that he stays and pence never touches power, ever.

They're both bad.

Whatever happens, the next four years are gonna suck, just in potentially different ways. Trump's not exactly a shining bastion of support for liberal causes. And, since he's hilariously suggestible and doesn't seem to particularly care about actual policy, I'd say the time for hoping Pence never touches power is a bit past.

**feeder**

thekingofkings wrote:

like him or not, trump is legitimate, he won the election.

Well legitimate, yes. Unsuitable, oh god yes.

IMO its not if, its when they "coup" in favor of pence. Trump has a lot of flaws, many of them exaggerated by lies and bias, but if you are truly supportive of any liberal cause you should hope to God almighty that he stays and pence never touches power, ever.

This is true for everyone who isn't Pence's brand of rabid born again jeebus freak, not just liberals.

**thekingofkings**

IMO its not if, its when they "coup" in favor of pence. Trump has a lot of flaws, many of them exaggerated by lies and bias, but if you are truly supportive of any liberal cause you should hope to God almighty that he stays and pence never touches power, ever.

This is true for everyone who isn't Pence's brand of rabid born again jeebus freak, not just liberals.

**Kilkrazy**

Ustrello wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34581945

What's that, an article about non-existent steelworkers?

Layoffs.

They laid off every single steel worker in the UK?

Just admit that you talked out of your ass, again.

To be fair, the UK had to lay off a load of steel workers in the mid-2000s because after loyally supporting the Coalition of the Willing in GW Bush's unnecessary and disastrous war in Iraq, our reward was GW Bush imposing big tariffs on UK steel imports into the US.

Thanks, Obama!

What steeler workers in the UK are equivalent to steel workers in the states?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Co'tor Shas wrote:
I know we are weird (because we say "June 4th, 1985", whereas you say, "The 4th of June, 1985), but even I know that the brits use DD/MM/YYYY. Although this is why I think all forms with dates should specify.

It is basically logical to go from smallest to largest, or vice versa, when looking at dates, addresses, currency, and probably lots of things (weights, for instance.)

1st June 2007.
30 Shepherds Market, London, W1.
Pounds, Shillings, Pence.
Etc.

As an interesting aside, did you know that Saudi Arabian ID cards show dates in non-Arabic numerals?

**whembly**

thekingofkings wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Bill Clinton was nearly impeached

It should be noted that the impeachment wasn't really legitimate. The "crime" was a joke compared to things presidents regularly do, and the whole process was a straight party-line vote. All that happened was the republican party noticed that they had enough votes to impeach their political opponent (but not to remove him from office) and did it for propaganda purposes. There was no "nearly" about it, everyone knew from the beginning that the senate vote was going to fail and Clinton was going to remain in office.

Trump is not a good President, but he's not unique in that respect, as the 3 men before him were hardly modern day FDRs.

There's a difference between "not a modern FDR" and "completely and utterly unqualified for the job". Clinton, Bush, and Obama were at least legitimate presidents, despite their flaws. Trump is a clown and a narcissist, stumbling from one debacle to the next so quickly that it's hard to keep up. The only real question is if he will go too far and his own party will discard him in favor of Pence.

like him or not, trump is legitimate, he won the election. IMO its not if, its when they "coup" in favor of pence. Trump has a lot of flaws, many of them exaggerated by lies and bias, but if you are truly supportive of any liberal cause you should hope to God almighty that he stays and pence never touches power, ever.

GayPatriot ‏@GayPatriot 19h19 hours ago
More
Trump Administration, Day 7: Still not in a gay concentration camp or electrocuted by Mike Pence.
#LGBT #thankyoutrump

**Kilkrazy**

Saying often is doing.

Symbols are important because they motivate people.

The Trump "brand" is based largely on symbolism. He isn't a successful businessman but he plasters his name over loads of stuff and people think he built it. He bangs on about his massive business empire and refuses to release the tax returns that would prove it to be a massive success or a paper tiger. Becoming President doesn't make people think he is a politician, but all his political Twitter "rhetoric" and politcal "Executive Orders" change people's thoughts and therefore their actions about political concerns.

Take the Executive Order to publish weekly updates on crimes committed by immigrants. An obvious move from the authoritarian playbook: Stalin blamed the kulaks, Hitler blamed the Jews, the Chinese and Koreans blame the Japanese, Trump blames "immigrants" (ignoring that his mother was one...) The symbolism provides an outsider that it's OK to hate. Bonus points for them having brown skin and a different religion.

We don't even need to posit that this behaviour might be followed by a wave of hate crime against muslims, sikhs or whoever, because it has happened before in the USA and other countries.

**Just Tony**

thekingofkings wrote:

IMO its not if, its when they "coup" in favor of pence. Trump has a lot of flaws, many of them exaggerated by lies and bias, but if you are truly supportive of any liberal cause you should hope to God almighty that he stays and pence never touches power, ever.

This is true for everyone who isn't Pence's brand of rabid born again jeebus freak, not just liberals.

Indiana seemed quite fine with him, they are not all rabid by any means. he wont attack the center, likely ever. but he will likely go after "sinners"

The problem is the LGBTQAI (I apologize if I missed any of the letters recently added, I believe I got them all) community can't see past the erroneous "Queers can't buy pizza ever" shpiel to all the positive things the man has done with Indiana. Even the positives get talked down by the liberal crowd, it happend in this thread earlier when I mentioned the budget surplus.

**Peregrine**

whembly wrote:
GayPatriot ‏@GayPatriot 19h19 hours ago
More
Trump Administration, Day 7: Still not in a gay concentration camp or electrocuted by Mike Pence.
#LGBT #thankyoutrump

So, more straw man arguments and cheap laughs instead of addressing the substance of any issues...