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.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
If my boss tells me to do something illegal and I do it, that is on me. It is my responsibility to tell them no.

Sally Yates said no. The courts seem to agree with her. Sally Yates made the right move. I wonder if she can sue for wrongful termination.

Yeah "I was just following orders" hasn't been applicable defense for ages.

This may have been mentionned before, but monday afternoon, Spicer mentionned the Quebec City mosque attack as a justification for the new immigration policies.

Despite the fact that this horror was committed by a white french-canadian man.

And that not a single person murdered or in attendance originated from any of the seven countries targeted.

There's a certain level of foot-to-mouth that induces serious cringe. For me, this is it.

tneva82 wrote:
Though to be fair same goes for dems. Huge swathes of them will vote for whoever happens to have D next to their name.

While this is true, the difference between turnout for a strong Democrat and turnout for a weak Democrat is much more pronounced. When Democrats ran the grey blur John Kerry, he got 59m votes. Obama got 69m vote just 4 years later.

In comparison, when Republicans ran a good candidate in John McCain, he got 60m votes. Romney ran after that, and without the headwind that McCain suffered... and he managed 61m votes. Then this last election the great orange disaster managed 63m votes.

This why the old adage holds true - Democrats have to fall in love, Republicans fall in line. Democrats have a much bigger base, maybe 15 to 20% bigger, but turnout is much more fickle.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
This may have been mentionned before, but monday afternoon, Spicer mentionned the Quebec City mosque attack as a justification for the new immigration policies.

Despite the fact that this horror was committed by a white french-canadian man.

And that not a single person murdered or in attendance originated from any of the seven countries targeted.

There's a certain level of foot-to-mouth that induces serious cringe. For me, this is it.

Well that's Trump. Sprouting whatever BS he thinks sounds good without checking for facts.

Some more of his alternative facts. He's probably soon going to claim shooter was somalian or something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Though to be fair same goes for dems. Huge swathes of them will vote for whoever happens to have D next to their name.

While this is true, the difference between turnout for a strong Democrat and turnout for a weak Democrat is much more pronounced. When Democrats ran the grey blur John Kerry, he got 59m votes. Obama got 69m vote just 4 years later.

In comparison, when Republicans ran a good candidate in John McCain, he got 60m votes. Romney ran after that, and without the headwind that McCain suffered... and he managed 61m votes. Then this last election the great orange disaster managed 63m votes.

This why the old adage holds true - Democrats have to fall in love, Republicans fall in line. Democrats have a much bigger base, maybe 15 to 20% bigger, but turnout is much more fickle.

Yes I know. But didn't want to look like I was claiming that wouldn't happen for dems as well. That would be pretty dishonest.

Out of the ~130M-140M or so that votes wonder how much are actually floating? Ie can either decide to not vote or switch between parties? That would be interesting to know.

tneva82 wrote:
He was pointing out how one doesn't need to win debates to be president. And pointing out possible scenario. I'm going to drive it even further. You really don't need more than couple DOZEN voters vs opponents 100M+ if vote distribution is right. Okay that's not realistically happening but shows you don't need to be most popular nor win debates(which Trump lost) to be president.

The bigger issue on debates is that 'winning' is fairly meaningless if the audience is already decided. I mean, on any sensible level Trump made a fool of himself, he rambled, blathered and generally acted like a highschool kid trying to give a book report when the only thing he read was the title.

But, like the analogy I gave earlier, when the barflies crowd around and hear a story from the fattest drunkest saddest amongst them that he totally slept with two supermodels last night, it isn't because the story was convincing. It's because people can convince themselves to believe all kinds of nonsense when they want to believe it.

Conservatives saw the debate, or at least would have seen the highlights (lowlights), and they decided to pretend to themselves that Trump wasn't a grossly incompetent idiot. And now, as Trump is throwing out EOs and random policies then taking them back, and then doubling down again, as he's got his staffers out there doubling down on stupid, meaningless lies just to protect his ego, they're still pretending this isn't an embarrassment for conservatism, a humiliation for a party that once called itself the party of adults.

The question now is whether four years of this nonsense will break the back of the collective delusion that is holding conservative politics in the US together.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
This may have been mentionned before, but monday afternoon, Spicer mentionned the Quebec City mosque attack as a justification for the new immigration policies.

Despite the fact that this horror was committed by a white french-canadian man.

And that not a single person murdered or in attendance originated from any of the seven countries targeted.

There's a certain level of foot-to-mouth that induces serious cringe. For me, this is it.

Post fact world. An incident in which the Muslims are victims means muslims should be seen as terrorists.

I mean feth it, this is a government that put out an EO for security that banned majority muslim countries who's members have committed no terrorism in the US, but has no ban against Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or any of the countries who's citizens have actually committed terror in the US.

None of this makes any sense at all and Trump doesn't care. And nor it seems, do his Republican supporters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
Yes I know. But didn't want to look like I was claiming that wouldn't happen for dems as well. That would be pretty dishonest.

Yeah, there is certainly a died in the wool Democrat base as well. It's just that it's probably somewhat smaller than the Republican base, but this is offset by a larger block of voters who will turn out if mood/candidate is strong enough.

Out of the ~130M-140M or so that votes wonder how much are actually floating? Ie can either decide to not vote or switch between parties? That would be interesting to know.

It's unknown, but its generally believed the swing vote has massively declined in the last couple of decades. A few elections ago most campaigning was based around winning over those precious swing voters, but these days both parties are focusing more and more on targeting their bases, in the belief that swing voters have massively declined and have poor turnout.

Come on guys, in the States people are upset about Trump's EO against migration from rogue states.
And here in Germany there was a police raid against the islamistic scene with 1,100 police men this night.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Come on guys, in the States people are upset about Trump's EO against migration from rogue states.
And here in Germany there was a police raid against the islamistic scene with 1,100 police men this night.

I think the problem with Muslimaphobia will be much worse in Germany than the US, since Angry Merkle opened the countries borders to everyone, now the state police are over paranoid about hunting potential terrorists down to protect people. I know it hasn't helped with the Christmas market attack, but if a terrorist wants to get into a country they will find a way, no matter what. If I may pose a hypothetical question, the E.O plan was drawn up by the Obama administration. If Obama or say Clinton had given it the go ahead, would we still see the same levels of opposition?

Sentinel1 wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Come on guys, in the States people are upset about Trump's EO against migration from rogue states.
And here in Germany there was a police raid against the islamistic scene with 1,100 police men this night.

I think the problem with Muslimaphobia will be much worse in Germany than the US, since Angry Merkle opened the countries borders to everyone, now the state police are over paranoid about hunting potential terrorists down to protect people. I know it hasn't helped with the Christmas market attack, but if a terrorist wants to get into a country they will find a way, no matter what. If I may pose a hypothetical question, the E.O plan was drawn up by the Obama administration. If Obama or say Clinton had given it the go ahead, would we still see the same levels of opposition?

I think we see an overreaction of Americans who haven't voted for Trump.
The Trump administration should be given at least 100 days.

 wuestenfux wrote:
The Trump administration should be given at least 100 days.

Why? That's 99 more than we need to see that Trump is doing exactly what everyone expected.

Any expectation of absolute silence for any period of time in an acting politicians term is unrealistic.

 Peregrine wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
The Trump administration should be given at least 100 days.

Why? That's 99 more than we need to see that Trump is doing exactly what everyone expected.

I think many of us didn't expect this actually. He is doing what he said he would, but personally I assumed that most of his outlandish claims were just bluster and cynical bs to pander to those wanting to hear it. It seems as if Trump actually believe he things he said during the campaign . Which is probably more frightening than if he'd just said crazy gak he knew was crazy. I prefer a cynical liar to someone who believes his own fantasies.

I agree that it's ridiculous to demand some 100 days or 1 year honeymoon though. Trump is doing what he said he would. People called him out on those things being stupid before he did them, and there's no reason to stop once they've started to transform into actions.

 wuestenfux wrote:

Sentinel1 wrote:
If Obama or say Clinton had given it the go ahead, would we still see the same levels of opposition?

I think we see an overreaction of Americans who haven't voted for Trump.
The Trump administration should be given at least 100 days.

Obama (and almost certainly Clinton. I guess we will never know for sure) would never have issues such wide sweeping, poorly thought out dictates.

Trump is treating EO's like he is a medieval feudal king issuing commands from on high, and his supporters are treating his election like the divine right. Anyone who disagrees with him is being told "he's the president" or "he won the election. Get over it". That is simply not the way a democracy works. He is the most powerful man in the world. There is no slack, no wait and see. A functioning democracy requires that every action and every choice of the government be open to free criticism and question. No, he should not be given 100 days. Before the election we had "lets see what he does when he is elected". After the election it was "wait until he is in office". Now "its give him AT LEAST 100 days"? I accept a grace period if you are waiting for something to be implemented that was promised, but there is no grace period on policy that has been set and implemented.

 Peregrine wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
The Trump administration should be given at least 100 days.

Why? That's 99 more than we need to see that Trump is doing exactly what everyone expected.

He is doing what he promised he would do, the things that he promised that got him elected by the tiny voter pool that bothered to vote (CNN claims 55% of eligible voters). now he has put forward a judge who is ideologically somehow like scalia despite living in the peoples republic of boulder.

Obama (and almost certainly Clinton. I guess we will never know for sure) would never have issues such wide sweeping, poorly thought out dictates.

Probably. But what has Obama achieved during the last four years? Obamacare? Too expensive. The Republicans have blocked some of his initiatives. I would say not very much.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Probably. But what has Obama achieved during the last four years? Obamacare? Too expensive. The Republicans have blocked some of his initiatives. I would say not very much.

At this point accomplishing nothing would be a major step forward from what we're getting from Trump.

 wuestenfux wrote:

Obama (and almost certainly Clinton. I guess we will never know for sure) would never have issues such wide sweeping, poorly thought out dictates.

Probably. But what has Obama achieved during the last four years? Obamacare? Too expensive. The Republicans have blocked some of his initiatives. I would say not very much.

Rather debatable, but I am not sure what Obama's failing to do anything in the last 4 years (which I disagree with) has to do with Trump's kingly pronouncements. Are you suggesting that dictatorship is preferable to democracy because things get done, even if those things are poorly thought out, arbitrary and self serving?

 Steve steveson wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

Sentinel1 wrote:
If Obama or say Clinton had given it the go ahead, would we still see the same levels of opposition?

I think we see an overreaction of Americans who haven't voted for Trump.
The Trump administration should be given at least 100 days.

Obama (and almost certainly Clinton. I guess we will never know for sure) would never have issues such wide sweeping, poorly thought out dictates.

Trump is treating EO's like he is a medieval feudal king issuing commands from on high, and his supporters are treating his election like the divine right. Anyone who disagrees with him is being told "he's the president" or "he won the election. Get over it". That is simply not the way a democracy works. He is the most powerful man in the world. There is no slack, no wait and see. A functioning democracy requires that every action and every choice of the government be open to free criticism and question. No, he should not be given 100 days. Before the election we had "lets see what he does when he is elected". After the election it was "wait until he is in office". Now "its give him AT LEAST 100 days"? I accept a grace period if you are waiting for something to be implemented that was promised, but there is no grace period on policy that has been set and implemented.

It is an oddity I've spotted in what I see about the American Electorate.

Republican President SUPPORT OR YOU'RE NOT A TRUE AMERICAN!

Democrat President OBSTRUCT OR YOU'RE NOT A TRUE AMERICAN!

As I said, I can only go off what I see in the media - I make no claim to this be an accurate portrayal

 wuestenfux wrote:

I think we see an overreaction of Americans who haven't voted for Trump.
The Trump administration should be given at least 100 days.

Why? If something sucks then it sucks, waiting a hundred days isn't going to change it.

I get the impression people saying to wait 100 days will all of a sudden, 100 days from now, switch to 'are you still going on about that old news'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zywus wrote:

I think many of us didn't expect this actually. He is doing what he said he would, but personally I assumed that most of his outlandish claims were just bluster and cynical bs to pander to those wanting to hear it. It seems as if Trump actually believe he things he said during the campaign . Which is probably more frightening than if he'd just said crazy gak he knew was crazy. I prefer a cynical liar to someone who believes his own fantasies.

I think he is cynical more than a true believer. He is making a show of keeping his promises but the underlying reality is a con job.

Look at his muslim ban - he picked countries with no history of exporting terrorists to the US. Muslim countries that have sent terrorists to the US but also have Trump investments... they're not in the ban.

Or look at his work on jobs. A bunch of announcments made with various CEOs, all show about a few thousand jobs that in most cases weren't even a change in company policy.

The only place I can see any conviction is to his stupid wall. And honestly I think thar might be just because people made fun of him for his stupid idea, so now his ego demands he do it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:

Probably. But what has Obama achieved during the last four years? Obamacare? Too expensive. The Republicans have blocked some of his initiatives. I would say not very much.

Obamacare was passed 6 years ago, in Obama's first term. Not within the last 4 years. And saying you don't like it because its expensive makes no sense - it was passed as a zero cost bill - revenues from taxes on high end plans and cost savings offset the cost of subsidies on new plans. To individual consumers ACA has coincided with much reduced premium increases.

You can't make technological progress illegal. You're not putting the automation genie back in the bottle.

Inquisitor Bob from the Imperium of Man would like to have a word with you. Would you like your brain encased in a blue servitor model or a red servitor model?...

http://www.chronicle.com/article/Jerry-Falwell-Jr-Says-He-Will/239062/

Jerry Falwell Jr. Says He Will Lead Federal Task Force on Higher-Ed Policy

...I wonder what his focus will be eh ?

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/alex-jones-quebec-attack-was-a-false-flag/

esterday, conspiracy theorist Alex Jones suggested that the deadly attack on the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City was a false flag, which doesn’t come as a surprise as Jones has also claimed that tragedies like 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombing and mass shootings in Newtown, Connecticut and Charleston, South Carolina were also false flag operations.

While speaking with right-wing author Matt Bracken, Jones seized on early reports naming Alexandre Bissonnette and Mohamed el Khadir as suspects in the attack that left six dead. The police have since said that Khadir was actually a witness, and named Bissonnette, who was known for having far-right views, as the sole suspect. Conservative media outlets and the Trump administration, however, seized on the early and since retracted reports to stoke anti-Muslim sentiment.

Jones and Bracken appeared to quickly jump to the conclusion that Khadir was mastermind of the attack and that he used Bissonnette as a patsy.

Jones, who claimed that “Muslims are leading, in this country, an insurrection” through the protests against President Trump’s ban on refugees and people from several predominantly Muslim countries, called the Quebec City attack “jihadis killing other Muslims.” He also wondered if George Soros was involved in the attack in an attempt to rile up anti-Trump demonstrators.

“If you’re going to run a false flag against Muslims, you obviously have Muslims do it,” he said.

Bracken concluded that the mosque attack was “a fubar false flag operation” because Khadir and Bissonnette were arrested. He said Bissonnette possibly converted to Islam in secret while Khadir set him up as “the patsy, the white guy found at the scene.”

While Jones’ claims are often conspiratorial and bizarre, he has found a fan and supporter in Trump.

..odd fellow.

 reds8n wrote:
...I wonder what his focus will be eh ?

Less education, more Jesus, more profit for the owners of for-profit schools.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

While Jones’ claims are often conspiratorial and bizarre, he has found a fan and supporter in Trump.

And this says it all, really. God help us...

 Frazzled wrote:

You can't make technological progress illegal. You're not putting the automation genie back in the bottle.

Inquisitor Bob from the Imperium of Man would like to have a word with you. Would you like your brain encased in a blue servitor model or a red servitor model?...

The thinking machines are bad, we may have to have a worm infested godemperor save us..on a desert planet :(

 wuestenfux wrote:

Sentinel1 wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Come on guys, in the States people are upset about Trump's EO against migration from rogue states.
And here in Germany there was a police raid against the islamistic scene with 1,100 police men this night.

I think the problem with Muslimaphobia will be much worse in Germany than the US, since Angry Merkle opened the countries borders to everyone, now the state police are over paranoid about hunting potential terrorists down to protect people. I know it hasn't helped with the Christmas market attack, but if a terrorist wants to get into a country they will find a way, no matter what. If I may pose a hypothetical question, the E.O plan was drawn up by the Obama administration. If Obama or say Clinton had given it the go ahead, would we still see the same levels of opposition?

I think we see an overreaction of Americans who haven't voted for Trump.
The Trump administration should be given at least 100 days.

Why? Bad orders don't become bad orders because days pass.

You give feedback right away. They do right, you let them know. They do wrong, you let them know. Doesn't matter what relation there is. 99 good thing and 1 bad thing doesn't excuse them for the 1 bad thing. They need to be told it's bad.

That's how democracy is supposed to work. Not politicians having blanket right to do anything and you are supposed to just accept it.

Bad decisions can and should be given feedback RIGTH AWAY. Similarly good decisions need to be given appropriate feedback as well.

Simple as that.

If there's only critics about Trump's decision that's because he keeps making bad decisions.

 sebster wrote:
[
Obamacare was passed 6 years ago, in Obama's first term. Not within the last 4 years. And saying you don't like it because its expensive makes no sense - it was passed as a zero cost bill - revenues from taxes on high end plans and cost savings offset the cost of subsidies on new plans. To individual consumers ACA has coincided with much reduced premium increases.

Um....yeah, it was supposed to be a zero cost bill, but isn't there a massive build-up of debt in the not too distant future? Also, I don't have a high-end policy (Wellmark Blue Cross Blue Shield), and I still have seen an 86% increase in my premiums in the last 5 years, with a raise in deductibles, all while having ZERO claims. One of my employees also has stated that yes, he now has health care, but it's virtually useless. The cost and deductibles he has means it would only ever be better than nothing if he was in some kind of major life-threatening and prolonged injury.

 Zywus wrote:
I think many of us didn't expect this actually. He is doing what he said he would, but personally I assumed that most of his outlandish claims were just bluster and cynical bs to pander to those wanting to hear it. It seems as if Trump actually believe he things he said during the campaign . Which is probably more frightening than if he'd just said crazy gak he knew was crazy. I prefer a cynical liar to someone who believes his own fantasies.

I agree that it's ridiculous to demand some 100 days or 1 year honeymoon though. Trump is doing what he said he would. People called him out on those things being stupid before he did them, and there's no reason to stop once they've started to transform into actions.

Nah he doesn't neccessarily believe them. He's ego narsistic. He does whatever it does to boost his ego and wealth and that means lying without issues.

He knew Mexico won't pay the wall. He doesn't care. He just wants to boost his ego. He knows he won't bring production back because it's not possible. He just wanted to get into power and says whatever he thinks gets him there.

tneva82 wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
I think many of us didn't expect this actually. He is doing what he said he would, but personally I assumed that most of his outlandish claims were just bluster and cynical bs to pander to those wanting to hear it. It seems as if Trump actually believe he things he said during the campaign . Which is probably more frightening than if he'd just said crazy gak he knew was crazy. I prefer a cynical liar to someone who believes his own fantasies.

I agree that it's ridiculous to demand some 100 days or 1 year honeymoon though. Trump is doing what he said he would. People called him out on those things being stupid before he did them, and there's no reason to stop once they've started to transform into actions.

Nah he doesn't neccessarily believe them. He's ego narsistic. He does whatever it does to boost his ego and wealth and that means lying without issues.

He knew Mexico won't pay the wall. He doesn't care. He just wants to boost his ego. He knows he won't bring production back because it's not possible. He just wanted to get into power and says whatever he thinks gets him there.

I don't see such a problem with the whole 'wall issue'. The fact is it was already being built in certain places by previous administrations. It makes sense to link it up, 1) to justify money spent, 2)as a moral boost, 3) employment and prosperity of building contractors, 4) to serve as a border protection service. Of course you could argue well people could climb over or dig under it, but it would be a better use of public money than night time patrols over large areas that have a hit and miss chance of catching anyone. It will if anything make it harder for the illegal drug trade to ruin peoples lives, and to a lesser extent those dubious characters that won't get a visa. So I think the wall is a good thing.

As for Mexico paying for it, It will cost a lot of money and anyway of getting some is understandable. I imagine this is a jibe at the Ford company wanting to build the Focus cheaper cross border and then re-import it. Personally I have a problem with companies doing this from any nation. They should have a moral obligation to stay where they are based, as over time little by little the draw of build cheaper overseas and re-import takes hold. What you are left with is designed in X home country but manufactured elsewhere.

Never mind the cost or dubious use, the environmental impact will be huge. Animals don't respect boarders and the impact will be huge, whilst migrants and smugglers will just find other ways round. Either using the sea, or air, or the same old just going through the checkpoints.

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/57/1/96/224718/The-Environmental-Impacts-of-a-Border-Fence.

The patrols will still happen, as they do currently on the stretches that exist. The wall will make no difference, whilst having a huge environmental and economic cost.

Sentinel1 wrote:

I don't see such a problem with the whole 'wall issue'. The fact is it was already being built in certain places by previous administrations. It makes sense to link it up, 1) to justify money spent, 2)as a moral boost, 3) employment and prosperity of building contractors, 4) to serve as a border protection service. Of course you could argue well people could climb over or dig under it, but it would be a better use of public money than night time patrols over large areas that have a hit and miss chance of catching anyone. It will if anything make it harder for the illegal drug trade to ruin peoples lives, and to a lesser extent those dubious characters that won't get a visa. So I think the wall is a good thing.

As for Mexico paying for it, It will cost a lot of money and anyway of getting some is understandable. I imagine this is a jibe at the Ford company wanting to build the Focus cheaper cross border and then re-import it. Personally I have a problem with companies doing this from any nation. They should have a moral obligation to stay where they are based, as over time little by little the draw of build cheaper overseas and re-import takes hold. What you are left with is designed in X home country but manufactured elsewhere.

It's billions paid by US poor&middle class. This will result in less spending which in turn will result less works. It archieves nothing but boost Trump's ego. Which is his goal. He doesn't care about good of US. He cares his ego and US can go to hell.

And Mexico won't be paying. That's the point. Bill will be paid by US citizens. Specifically poor&middle class. While accomplishing nothing but help Trump's ego.

And FYI wall doesn't help with jobs moving elsewhere. In fact effect for work in US will be negative since spending goes down due to poor&middle class in US having less money to spend which will result layovers which hurts poor&middle class more.

Oh and the patrols? They will stay too so no help there either. Wall without patrols is useless. Wall without patrols worked in china wall because china wall was built to stop herds. That's not applicable here...

 BigWaaagh wrote:
All I know is that this kind of gak didn't happen under Obama's administration. This is just wrong.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/hooters-is-hiring-male-servers-at-its-new-restaurant-but-theres-a-catch/ar-AAmtly1?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=ASUDHP

That's fething commie bs!

 Peregrine wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
...I wonder what his focus will be eh ?

Less education, more Jesus, more profit for the owners of for-profit schools.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

While Jones’ claims are often conspiratorial and bizarre, he has found a fan and supporter in Trump.

And this says it all, really. God help us...

Please no, I think enough evil has been done under the guise of religion no matter the faction.

http://www.americaisachristiannation.com