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.
Serious question: has Trump condemned anti-semitism on Twitter yet?
For me, nothing he says to reporters and nothing he says in a speech means jack unless he backs it up on Twitter. His alt-right followers live and breathe on Twitter and I don't think they will take anything he tells the media seriously. Unless he takes the message to them, on their platform, on the platform where he is the real Trump, it's meaningless to me.
I'm not sure praising a fallen soldier on camera for the audience is all that brave or interesting; in the US that is a simple way to get people to cheer; caring about the military is fine but it has lead to all sorts of pandering as well. Maybe I'm overly cynical but that part felt produced to elicit a response more than being an honest heart felt moment.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/01 19:03:51
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Ahtman wrote: I'm not sure praising a fallen soldier on camera for the audience is all that brave or interesting; in the US that is a simple way to get people to cheer; caring about the military is fine but it has lead to all sorts of pandering as well. Maybe I'm overly cynical but that part felt produced to elicit a response more than being an honest heart felt moment.
"Cheap pops" as it would be called in the wrassllin' business.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/01 19:05:24
So, he took a more toned down style, but let's look at what he was proposing:
Sweeping changes to US policies on tax, trade, and immigration
$1 billion increase in infrastructure funding
??? additional billions on defense spending
Travel ban 2.0
He continues to accuse immigrants of lowering wages and increasing crime (neither of which is supported by facts). His "merit based" system ignores that the reason we have undocumented menial labor is because of the raw demand. It also seems to overlook the fact that increasing skilled labor immigration probably won't do wonders for domestic wages.
He continues to call for a repeal of Obamacare, an effort that has stalled because of Republican inability to come up with a replacement. He offered no alternative, just a call for more accessibility, coverage and affordability.
He advocated "tax reform", but again, other than broad condemnations of "loopholes" and the like (that he, no doubt, never exploited....), no real substance.
He continues the theme that he inherited a mess from Obama (ignoring the collapse Obama dealt with and subsequent recovery), but still offers no solutions or coherent plan.
So we have a speech where the president managed to not throw a tantrum, but is still woefully behind on coherent policies and continues to advance a wrongheaded nativist narrative.
Ahtman wrote: I'm not sure praising a fallen soldier on camera for the audience is all that brave or interesting; in the US that is a simple way to get people to cheer; caring about the military is fine but it has lead to all sorts of pandering as well. Maybe I'm overly cynical but that part felt produced to elicit a response more than being an honest heart felt moment.
while I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment and find it often ham-fistedly tacky and pandering, it's also not unique to Trump, it's a routine feature of the political game sadly, so it's hard to ding Trump specifically on that over his rivals and previous administrations.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
I'll be frank, I don't pay attention to speeches most of the time. They are irrelevant unless its historic deal.
So far its all hat and no cattle. Lets see.
His "merit based" system ignores that the reason we have undocumented menial labor is because of the raw demand. It also seems to overlook the fact that increasing skilled labor immigration probably won't do wonders for domestic wages.
I heard a bit of that on BBC. Sounds great. Lets see what he does. The 1% like open borders because it keeps day laborer wages down which is great for them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/01 19:28:20
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
jmurph wrote: So, he took a more toned down style, but let's look at what he was proposing:
Sweeping changes to US policies on tax, trade, and immigration
$1 billion increase in infrastructure funding
??? additional billions on defense spending
Travel ban 2.0
He's calling for 1$ Trillion... not billion in infrastructure spending. (egads!)
He continues to accuse immigrants of lowering wages and increasing crime (neither of which is supported by facts). His "merit based" system ignores that the reason we have undocumented menial labor is because of the raw demand. It also seems to overlook the fact that increasing skilled labor immigration probably won't do wonders for domestic wages.
Merit based system simply means that a prospective immigrant is "scored" against a litany of skilled needs.
He continues to call for a repeal of Obamacare, an effort that has stalled because of Republican inability to come up with a replacement. He offered no alternative, just a call for more accessibility, coverage and affordability.
This is his *push* for Congress to get their gak in order...
The old Tea Party community is ramping up this spring to pressure their Congressional critters.
He advocated "tax reform", but again, other than broad condemnations of "loopholes" and the like (that he, no doubt, never exploited....), no real substance.
meh... every gawdamn President does this...
He continues the theme that he inherited a mess from Obama (ignoring the collapse Obama dealt with and subsequent recovery), but still offers no solutions or coherent plan.
That's like, the most Presidential thing there... ALWAYS.BLAME.THEIR.PREDECESSOR!
So we have a speech where the president managed to not throw a tantrum, but is still woefully behind on coherent policies and continues to advance a wrongheaded nativist narrative.
Could be.
But, then again, these speech almost NEVER contain specifics... only a chance to explain a President's broad vision. In that sense... I think he did okay.
jmurph wrote: So, he took a more toned down style, but let's look at what he was proposing:
Sweeping changes to US policies on tax, trade, and immigration
$1 billion increase in infrastructure funding
??? additional billions on defense spending
Travel ban 2.0
He continues to accuse immigrants of lowering wages and increasing crime (neither of which is supported by facts). His "merit based" system ignores that the reason we have undocumented menial labor is because of the raw demand. It also seems to overlook the fact that increasing skilled labor immigration probably won't do wonders for domestic wages.
He continues to call for a repeal of Obamacare, an effort that has stalled because of Republican inability to come up with a replacement. He offered no alternative, just a call for more accessibility, coverage and affordability.
He advocated "tax reform", but again, other than broad condemnations of "loopholes" and the like (that he, no doubt, never exploited....), no real substance.
He continues the theme that he inherited a mess from Obama (ignoring the collapse Obama dealt with and subsequent recovery), but still offers no solutions or coherent plan.
So we have a speech where the president managed to not throw a tantrum, but is still woefully behind on coherent policies and continues to advance a wrongheaded nativist narrative.
All this is true, but as the BBC correspondents pointed out, it was refreshing to see him not being his usual Twitter-shrieking gak gibbon.
jmurph wrote: So, he took a more toned down style, but let's look at what he was proposing:
Sweeping changes to US policies on tax, trade, and immigration
$1 billion increase in infrastructure funding
??? additional billions on defense spending
Travel ban 2.0
He continues to accuse immigrants of lowering wages and increasing crime (neither of which is supported by facts). His "merit based" system ignores that the reason we have undocumented menial labor is because of the raw demand. It also seems to overlook the fact that increasing skilled labor immigration probably won't do wonders for domestic wages.
He continues to call for a repeal of Obamacare, an effort that has stalled because of Republican inability to come up with a replacement. He offered no alternative, just a call for more accessibility, coverage and affordability.
He advocated "tax reform", but again, other than broad condemnations of "loopholes" and the like (that he, no doubt, never exploited....), no real substance.
He continues the theme that he inherited a mess from Obama (ignoring the collapse Obama dealt with and subsequent recovery), but still offers no solutions or coherent plan.
So we have a speech where the president managed to not throw a tantrum, but is still woefully behind on coherent policies and continues to advance a wrongheaded nativist narrative.
Presidents have been scapegoating illegal immigration as a wage destroying resource sucking boogey man for as long as I've been old enough to pay attention to politics. Yet we keep using the same protectionist domestic labor policies and ignoring the illegal immigration because everyone involved benefits from it. Laborers get wages, companies save money, developers save money, municipalities make money off of it. The only losers are legal laborers who are required by Federal law to be 30% or so more expensive than illegal labor.
d-usa wrote: Serious question: has Trump condemned anti-semitism on Twitter yet?
For me, nothing he says to reporters and nothing he says in a speech means jack unless he backs it up on Twitter. His alt-right followers live and breathe on Twitter and I don't think they will take anything he tells the media seriously. Unless he takes the message to them, on their platform, on the platform where he is the real Trump, it's meaningless to me.
So condemning antisemitism in the address to Congress is not enough?
Guys, Trump condemned antisemitism in front of Congress and to the nation, but he hasn't done it to my satisfaction on Twitter so it isn't enough.
jmurph wrote: So, he took a more toned down style, but let's look at what he was proposing:
Sweeping changes to US policies on tax, trade, and immigration
$1 billion increase in infrastructure funding
??? additional billions on defense spending
Travel ban 2.0
He continues to accuse immigrants of lowering wages and increasing crime (neither of which is supported by facts). His "merit based" system ignores that the reason we have undocumented menial labor is because of the raw demand. It also seems to overlook the fact that increasing skilled labor immigration probably won't do wonders for domestic wages.
He continues to call for a repeal of Obamacare, an effort that has stalled because of Republican inability to come up with a replacement. He offered no alternative, just a call for more accessibility, coverage and affordability.
He advocated "tax reform", but again, other than broad condemnations of "loopholes" and the like (that he, no doubt, never exploited....), no real substance.
He continues the theme that he inherited a mess from Obama (ignoring the collapse Obama dealt with and subsequent recovery), but still offers no solutions or coherent plan.
Oh, I would say that blaming immigrants for economic conditions goes way back. Check out the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. Then there is also the Immigration Act of 1914. And Hoover blamed Mexicans for taking jobs. Between 1929 and 1936, as many as 2 million were "repatriated" to Mexico- including US citizens.
The only thing impressive about the speech was its coherence (something thus far lacking in post-election Trump). He's obviously picked back up a serious speech writing team.
Beyond that though he's still bat gak crazy. If there is any false flag going on, it's the false flag of massively lowering expectations so he can come out with something more generically crazy Republican and look like a genius XD
Which in reference to an earlier comment, is probably the most Bannon thing to happen in the presidency thus far
Automatically Appended Next Post: Apparently one of my professors (who teaches Immigration history) has written to the New York Times to "correct numerous errors" in Trump's speech XD
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/01 23:47:14
jmurph wrote: Oh, I would say that blaming immigrants for economic conditions goes way back. Check out the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. Then there is also the Immigration Act of 1914. And Hoover blamed Mexicans for taking jobs. Between 1929 and 1936, as many as 2 million were "repatriated" to Mexico- including US citizens.
We've been blaming immigrants for our problems ever since the second boat.
First Scapegoat; All these damn Indentured Servants are coming over here and free loading after paying their contract! Lets just get a labor force that doesn't get to be free *que slaves*
First Scapegoat; All these damn Indentured Servants are coming over here and free loading after paying their contract! Lets just get a labor force that doesn't get to be free *que slaves*
Well, in some areas it was more like "all these indentured servants keep fething dying before their time is up... I need labor that won't die so damn quick"
By the way, can we talk about the "VOICE" bs? It seems to me stoking the flames of anti-immigrant sentiment than anything useful (and in light of the Kansas attack, is not a good thing).
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Co'tor Shas wrote: By the way, can we talk about the "VOICE" bs? It seems to me stoking the flames of anti-immigrant sentiment than anything useful (and in light of the Kansas attack, is not a good thing).
Co'tor Shas wrote: By the way, can we talk about the "VOICE" bs? It seems to me stoking the flames of anti-immigrant sentiment than anything useful (and in light of the Kansas attack, is not a good thing).
The what?
Trump wants to make a new agency, the "Victims Of Immigration Crime Engagement". That is apparently going to go after the wave of immigrants breaking laws.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Co'tor Shas wrote: By the way, can we talk about the "VOICE" bs? It seems to me stoking the flames of anti-immigrant sentiment than anything useful (and in light of the Kansas attack, is not a good thing).
The what?
Trump wants to make a new agency, the "Victims Of Immigration Crime Engagement". That is apparently going to go after the wave of immigrants breaking laws.
Ahh... yeah I see that happening as well as Obama closing Gitmo.
Would he not be able to set it up? I'm not amazingly well knowledge on the exact powers of the executive, but aren't they allowed to create federal agencies?
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Would he not be able to set it up? I'm not amazingly well knowledge on the exact powers of the executive, but aren't they allowed to create federal agencies?
Takes working with Congress, as they've gotta approve the budget for it and everything.
jasper76 wrote: And black people preferred her to Bernie Sanders. Alot of folks don't seem willing to take that into account.
Thats the part that really blew me away. Bernie as much as I hated him is pretty much legit when it comes to civil and black rights. He put his body where his mouth was.
First Scapegoat; All these damn Indentured Servants are coming over here and free loading after paying their contract! Lets just get a labor force that doesn't get to be free *que slaves*
Well the second boat to Jamestown brought immigrants that exasperated the famine issue, so it's about as true as a semi-humorous statement gets without taking it in the completely literal sense!
Rosebuddy wrote: No, the rational thing would be to vote for someone who does represent you or to not vote at all. The latter is what Clinton had trouble with.
^This.... right here.
^That... right there only makes sense if people can lay some kind of policy differences between Obama and Clinton. We've never seen such a list for the simple reason that no such list exists. Clinton was a continuation of Obama.
So the question becomes why did people feel the luxury to dismiss Clinton because she wasn't everything they needed, while they fell behind Obama despite him missing their ideal candidate positions in all the same ways. And there the answer is simple - because in 2008 people had just experienced 8 years of a Republican in the Whitehouse, and damn near anything will do to replace that. In 2016 they'd just had a Democrat in the Whitehouse for 8 years, and that was long enough for a lot of them to get a bit restless and start demanding unicorns and free ice cream, because they'd forgotten about what a Republican in the Whitehouse meant.
When a federal agency develops one or more areas of incompetence, you reform that federal agency. It's kind of telling you treat that as this challenging question that maybe doesn't even have an answer, when the answer is direct and obvious. Reform the agency. Because it's also the same answer when a state agency develops some incompetencies, or even when a private company develops incompetencies - you reform to improve capacity and competency.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/02 04:57:20
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
d-usa wrote: Serious question: has Trump condemned anti-semitism on Twitter yet?
For me, nothing he says to reporters and nothing he says in a speech means jack unless he backs it up on Twitter. His alt-right followers live and breathe on Twitter and I don't think they will take anything he tells the media seriously. Unless he takes the message to them, on their platform, on the platform where he is the real Trump, it's meaningless to me.
So condemning antisemitism in the address to Congress is not enough?
Guys, Trump condemned antisemitism in front of Congress and to the nation, but he hasn't done it to my satisfaction on Twitter so it isn't enough.
