|
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. |
On January 31 2017 21:16 Antyee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2017 21:07 nojok wrote:On January 31 2017 20:59 Antyee wrote:On January 31 2017 19:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 31 2017 15:36 xDaunt wrote:
Don't worry. If Trump turns into Hitler as all y'all on the left fear, I'll have no trouble voicing my opposition to him. Not only would I highly doubt that, but you don't seem to realize that the line of what most decent people find acceptable is not "Hitler". It's, for example, banning entire countries from entering the country even when we talk about people having a green card and being perfectly integrated in the american society, based only on racial and religious prejudices. But that's not the point. I think Trump would have to go extremely far in terms of abjection for you to voice any critics, based on your history in this thread. You know, people also said Hitler didn't really mean it, was refreshing and at least spoke the truth about that rotten establishment. He managed to convince a third of the germans, so if we were to transpose the situation, i would really to struggle to see you on the good side. People with green card can enter, they just get screened more strictly. But can we be sure they would have been allowed to enter if people did not react strongly to the fact they were not allowed to in the first place? We'll never know but the question is still in the air. It doesn't make his original statement true. Also, laws and such have always been lax. It's not a surprise that something rushed out without much forethought would need some clarification. Hanlon's razor in full swing.
Actually, Trump's executive order was initially clarified to apply to green card holders as well. The administration then changed course following the backlash that resulted.
|
On January 31 2017 21:36 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2017 21:16 Antyee wrote:On January 31 2017 21:07 nojok wrote:On January 31 2017 20:59 Antyee wrote:On January 31 2017 19:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 31 2017 15:36 xDaunt wrote:
Don't worry. If Trump turns into Hitler as all y'all on the left fear, I'll have no trouble voicing my opposition to him. Not only would I highly doubt that, but you don't seem to realize that the line of what most decent people find acceptable is not "Hitler". It's, for example, banning entire countries from entering the country even when we talk about people having a green card and being perfectly integrated in the american society, based only on racial and religious prejudices. But that's not the point. I think Trump would have to go extremely far in terms of abjection for you to voice any critics, based on your history in this thread. You know, people also said Hitler didn't really mean it, was refreshing and at least spoke the truth about that rotten establishment. He managed to convince a third of the germans, so if we were to transpose the situation, i would really to struggle to see you on the good side. People with green card can enter, they just get screened more strictly. But can we be sure they would have been allowed to enter if people did not react strongly to the fact they were not allowed to in the first place? We'll never know but the question is still in the air. It doesn't make his original statement true. Also, laws and such have always been lax. It's not a surprise that something rushed out without much forethought would need some clarification. Hanlon's razor in full swing. Actually, Trump's executive order was initially clarified to apply to green card holders as well. The administration then changed course following the backlash that resulted.
That article and the Reuters one both only say that an acting spokesperson of the DHS said in an e-mail that they would be barred, and that a senior White House official clarified that it's not the case. It's entirely possible that she just misspoke.
I failed to find any source that says that it got overturned, and wasn't just an issue if clarification. Reuter's summarizing article only mentions confusion, and nothing about backlash and changing course.
|
On January 31 2017 21:58 Antyee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 31 2017 21:36 kwizach wrote:On January 31 2017 21:16 Antyee wrote:On January 31 2017 21:07 nojok wrote:On January 31 2017 20:59 Antyee wrote:On January 31 2017 19:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 31 2017 15:36 xDaunt wrote:
Don't worry. If Trump turns into Hitler as all y'all on the left fear, I'll have no trouble voicing my opposition to him. Not only would I highly doubt that, but you don't seem to realize that the line of what most decent people find acceptable is not "Hitler". It's, for example, banning entire countries from entering the country even when we talk about people having a green card and being perfectly integrated in the american society, based only on racial and religious prejudices. But that's not the point. I think Trump would have to go extremely far in terms of abjection for you to voice any critics, based on your history in this thread. You know, people also said Hitler didn't really mean it, was refreshing and at least spoke the truth about that rotten establishment. He managed to convince a third of the germans, so if we were to transpose the situation, i would really to struggle to see you on the good side. People with green card can enter, they just get screened more strictly. But can we be sure they would have been allowed to enter if people did not react strongly to the fact they were not allowed to in the first place? We'll never know but the question is still in the air. It doesn't make his original statement true. Also, laws and such have always been lax. It's not a surprise that something rushed out without much forethought would need some clarification. Hanlon's razor in full swing. Actually, Trump's executive order was initially clarified to apply to green card holders as well. The administration then changed course following the backlash that resulted. That article and the Reuters one both only say that an acting spokesperson of the DHS said in an e-mail that they would be barred, and that a senior White House official clarified that it's not the case. It's entirely possible that she just misspoke. I failed to find any source that says that it got overturned, and wasn't just an issue if clarification. Reuter's summarizing article only mentions confusion, and nothing about backlash and changing course.
The issue of the inclusion of green card holders was apparently not settled clearly initially. The text of the executive order did not mention an exemption for green card holders, and the acting DHS spokeswoman, who obviously represents the administration, did clearly state it applied to green card holders. CNN also reported that even though the DHS initially "arrived at the legal interpretation that the executive order [...] did not apply to people with lawful permanent residence, generally referred to as green card holders", "[t]he White House overruled that guidance overnight, according to officials familiar with the rollout. That order came from the President's inner circle, led by Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon. Their decision held that, on a case by case basis, DHS could allow green card holders to enter the US." Priebus and Flynn then made their statements on the issue during the weekend, but all of these came after the initial backlash and the public calls to at least exempt lawful permanent residents from the ban.
It's clear that the people involved in the drafting of the order are very incompetent, but the matter of its application to green card holders can't simply be waived away as a clarification and communication issue since there were apparently some disagreements on the matter within the administration.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the eo originally specifically mentioned immigrant and nonimmigrant aliens, with lpr belonging to the former category.
|
And is there anything stopping him from revoking green cards down the line if he wants to get rid of those people after all?
|
On January 31 2017 23:18 ChristianS wrote:
And is there anything stopping him from revoking green cards down the line if he wants to get rid of those people after all?
Due Process constrains the unilateral rescission of already-granted interests like a Green Card, so if Trump goes does that road, he's going to be in the courts even more than we're already positing.
|
On January 31 2017 18:35 Liquid`Drone wrote:
We would pretty much all prefer Pence over Trump. The thing is, policy is not the only thing that matters, conduct also does. And while there are aspects of Pence's social conservationism that worry us, he at least pretends to be a decent human being, and social policy setbacks can be reversed. Trump threatens to permanently damage.
I just have to wonder xdaunt, seeing as how you favor confrontational retribution, what do you think the next leftist president is gonna be like? I mean, Trump is mobilizing leftists like never before - not even during invasion of Iraq did you see this type of unification. And the numbers game is pretty clear - there are more people leaning democrat, they've just been less likely to vote. Now that people see what a true disaster looks like, they're not gonna stay home. And as Trump isn't gonna succeed in helping out those disenfranchised groups who won him the election in terms of job growth, they might be the new group that stays home. The schadenfraude republicans you yourself identify with is a significant group for sure, but I don't think it's sufficient to win in 2018 or 2020.
And then looking at the (excellent) huffpo article danglars posted earlier, it seems unlikely that we're suddenly gonna go for a real unifying guy either, because tensions are increasing and the natural response to someone like Trump is not to attempt to find common ground, it is to vocally distance yourself in every way. Trump is sprinting towards the line where supporting him is gonna ostracize you - and don't you live in California?
It's just, I feel your attitude is mindblowingly short-sighted..
Regarding confrontational retribution, or an evening out of certain wrongs perpetrated during the Bush-Obama years, and not Drone particularly: It would help to have a bit of empathy to why Trump garnered support and why his conduct didn't shed enough voters for a loss. Your doppelganger that supported Trump with all the fury with which you now oppose him is still human and not some racist alien filled with hate. I constantly hear in this thread posters trashing his supporters, racist as they are, and claiming the man currently serving as President somehow is illegitimate in acting on what he campaigned on. To quote Obama, elections matter, the people have spoken. That's point one.
Regarding "policy is not the only thing that matters, conduct also does:" good conduct failed to get results ... indeed, good conduct got the same racist, sexist, homophobe, xenophobe comments most clearly seen in the McCain and Romney era. If you were sitting on the other side of the aisle, you'd see the same happen over and over again. What better way to demonstrate you only pay lip service to prioritizing good conduct than to undermine vibrant debate with the opposition at every turn? That rare HuffPo gem is good, both in its own right and because half the country doesn't understand why "those people" were driven to supporting Trump vs reluctantly supporting Clinton (or staying home) because Trump was untenable.+ Show Spoiler +Whether with President Trump, certain celebrity speakers at the Women’s March or disagreements with family or friends — each of us must decide how we respond to differences that offend us: Do we continue this game or change it? Louder shouts, more offensive language, more aggressive tactics are part of the current game that magnifies the conflict and escalates the arms race.
This is a second or third wake-up call for many insulated liberals. I read panicked posts that sound like an echo of real reasons you got Trump. What kind of behavior got him elected? Pretending sacking the AG was some bitter defiance move instead of the sad result of someone refusing to do their job but not resigning. I don't want to be unnecessarily harsh here: some people may actually not know how the executive branch works and what the job of the attorney general is.+ Show Spoiler +
Law Professor South Texas College of Law
I think he'll fail to deliver on growth in the long term because I disagree with his populist policies particularly on trade. But he's being buoyed by an outrage machine that doesn't know that green card fiascos get swallowed up by being equally outraged for a temporary halt in refugees and immigration from 7 countries (I'm saying the outrage itself. We can have civil disagreements whether they're the right countries or if 90/120 days is too long). Take a deep breath. Seek to understand why so much of America was forced to turn to a billionaire playboy that seems like such a cruel joke to you. Continued sky-is-falling hysterics will get you nowhere.
|
Suggestions that those opposed to Trump need to stop with the "sky-is-falling" hysterics are incredibly rich coming from Mr. "We live in a post-constitutional society". People like you have been crying wolf for years now, so drop the "everything is going to be alright" condescension.
|
On January 31 2017 23:37 farvacola wrote:
Suggestions that those opposed to Trump need to stop with the "sky-is-falling" hysterics are incredibly rich coming from Mr. "We live in a post-constitutional society". People like you have been crying wolf for years now, so drop the "everything is going to be alright" condescension.
The context for that one was Kwark talking about how the SC was the final arbiter of what was constitutional. Anybody else that shouts stuff like that on every street corner about every issue doesn't want to have a dialogue. Kind of like quoting sound bites out of two arguments and using it to trash the entire structure: why even post long if people only like sound bites?
|
|
|
Danglars
Profile Blog PM Joined August 2010
United States4897 Posts
Great post I have to admit,yet it still does not open peoples eyes as the first reaction proves. Everyone is dug in their trenches,it is no longer about what is right or wrong.
Trump failing to deliver the promised growth,that seems very likely. 4% I don't see how that is possible with the current demographics and a stop on immigration lol.
He could get there if inflation gets very high as well,say 4%+ . But then you still have zero effective growth. It would help serve the debt though,even with higher Interest rates. You just need to stay one step ahead.
Inflation will solve everything,except for the many people (baby boomers) starting to retire who have safed up money in their 401k,s. In the end the pie is only so big and it can be devided only once. The money/purchase power has to come from somewhere. Increase in productivity is very slow,that wont help unless there will be a major breakthrough like the internet which seems unlikely in the near future.
|
The hysteria that donald trump is going to become hitler is surprising since he has been campaigning on these topics for the last 2 years. You can actually thank HRC for the next 4-8 years, good or bad. She singlehandedly lead the democrats to this path here by being a terrible messenger to what could have been a decent message (minus the identity politics).
|
WHITE SUPREMACISTS AND other domestic extremists maintain an active presence in U.S. police departments and other law enforcement agencies. A striking reference to that conclusion, notable for its confidence and the policy prescriptions that accompany it, appears in a classified FBI Counterterrorism Policy Guide from April 2015, obtained by The Intercept. The guide, which details the process by which the FBI enters individuals on a terrorism watchlist, the Known or Suspected Terrorist File, notes that “domestic terrorism investigations focused on militia extremists, white supremacist extremists, and sovereign citizen extremists often have identified active links to law enforcement officers,” and explains in some detail how bureau policies have been crafted to take this infiltration into account.
Although these right-wing extremists have posed a growing threat for years, federal investigators have been reluctant to publicly address that threat or to point out the movement’s longstanding strategy of infiltrating the law enforcement community.
No centralized recruitment process or set of national standards exists for the 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States, many of which have deep historical connections to racist ideologies. As a result, state and local police as well as sheriff’s departments present ample opportunities for white supremacists and other right-wing extremists looking to expand their power base.
In a heavily redacted version of an October 2006 FBI internal intelligence assessment, the agency raised the alarm over white supremacist groups’ “historical” interest in “infiltrating law enforcement communities or recruiting law enforcement personnel.” The effort, the memo noted, “can lead to investigative breaches and can jeopardize the safety of law enforcement sources or personnel.” The memo also states that law enforcement had recently become aware of the term “ghost skins,” used among white supremacists to describe “those who avoid overt displays of their beliefs to blend into society and covertly advance white supremacist causes.” In at least one case, the FBI learned of a skinhead group encouraging ghost skins to seek employment with law enforcement agencies in order to warn crews of any investigations.
That report appeared after a series of scandals involving local police and sheriff’s departments. In Los Angeles, for example, a U.S. District Court judge found in 1991 that members of a local sheriff’s department had formed a neo-Nazi gang and habitually terrorized black and Latino residents. In Chicago, Jon Burge, a police detective and rumored KKK member, was fired, and eventually prosecuted in 2008, over charges relating to the torture of at least 120 black men during his decadeslong career. Burge notoriously referred to an electric shock device he used during interrogations as the “nigger box.” In Cleveland, officials found that a number of police officers had scrawled “racist or Nazi graffiti” throughout their department’s locker rooms. In Texas, two police officers were fired when it was discovered they were Klansmen. One of them said he had tried to boost the organization’s membership by giving an application to a fellow officer he thought shared his “white, Christian, heterosexual values.”
Although the FBI has not publicly addressed the issue of white supremacist infiltration of law enforcement since that 2006 report, in a 2015 speech, FBI Director James Comey made an unprecedented acknowledgment of the role historically played by law enforcement in communities of color: “All of us in law enforcement must be honest enough to acknowledge that much of our history is not pretty.” Comey and the agency have been less forthcoming about that history’s continuation into the present.
Source
|
+ Show Spoiler +On January 31 2017 23:53 pmh wrote:
Danglars
Profile Blog PM Joined August 2010
United States4897 Posts
Great post I have to admit,yet it still does not open peoples eyes as the first reaction proves. Everyone is dug in their trenches,it is no longer about what is right or wrong.
Trump failing to deliver the promised growth,that seems very likely. 4% I don't see how that is possible with the current demographics and a stop on immigration lol.
He could get there if inflation gets very high as well,say 4%+ . But then you still have zero effective growth. It would help serve the debt though,even with higher Interest rates. You just need to stay one step ahead.
Inflation will solve everything,except for the many people (baby boomers) starting to retire who have safed up money in their 401k,s. In the end the pie is only so big and it can be devided only once. The money/purchase power has to come from somewhere. Increase in productivity is very slow,that wont help unless there will be a major breakthrough like the internet which seems unlikely in the near future. I can only speculate that this will evolve into some hypocrisy line of reasoning. The jumble of economics and ideology reminds me of the great Occupy Wall Street thread by [UoN]Sentinel. + Show Spoiler +On September 19 2011 02:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +If you agree that freedom is the right to communicate, to live, to be, to go, to love, to do what you will without the impositions of others, then you might be one of us. This is how you know that the people behind this movement are emotionally stuck at 15. No impositions from others? That's a high school thing, sorry. The real world is all about dealing with impositions from others and getting your own impositions so you don't get rolled over. Because life is unfair. People are unfair. They don't need Wall Street or government to be unfair. They just will be at times, and you have to learn to deal with it. Show nested quote +If you agree that a person is entitled to the sweat of their brows, that being talented at management should not entitle others to act like overseers and overlords, that all workers should have the right to engage in decisions, democratically, then you might be one of us. Every commune system that has ever been tried has failed, so sorry, all workers should not have the right to engage in business decisions. The problem is here that "that being talented at management should not entitle..." is not what they are really against, being against (some) people acting like overseers and overlords is not worth making a political movement over as everyone is against jerk or exploitative bosses. They are against management period. Show nested quote +If you agree that state and corporation are merely two sides of the same oppressive power structure, if you realize how media distorts things to preserve it, how it pits the people against the people to remain in power, then you might be one of us. Put down the Primer Marxism handbook, Anonymous, and back away slowly. You're getting into ideas you definitely don't understand and being manipulated by older, smarter people than you. Show nested quote +If you agree that power is not right, that life trumps property, then you might be one of us. What's really funny is that most of the groups behind Occupy Wall Street are hardcore into a boot with a red star on it stamping into the face of mankind, forever. Power isn't right... unless we have it.
Super Bowl politics topical:
The End of Stick to Sports
Sportswriters have been awakened by Donald Trump’s presidency. Is that what their readers want?
Did you read sports Twitter over the weekend? Notice how your favorite sportswriters were blasting Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration like the protesters at JFK’s Terminal 4? As Trump goes, such resistance is becoming typical. For sportswriters, it could be a watershed. If there was a thin line between sportswriting and political advocacy, this weekend erased it forever. The era of “stick to sports” is over.
These days, when a Republican politician does something obnoxious or destructive, we expect them to be met by an advance guard of sportswriters like Craig Calcaterra, Dave Zirin, David Roth, and somebody from Deadspin. You know, the enforcer types.
But gaze at this (partial) list of writers and personalities who stuck pins into Trump over the weekend: Zach Lowe, Tim Kawakami, Pete Abraham, Charlotte Wilder, Greg Bedard, Pablo Torre, Howard Beck, Sarah Spain, Molly Knight, Stewart Mandel, Jemele Hill, Spencer Hall, Timothy Burke, Joe Vardon, and the proprietors of the MGoBlog. They cover different beats, have different corporate parents, live in different parts of the country, and come from different generations. None of them “stuck to sports.” When Bomani Jones begins to blend into the crowd, something about sportswriting has changed, and we have entered virgin territory.
On the one hand, what’s happening to sportswriters is that Trump is radicalizing them at the same rate he’s radicalizing everyone else. A moral crisis means Super Bowl predictions will have to wait. In October, Seth Davis — son of Clinton consigliere Lanny Davis — wrote on Facebook that he was no longer sticking to sports. “When I realized I was restraining myself for fear of losing Twitter followers, I felt like a hypocrite,” he said. Plenty of people have joined Davis in the breach, though he’s the only one I’ve seen using the hashtag #teamcivility.
Another factor is that Trump’s Tony Montana approach to the issues means he’s bound to touch sports frequently. Last week, Trump compared the ovation he got at CIA headquarters to the one Peyton Manning got for winning the Super Bowl. In a meeting with congressional leaders, Trump justified his obsession with “voter fraud” by telling a story (later revealed to be third-hand) that came from German golfer Bernhard Langer.
But the end of “stick to sports” owes as much to structural changes within sportswriting as it does to Trump himself. After all, when newspapers ruled the world, there was a rich tradition of politically interested writers that stretched from Westbrook Pegler to Robert Lipsyte.
But newspaper staffs are hierarchical. Only three or four columnists are allowed to opine about sports, much less the rest of the world. The internet has made everybody into a de facto columnist. There’s no long apprenticeship before you get a column; at casually edited content farms, hot-taking is the first thing you get to do. (Later, after a few hundred reps, you learn to be a respectable old bore.) [...]
A sportswriter doesn’t have to “stick to sports” if the athletes don’t. One of the most remarkable parts of Muhammad Ali’s legacy was the way he persuaded writers to follow him like ring handlers as he swaggered through the ’60s. Similarly, when Warriors coach Steve Kerr calls Trump’s Muslim ban a “horrible idea,” as he did on Sunday, the sportswriter becomes both a chronicler and a political animal simultaneously — I’m just telling you what Coach said!
It's something of a change in the winds. Sports have trended political in modern times, sportswriters follow (and good note on blurred industry lines; their political reporting cousins certainly conduct advocacy)
|
Where is this supposed leftist unity I've been hearing about? All I see is a frantic and confused opposition to a president they didn't want, with no strategy for dealing with him nor any willingness to reconcile between parties warring amongst themselves.
They all don't like Trump, we get that. But they don't seem to have figured out how they want to oppose him.
|
|
|
On February 01 2017 00:18 LegalLord wrote:
Where is this supposed leftist unity I've been hearing about? All I see is a frantic and confused opposition to a president they didn't want, with no strategy for dealing with him nor any willingness to reconcile between parties warring amongst themselves.
They all don't like Trump, we get that. But they don't seem to have figured out how they want to oppose him.
That's a bit of a simplification right?
The grassroots left (i.e every day people) have never been as united as now, or at least haven't been for a long time, but I don't really know that its trickled up to the lefts (or center-left/neoliberal or whatever term you want to use) that actually have power in the same way. Like there's way more people willing to listen to issues, organize, and pitch in now than there have been for a long time. Instead of a small amount of organizers/activists and a bunch of people who only show up to vote you now have a lot of people being active in the system.
But yeah, it's a coalition rather than a singular group, and there's always going to be a lot of bickering over implementation and details. It's a big part of why the right is able to stand so strongly against the left I think? The right seems to be far more united around causes and implementations while the left is more content to dissent or argue amongst itself.
|
They should signal that an impeachment hearing will be held if (insert whatever claim they need). That should at least draw some attention and he'll maybe moderate his erratic behavior. But I'm highly doubtful. I don't know what the Dems are planning to do with their heads chopped off after the defeat of HRC.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 01 2017 00:18 LegalLord wrote:
Where is this supposed leftist unity I've been hearing about? All I see is a frantic and confused opposition to a president they didn't want, with no strategy for dealing with him nor any willingness to reconcile between parties warring amongst themselves.
They all don't like Trump, we get that. But they don't seem to have figured out how they want to oppose him.
and this is how things will remain. activist left basically see globalization and international capitalism as the biggest enemy, with every other issue warped around this war with the system.
|
I really have no idea why that's a nightmare unless people have a phobia of headscarves or old people. Or women I guess
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
