|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Trump let Ivanka sit in on a meeting with a foreign leader, even though she is going to be CEO of his companies. Imagine the outrage from Trump supporters and Breitbart if Hillary won the election and, during her transition, let Chelsea sit in on a meeting with a foreign leader, even though Chelsea was about to take over the Clinton Foundation.
|
On November 19 2016 04:12 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 02:29 Doodsmack wrote:
And yes, alt right white nationalism is at the core of Trump's support, and perhaps policy, considering the position of Bannon. Bannon's stated world view is one of protecting the supremacy of Judeo-Christian culture. Protecting the right to life, liberty and property, the non-agression principle, free speech, separation of church and state, equality against the law, due process and innocent until proven guilty, small government (or at least not HUGE government). Yes, those are the values many Trump supporters voted for. I like them as well, and consider them superior to other cultures. It's about values, not race, by the way.
How do you reconcile liberty while restricting the free movement of people? The right to walk, live and work where you want is falls under freedom as well yet Trump (and his supporters) want to restrict it.
|
On November 19 2016 05:06 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 04:12 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 19 2016 02:29 Doodsmack wrote:
And yes, alt right white nationalism is at the core of Trump's support, and perhaps policy, considering the position of Bannon. Bannon's stated world view is one of protecting the supremacy of Judeo-Christian culture. Protecting the right to life, liberty and property, the non-agression principle, free speech, separation of church and state, equality against the law, due process and innocent until proven guilty, small government (or at least not HUGE government). Yes, those are the values many Trump supporters voted for. I like them as well, and consider them superior to other cultures. It's about values, not race, by the way. How do you reconcile liberty while restricting the free movement of people? The right to walk, live and work where you want is falls under freedom as well yet Trump (and his supporters) want to restrict it.
Because we're not looking to guarantee the liberty of everyone globally.
|
On November 19 2016 04:57 Doodsmack wrote:
Trump let Ivanka sit in on a meeting with a foreign leader, even though she is going to be CEO of his companies. Imagine the outrage from Trump supporters and Breitbart if Hillary won the election and, during her transition, let Chelsea sit in on a meeting with a foreign leader, even though Chelsea was about to take over the Clinton Foundation.
It's simple the Trumps are going to try and use their companies to get ahead of deals in trade etc. It will probably be a reason the GOP could use to impeach him if something very bad comes to light before the midterms.
|
Chances are that Trump will get impeached and Pence will become the president.
User was warned for this post
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 19 2016 05:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 04:57 Doodsmack wrote:
Trump let Ivanka sit in on a meeting with a foreign leader, even though she is going to be CEO of his companies. Imagine the outrage from Trump supporters and Breitbart if Hillary won the election and, during her transition, let Chelsea sit in on a meeting with a foreign leader, even though Chelsea was about to take over the Clinton Foundation. It's simple the Trumps are going to try and use their companies to get ahead of deals in trade etc. It will probably be a reason the GOP could use to impeach him if something vbery bad comes to light before the midterms.
That might happen if this continues. The Clinton Foundation's ability to solicit foreign donations and Hillary at the Secretary of the State is already the model of potential backroom quid pro quo dealings that look massively fishy even if nothing can be proven.
|
On November 19 2016 05:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 05:06 RvB wrote:On November 19 2016 04:12 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 19 2016 02:29 Doodsmack wrote:
And yes, alt right white nationalism is at the core of Trump's support, and perhaps policy, considering the position of Bannon. Bannon's stated world view is one of protecting the supremacy of Judeo-Christian culture. Protecting the right to life, liberty and property, the non-agression principle, free speech, separation of church and state, equality against the law, due process and innocent until proven guilty, small government (or at least not HUGE government). Yes, those are the values many Trump supporters voted for. I like them as well, and consider them superior to other cultures. It's about values, not race, by the way. How do you reconcile liberty while restricting the free movement of people? The right to walk, live and work where you want is falls under freedom as well yet Trump (and his supporters) want to restrict it. Because we're not looking to guarantee the liberty of everyone globally.
This bothers me. You're for equality and liberty untill your borders. Equality is supposed to be for all people not just for the people who live on one side of an arbitrary line on the map. I can imagine some immigration controls for pragmatic reasons but that's it.If you're truely for liberty that is.
|
On November 19 2016 05:18 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 05:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 05:06 RvB wrote:On November 19 2016 04:12 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 19 2016 02:29 Doodsmack wrote:
And yes, alt right white nationalism is at the core of Trump's support, and perhaps policy, considering the position of Bannon. Bannon's stated world view is one of protecting the supremacy of Judeo-Christian culture. Protecting the right to life, liberty and property, the non-agression principle, free speech, separation of church and state, equality against the law, due process and innocent until proven guilty, small government (or at least not HUGE government). Yes, those are the values many Trump supporters voted for. I like them as well, and consider them superior to other cultures. It's about values, not race, by the way. How do you reconcile liberty while restricting the free movement of people? The right to walk, live and work where you want is falls under freedom as well yet Trump (and his supporters) want to restrict it. Because we're not looking to guarantee the liberty of everyone globally. This bothers me. You're for equality and liberty untill your borders. Equality is supposed to be for all people not just for the people who live on one side of an arbitrary line on the map. I can imagine some immigration controls for pragmatic reasons but that's it.If you're truely for liberty that is.
Why does simple pragmatism bother you? Yeah, in a perfect world, people could freely move to where they please with little consequence to their host societies. That's not the reality that we live in.
|
On November 19 2016 05:18 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 05:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 05:06 RvB wrote:On November 19 2016 04:12 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 19 2016 02:29 Doodsmack wrote:
And yes, alt right white nationalism is at the core of Trump's support, and perhaps policy, considering the position of Bannon. Bannon's stated world view is one of protecting the supremacy of Judeo-Christian culture. Protecting the right to life, liberty and property, the non-agression principle, free speech, separation of church and state, equality against the law, due process and innocent until proven guilty, small government (or at least not HUGE government). Yes, those are the values many Trump supporters voted for. I like them as well, and consider them superior to other cultures. It's about values, not race, by the way. How do you reconcile liberty while restricting the free movement of people? The right to walk, live and work where you want is falls under freedom as well yet Trump (and his supporters) want to restrict it. Because we're not looking to guarantee the liberty of everyone globally. This bothers me. You're for equality and liberty untill your borders. Equality is supposed to be for all people not just for the people who live on one side of an arbitrary line on the map. I can imagine some immigration controls for pragmatic reasons but that's it.If you're truely for liberty that is.
That arbitrary line on the map is where the administrative authority of our leaders ends. It's the job of the president and all other politicians to act in the best interests of those who reside within that arbitrary line on the map. Humanitarianism is a goal that can be good, yet it really isn't the job of the president or his staff to help those people. They have their own leadership that should be looking out for their interests.
|
Barack Obama’s administration has ruled out drilling for oil and gas in the pristine Arctic Ocean, throwing up a last-ditch barrier to the pro-fossil fuels agenda of incoming president Donald Trump.
The US Department of the Interior said that the “fragile and unique” Arctic ecosystem would face “significant risks” if drilling were allowed in the Chukchi or Beaufort Seas, which lie off Alaska. It added that the high costs of exploration, combined with a low oil price, would probably deter fossil fuel companies anyway.
“The plan focuses lease sales in the best places – those with the highest resource potential, lowest conflict, and established infrastructure – and removes regions that are simply not right to lease,” said the interior secretary, Sally Jewell.
“Given the unique and challenging Arctic environment and industry’s declining interest in the area, forgoing lease sales in the Arctic is the right path forward.”
The move, announced as part of the federal government’s land and ocean leasing program that will run from 2017 to 2022, has been cheered by environmentalists who called for the Arctic to be put off limits for drilling to help slow climate change and avoid a catastrophic oil spill.
“Today’s announcement demonstrates a commitment to prioritizing common sense, economics and science ahead of industry favoritism and politics as usual,” said Jacqueline Savitz, Oceana’s senior vice-president for the United States.
“The decades-long push to drill in the Arctic has put this unique and diverse ecosystem at risk, cost tens of billions of dollars and created significant controversy without providing the promised benefits. We now have the opportunity to put the old arguments behind us and work together toward a sustainable future for the Arctic region.”
The removal of the Arctic Ocean from federal leasing runs contrary to Trump’s vow to “lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks” to large fossil fuel projects and throw open vast areas of land and water to drilling. But even if Trump reverses the Arctic ban, the economics are still unfavorable for offshore drilling in the region.
Shell spent more than $7bn on its attempt to exploit oil and gas reserves in the Arctic after being allowed to do so by the US government despite a high predicted risk of an oil spill in the frigid ecosystem. The Anglo-Dutch company abandoned its drilling operation in September last year, having faced huge costs and fierce opposition from green groups.
Source
|
On November 19 2016 04:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 04:11 Nebuchad wrote:On November 19 2016 03:56 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 03:54 Nebuchad wrote:On November 19 2016 03:40 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 03:39 Nebuchad wrote:On November 19 2016 03:21 LegalLord wrote:On November 19 2016 03:15 Nebuchad wrote:
Meh, fair enough, there are people like that in the thread. I wouldn't have thought that was enough to be a SJW honestly.
Perhaps if you expand the meaning too much, the word will lose its meaning x) Turning every issue into identity politics poisons the discussion more than most anything else, possibly even more so than assuming the other candidate is corrupt. People generally blame Trump for the poisonous nature of political discourse this time around but on the matter of identity politics you can find no candidate more culpable for that poison than Hillary Clinton. All right, so let's not turn every issue into identity politics. What would you say are legitimate issues for identity politics? The one special case that I'd consider would be policies for helping out the black community. Pretty sure you also advocated identity politics for rural communities recently, wouldn't you say? "Identity politics" refers to the Title VII classes (race, sex, religion, gender, etc). I wouldn't put rural interests into the same category. Is this another word with an american definition and a world definition? Title VII is the major federal anti-discrimination statute in the US that protects people on the basis of things like race, sex, color, religion, and national origin. So really what I'm saying is that "identity politics" is the appeal/pandering to people on the basis of their identity -- race, sex, religion, and sexual orientation -- as opposed to catering to economic interest groups like unions or farmers.
To be fair identity goes beyond rac, sex, gender etc and being a farmer or a small city person outside the major cities is also an identity. People can structure their sense of self based on multiple things and usually people do not strictly use the aforementioned as the only source when constructing their identity.
|
On November 19 2016 05:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Barack Obama’s administration has ruled out drilling for oil and gas in the pristine Arctic Ocean, throwing up a last-ditch barrier to the pro-fossil fuels agenda of incoming president Donald Trump.
The US Department of the Interior said that the “fragile and unique” Arctic ecosystem would face “significant risks” if drilling were allowed in the Chukchi or Beaufort Seas, which lie off Alaska. It added that the high costs of exploration, combined with a low oil price, would probably deter fossil fuel companies anyway.
“The plan focuses lease sales in the best places – those with the highest resource potential, lowest conflict, and established infrastructure – and removes regions that are simply not right to lease,” said the interior secretary, Sally Jewell.
“Given the unique and challenging Arctic environment and industry’s declining interest in the area, forgoing lease sales in the Arctic is the right path forward.”
The move, announced as part of the federal government’s land and ocean leasing program that will run from 2017 to 2022, has been cheered by environmentalists who called for the Arctic to be put off limits for drilling to help slow climate change and avoid a catastrophic oil spill.
“Today’s announcement demonstrates a commitment to prioritizing common sense, economics and science ahead of industry favoritism and politics as usual,” said Jacqueline Savitz, Oceana’s senior vice-president for the United States.
“The decades-long push to drill in the Arctic has put this unique and diverse ecosystem at risk, cost tens of billions of dollars and created significant controversy without providing the promised benefits. We now have the opportunity to put the old arguments behind us and work together toward a sustainable future for the Arctic region.”
The removal of the Arctic Ocean from federal leasing runs contrary to Trump’s vow to “lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks” to large fossil fuel projects and throw open vast areas of land and water to drilling. But even if Trump reverses the Arctic ban, the economics are still unfavorable for offshore drilling in the region.
Shell spent more than $7bn on its attempt to exploit oil and gas reserves in the Arctic after being allowed to do so by the US government despite a high predicted risk of an oil spill in the frigid ecosystem. The Anglo-Dutch company abandoned its drilling operation in September last year, having faced huge costs and fierce opposition from green groups. Source
Drilling in the Arctic is irrelevant now. We have virtually unlimited oil in the Bakken and Texas.
|
Because it's not simple pragmatism. Trump wants stricter immigration than there already is. His signature wall is also hardly pragmatic.
|
On November 19 2016 05:31 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 04:15 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 04:11 Nebuchad wrote:On November 19 2016 03:56 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 03:54 Nebuchad wrote:On November 19 2016 03:40 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 03:39 Nebuchad wrote:On November 19 2016 03:21 LegalLord wrote:On November 19 2016 03:15 Nebuchad wrote:
Meh, fair enough, there are people like that in the thread. I wouldn't have thought that was enough to be a SJW honestly.
Perhaps if you expand the meaning too much, the word will lose its meaning x) Turning every issue into identity politics poisons the discussion more than most anything else, possibly even more so than assuming the other candidate is corrupt. People generally blame Trump for the poisonous nature of political discourse this time around but on the matter of identity politics you can find no candidate more culpable for that poison than Hillary Clinton. All right, so let's not turn every issue into identity politics. What would you say are legitimate issues for identity politics? The one special case that I'd consider would be policies for helping out the black community. Pretty sure you also advocated identity politics for rural communities recently, wouldn't you say? "Identity politics" refers to the Title VII classes (race, sex, religion, gender, etc). I wouldn't put rural interests into the same category. Is this another word with an american definition and a world definition? Title VII is the major federal anti-discrimination statute in the US that protects people on the basis of things like race, sex, color, religion, and national origin. So really what I'm saying is that "identity politics" is the appeal/pandering to people on the basis of their identity -- race, sex, religion, and sexual orientation -- as opposed to catering to economic interest groups like unions or farmers. To be fair identity goes beyond rac, sex, gender etc and being a farmer or a small city person outside the major cities is also an identity. People can structure their sense of self based on multiple things and usually people do not strictly use the aforementioned as the only source when constructing their identity.
Yes, identity can go beyond the basic Title VII classes, but that's not how identity politics have really been used so far. It could happen in the future as we (fingers crossed) become more colorblind, but the discourse hasn't evolved to that point yet.
|
On November 19 2016 05:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 05:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Barack Obama’s administration has ruled out drilling for oil and gas in the pristine Arctic Ocean, throwing up a last-ditch barrier to the pro-fossil fuels agenda of incoming president Donald Trump.
The US Department of the Interior said that the “fragile and unique” Arctic ecosystem would face “significant risks” if drilling were allowed in the Chukchi or Beaufort Seas, which lie off Alaska. It added that the high costs of exploration, combined with a low oil price, would probably deter fossil fuel companies anyway.
“The plan focuses lease sales in the best places – those with the highest resource potential, lowest conflict, and established infrastructure – and removes regions that are simply not right to lease,” said the interior secretary, Sally Jewell.
“Given the unique and challenging Arctic environment and industry’s declining interest in the area, forgoing lease sales in the Arctic is the right path forward.”
The move, announced as part of the federal government’s land and ocean leasing program that will run from 2017 to 2022, has been cheered by environmentalists who called for the Arctic to be put off limits for drilling to help slow climate change and avoid a catastrophic oil spill.
“Today’s announcement demonstrates a commitment to prioritizing common sense, economics and science ahead of industry favoritism and politics as usual,” said Jacqueline Savitz, Oceana’s senior vice-president for the United States.
“The decades-long push to drill in the Arctic has put this unique and diverse ecosystem at risk, cost tens of billions of dollars and created significant controversy without providing the promised benefits. We now have the opportunity to put the old arguments behind us and work together toward a sustainable future for the Arctic region.”
The removal of the Arctic Ocean from federal leasing runs contrary to Trump’s vow to “lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks” to large fossil fuel projects and throw open vast areas of land and water to drilling. But even if Trump reverses the Arctic ban, the economics are still unfavorable for offshore drilling in the region.
Shell spent more than $7bn on its attempt to exploit oil and gas reserves in the Arctic after being allowed to do so by the US government despite a high predicted risk of an oil spill in the frigid ecosystem. The Anglo-Dutch company abandoned its drilling operation in September last year, having faced huge costs and fierce opposition from green groups. Source Drilling in the Arctic is irrelevant now. We have virtually unlimited oil in the Bakken and Texas.
Not to mention low prices that kind of kill a lot of the mood for oil drilling.
|
Canada8990 Posts
On November 19 2016 05:12 RealityIsKing wrote:
Chances are that Trump will get impeached and Pence will become the president.
I never understood that line of thinking, I mean unless Trump does some crazy shit and not just some conflict or interest stuff it would be a political sucide to impeach him.
The congress can't do it at the start of his mandate because it would be to soon after the election, if they do it in the second year of is mandate it would clash with the mid-term election and would hurt them a lot. And after that the time to go through all the process of impeachment and political transition would mean Pence would only have maximum a year in the white house before becoming a lame duck (Nixon impeachment took about 5 month between the start of the hearing and Nixon resinging, and about a year if you start at the time impeachment discussion started and Ford be comimg president)
And of course there is no way republican win the election after an impeachment. I think a contested republican primary is much more plausible.
|
On November 19 2016 05:30 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 05:18 RvB wrote:On November 19 2016 05:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 05:06 RvB wrote:On November 19 2016 04:12 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 19 2016 02:29 Doodsmack wrote:
And yes, alt right white nationalism is at the core of Trump's support, and perhaps policy, considering the position of Bannon. Bannon's stated world view is one of protecting the supremacy of Judeo-Christian culture. Protecting the right to life, liberty and property, the non-agression principle, free speech, separation of church and state, equality against the law, due process and innocent until proven guilty, small government (or at least not HUGE government). Yes, those are the values many Trump supporters voted for. I like them as well, and consider them superior to other cultures. It's about values, not race, by the way. How do you reconcile liberty while restricting the free movement of people? The right to walk, live and work where you want is falls under freedom as well yet Trump (and his supporters) want to restrict it. Because we're not looking to guarantee the liberty of everyone globally. This bothers me. You're for equality and liberty untill your borders. Equality is supposed to be for all people not just for the people who live on one side of an arbitrary line on the map. I can imagine some immigration controls for pragmatic reasons but that's it.If you're truely for liberty that is. That arbitrary line on the map is where the administrative authority of our leaders ends. It's the job of the president and all other politicians to act in the best interests of those who reside within that arbitrary line on the map. Humanitarianism is a goal that can be good, yet it really isn't the job of the president or his staff to help those people. They have their own leadership that should be looking out for their interests.
You're assuming that immigration is a negative for the locals. I disagree with that. Liberty and the free movement of people is both beneficial for residents and immigrants.
Anyway my question was more aimed at how he can personally reconcile Liberty and Trumps stance on immigration and not so much how politicians think about it.
|
On November 19 2016 05:47 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 05:30 LegalLord wrote:On November 19 2016 05:18 RvB wrote:On November 19 2016 05:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 05:06 RvB wrote:On November 19 2016 04:12 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 19 2016 02:29 Doodsmack wrote:
And yes, alt right white nationalism is at the core of Trump's support, and perhaps policy, considering the position of Bannon. Bannon's stated world view is one of protecting the supremacy of Judeo-Christian culture. Protecting the right to life, liberty and property, the non-agression principle, free speech, separation of church and state, equality against the law, due process and innocent until proven guilty, small government (or at least not HUGE government). Yes, those are the values many Trump supporters voted for. I like them as well, and consider them superior to other cultures. It's about values, not race, by the way. How do you reconcile liberty while restricting the free movement of people? The right to walk, live and work where you want is falls under freedom as well yet Trump (and his supporters) want to restrict it. Because we're not looking to guarantee the liberty of everyone globally. This bothers me. You're for equality and liberty untill your borders. Equality is supposed to be for all people not just for the people who live on one side of an arbitrary line on the map. I can imagine some immigration controls for pragmatic reasons but that's it.If you're truely for liberty that is. That arbitrary line on the map is where the administrative authority of our leaders ends. It's the job of the president and all other politicians to act in the best interests of those who reside within that arbitrary line on the map. Humanitarianism is a goal that can be good, yet it really isn't the job of the president or his staff to help those people. They have their own leadership that should be looking out for their interests. You're assuming that immigration is a negative for the locals. I disagree with that. Liberty and the free movement of people is both beneficial for residents and immigrants. Anyway my question was more aimed at how he can personally reconcile Liberty and Trumps stance on immigration and not so much how politicians think about it.
Bringing in the right types of immigrants is beneficial for the host society. Mass, uncontrolled immigration is not.
|
On November 19 2016 05:41 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 05:12 RealityIsKing wrote:
Chances are that Trump will get impeached and Pence will become the president. I never understood that line of thinking, I mean unless Trump does some crazy shit and not just some conflict or interest stuff it would be a political sucide to impeach him. The congress can't do it at the start of his mandate because it would be to soon after the election, if they do it in the second year of is mandate it would clash with the mid-term election and would hurt them a lot. And after that the time to go through all the process of impeachment and political transition would mean Pence would only have maximum a year in the white house before becoming a lame duck (Nixon impeachment took about 5 month between the start of the hearing and Nixon resinging, and about a year if you start at the time impeachment discussion started and Ford be comimg president) And of course there is no way republican win the election after an impeachment. I think a contested republican primary is much more plausible.
I give trump around 15% chance of being impeached at some point. I agree it's not so good for the republicans politically; so it'll only be done if he gets caught doing something sufficiently outrageous that it'd be more dangerous not to impeach him. Which, given trump's history, is certainly possible. Trump is also not the kind to resign in the face of an impeachment, even if the evidence against him is strong.
|
Canada13407 Posts
Its been about a week and he's already upended a number of democratic norms and he's doing a bunch of stuff he accused Clinton of doing - openly.
On top of this the white supremacist, islamophobic, and anti Semitic appointments are scary. I'm glad I'm in Canada, and I continue to hope that the elephant doesn't roll over on us.
I wonder how much he honestly could do without getting impeached. But even before that, I wonder how much he could do before the electoral college revolts. Its entire original purpose was to stop a complete idiot who gets voted in by the people to do any real damage. The question is whether its become a figurehead organization at this point though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
