The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Drake]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Should never have bothered with keeping an Obamite in the first place honestly.
Her credibility was already in question just from association with the previous administration.

I wouldn't go this far with regards to Yates, but I don't have a problem with the firing. All of the cabinet positions serve at the will of the President.

I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt (i.e., uncertain of the Constitutionality of the order) and the benefit of expertise (i.e., lawyer), but that doesn't change the fact that she still serves at the President's will.

There may be long term consequences to the perception of staffing the country's highest legal office with "yes people" rather than "law people" -- and there probably should be for a party that's been pounding their chests over the "rule of law" for the last decade -- but I don't think anybody in the Yates situation did anything out of bounds.

I put it up there with firing the offensive coordinator you inherited from the last head coach because he's a run-first guy and you're Air Coryell by philosophy.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Drake

There may be long term consequences to the perception of staffing the country's highest legal office with "yes people" rather than "law people" -- and there probably should be for a party that's been pounding their chests over the "rule of law" for the last decade -- but I don't think anybody in the Yates situation did anything out of bounds.

I put it up there with firing the offensive coordinator you inherited from the last head coach because he's a run-first guy and you're Air Coryell by philosophy.

Lemme run with your very thinking here for a second, see if I can add just a little something to my own take.

It seems pretty fair to say that there are significant philosophical differences between the previous administration and the current one. Those would include matters of approach and priorities.

I'm cool with her saying no if that's her bent, I'm cool with him firing her ass because of it. It was only a temporary caretaker role anyway,not as though this was any sort of long-term situation. I'm just saying that the outcome here seemed pretty predictable and was likely doomed from the start.

[larrymcg421]

This is rich. Here is Sessions grilling Yates about obeying unlawful orders from the President:

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I guess what I'm saying is there should be balance like we had before. We take in refugees and legal immigrants because this is America and it's in our best interests. We also vet to make sure that extremists are not entering the country to do harm to it.

I don't think many people would/could argue with this statement.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

Actually, it very clearly does and it borrows on the ancient greek concept of the tutor/guardian in doing so.

That actually says you are 'saved' - it doesn't state don't obey the laws ... or do you think that all of the commandments are null and void etc. .... if so why do churches go on about them all the time?

[nol]

Originally Posted by AlexB

I don't think many people would/could argue with this statement.

I didn't think anyone could argue that we don't already do a good job of vetting them considering what the actual process is and how many terror attacks have actually been committed by refugees, but here we are.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Yeah, I think Neon_Chaos's post from the previous page outlines that point well. Which then leads to the question. What actually is the point of the executive order?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

Yeah, I think Neon_Chaos's post from the previous page outlines that point well. Which then leads to the question. What actually is the point of the executive order?

It was Giuliani's proposed "legal" solution for Trump's desire for a Muslim ban. It's as far as they felt they could get right now. The legality has now been challenged, but that was the idea and process of how it came about, as confirmed by Giuliani.

[RainMaker]

So they are putting people in front of the camera to say it's not a ban even though Trump just said it was a ban the other day.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So they are putting people in front of the camera to say it's not a ban even though Trump just said it was a ban the other day.

I'm genuinely worried about Spicer's health.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Lemme run with your very thinking here for a second, see if I can add just a little something to my own take.

It seems pretty fair to say that there are significant philosophical differences between the previous administration and the current one. Those would include matters of approach and priorities.

I'm cool with her saying no if that's her bent, I'm cool with him firing her ass because of it. It was only a temporary caretaker role anyway,not as though this was any sort of long-term situation. I'm just saying that the outcome here seemed pretty predictable and was likely doomed from the start.

Agree with you completely. This is one of those times that I want to smack some of my liberal friends and tell them to stop being Chicken Little. It's been a little more than a week, for God's sake, and we've already burned through at least a full quarter's share of outrage over largely predictable moves.

My FB feed is full of people who voted for Trump opining that (for once) America is pissed off about a President who is actually keeping his promises. It's a funny line, yes, but those of us who didn't support him should be listening to their message rather than just reacting to the dig. Stop pretending that he's not going to do what he said he's going to do. We know what his game plan is. Everyone is running around like their hair is on fire because the "uncertainty" of it all.

It's not fucking uncertain. He intends to do what he said he's going to do. If you disagree with him, stop wasting all of your time freaking out about what this or that statement might mean or how it could lead to catastrophe x, y, or z...and do something about it. Stop reacting to rhetoric and focus on opposing action.

I know you're a Trump guy -- at least of sorts, Jon. I hope this doesn't come across as poking at you, because I'm not. Trump here is really just an example of "whoever is in office that's on the opposite side of you"...and I'm getting tired of listening to "my" side just whine and talk about what hat to wear to the next march.

Look, you want to resist tariffs or trade deals you think are driven by croneyism? Stop buying shit just because it's cheap. Be willing to sacrifice for principle. If you truly believe that the economic policies aren't being crafted to protect American jobs, but to make billionaire pals into multi-billionaire pals...well, fucking opt out. Keep your wallet closed for American products. Buy Japanese. Not as a boycott, but as an assertion that "buy American" is only valid if America is making the best-in-class, and all the tariffs and closed economic borders in the world won't change that.

Just, for Christ's sake, don't schedule another community meeting to organize a protest about it. Just like in the real world, having a meeting is not the same as working. Meetings are what you do to get *out* of doing actual work.

There seems to be this illusion about the politics of opposition that if we just expose, expose, expose, the truth will come out and we'll win. (Whoever we is and whatever the truth is.) I'm pretty sure that this is a Hollywood myth. It's some Mr. Smith Goes to Washington shit.

The things that are happening are happening because half the population of the country wants them to happen (at any given time, in any given administration). If you don't like it, find ways to resist. If you can't be buggered to resist, then it's really not that important to you and you're just being a drama llama. Stop it.

[JPhillips]

Step 1: Trump say we need to negotiate drug prices through Medicare

Step 2: Trump meets with Pharma reps

Step 3: Trump says negotiating costs is price fixing and is opposed to that.

I'll oppose anything that makes it harder for smaller, younger companies to take the risk of bringing their product to a vibrantly competitive market. That includes price-fixing by the biggest dog in the market, Medicare, which is what's happening. But we can increase competition and bidding wars, big time.

[RainMaker]

The Art of the Deal!

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Drake

My FB feed is full of people who voted for Trump opining that (for once) America is pissed off about a President who is actually keeping his promises. It's a funny line, yes, but those of us who didn't support him should be listening to their message rather than just reacting to the dig. Stop pretending that he's not going to do what he said he's going to do. We know what his game plan is. Everyone is running around like their hair is on fire because the "uncertainty" of it all.

For me its the fact I 'know' what he's going to do which terrifies me, Fox News etc. spent all its time pre-election spouting that it was only the liberals who thought he'd do the things he was saying and that his supporters knew he wouldn't ... us liberals feared he was saying what he'd do and now he is.

I've seen an Iranian friend having to prepare to be deported in a few months and is seeing several years work studying for a Phd likely to go up in smoke.

My step-daughter is gay and is terrified of (1) losing her insurance, (2) increasing discrimination (she's already been subject to increased harassment and quit a job with the local sheriffs department recently.

I know a local lawyer who went down to Cape Canaveral port to offer to represent some of the people detained there after the immigration changes, he was told the people detained weren't allowed representation - if you don't find that concerning then I'm shocked - these were people with Visa's who had innocently gone on a cruise not knowing the law would change while they were out at sea.

I'm "lucky" I'm white, middle aged and male - I have a decent job so I'm largely alright unless I'm arrested somewhere demonstrating against Trump which may well happen based on reports about the curtailment of free-speech.

I'll actually do pretty well out of his policies on a financial level - that doesn't mean I think they're right on a human level, nor do I believe it means I should shut up and accept them meekly any more than the Republicans did when they disagreed with Obama's stances.

The things that are happening are happening because half the population of the country wants them to happen (at any given time, in any given administration). If you don't like it, find ways to resist. If you can't be buggered to resist, then it's really not that important to you and you're just being a drama llama. Stop it.

I'm doing what I can - I've been helping my Iranian friend work out his options (which are limited - laws are laws .. so currently its looking at universities outside of the US he can study at, unfortunately studying lightning which is his area means its not as easy as it could be).

I'm also contacting local Churches and such and encouraging them to take a stand against the immigration policy and will be attending protests and such, outside of that I'm open to ideas for constructive action that can be taken ... any ideas.

PS - I do believe protests and such ARE worthwhile and effective, politicians need votes to keep their jobs long-term and Trump has a thin skin so being unpopular might get his attention if enough people speak out ... unfortunately a large proportion of the country see his policies as acceptable, so far at least ...

[JPhillips]

And in case you missed it:

Trump's trade advisor said we need to unwind and repatriate international supply chains

and

Russian back rebels and/or Russians dramatically escalated the simmering conflict in Ukraine

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Drake

My FB feed is full of people who voted for Trump opining that (for once) America is pissed off about a President who is actually keeping his promises.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...heir-promises/

[Atocep]

I'll oppose anything that makes it harder for smaller, younger companies to take the risk of bringing their product to a vibrantly competitive market.

Which is why he appointed someone to head the FCC that will take down net neutrality.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

For me its the fact I 'know' what he's going to do which terrifies me, Fox News etc. spent all its time pre-election spouting that it was only the liberals who thought he'd do the things he was saying and that his supporters knew he wouldn't ... us liberals feared he was saying what he'd do and now he is.

I think we (also liberal here), have every right to be worried. We have a responsibility to be worried about the direction of our country. I think we need to be talking to our friends and our children and our like-minded colleagues about things that concern us. Contacting our representatives and those sympathetic to our cause.

This guy:

I know a local lawyer who went down to Cape Canaveral port to offer to represent some of the people detained there after the immigration changes, he was told the people detained weren't allowed representation - if you don't find that concerning then I'm shocked - these were people with Visa's who had innocently gone on a cruise not knowing the law would change while they were out at sea.

...epitomizes exactly what I'm talking about. He didn't run around organizing a protest. He rolled up his sleeves and got to work.

How one "gets to work" with resistance is going to depend on skill sets. Yes, some people should be organizing marches or political pushback. Some of us (IT person) should be pushing for reforms in how our organizations store and encrypt data. (The EFF had some great suggestions along these lines.) I had an idea the other day about developing a randomized "invisible encrypted character" to insert into our immigration data. While we can be compelled by the federal or state government to turn over data like that, it doesn't mean that we have to lay down and take it up the ass. I'd put my skills at invisibly fucking up data sources up against any other government-employed IT guy in my state. And even if it only costs them a couple of weeks of aggravation to figure out how to clean up my records...well, I'm not sure that Chuck Palahniuk wasn't onto something in Fight Club.

(This is one of those cases where IT folks should be heartened by the reality that technology moves faster than legislation.)

What I was ranting about was the ranting as an end game. We've confused the internet as a platform with the concept of audience. If you've got an audience, your words can be work. They can change the world.

Most of us don't have an audience outside of our families and a small circle of friends. If we want to change things, if we want to resist, we've got to be willing to put our money where our mouths are.

To pull out that tired old metaphor: if you think Trump is like Hitler or any of the other Fascists back in the day, think also about how much credit you give the average German citizen who didn't fight as a Nazi, but just did their best to live an ordinary life the best they could. You know, the one's who had reservations about Hitler's rhetoric, might have thought the war was a mistake, worried about some of the anti-semitism, etc., etc. They might even personally been very kind to all the Jews and gypsies they might have known.

That's what talking is to me. If it's so fucking obvious that Trump is evil, then just posting shit on Facebook trying to get people to see the light (half of whom already agree with you and the other half are ignoring you because they think you're a liberal idiot) is not morally sufficient to escape blame. So if it seems sufficient to assuage personal guilt ("I complained about the guy, didn't I?"), then the argument for his evil nature is weak. If the evidence of his evil nature is sufficient, then it's the action that is weak, and the individual guilt for stopping there is inescapable.

Either that, or we're all running around with our hair on fire because the drama is so fucking entertaining that we can't help ourselves.

That's what I'm reacting against.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by nol

I didn't think anyone could argue that we don't already do a good job of vetting them considering what the actual process is and how many terror attacks have actually been committed by refugees, but here we are.

Huh? This started a relatively short time ago. You can't really use those types of statistics to prove or disprove anything yet.

As far as the process goes, a lot of people are simply for bringing them in without much, if any vetting. It was a key argument in a lot of governors minds when the issue first came up. Obama gave them a middle finger and said take em. It's the entire reason this ever became an issue in the first place.

Trump has taken this way, way, way too far. It's a poorly thought out plan and has been executed even worse. The sad thing is that those of us who have asked for better controls and some regulation of our borders look exactly like what our critics have called us. Racist idiots.

I'm still not a racist idiot. I still believe we should have more controls. I still believe the illegal immigrants in this country are a problem and we can't continue to allow them to come over at a few hundred thousand a year and pretend like everything is ok. There is a space between the dream act and between Trumps asshattery.

The chances we find an in between seem to be dying a horribly quick death.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Drake

He didn't run around organizing a protest. He rolled up his sleeves and got to work.

One can easily argue (and some liberals have) that protests that were organized by the Tea Party had some pretty substantial effects.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Huh? This started a relatively short time ago. You can't really use those types of statistics to prove or disprove anything yet.

As far as the process goes, a lot of people are simply for bringing them in without much, if any vetting. It was a key argument in a lot of governors minds when the issue first came up. Obama gave them a middle finger and said take em. It's the entire reason this ever became an issue in the first place.

What the hell are you talking about? You're just making stuff up now. In 2015, 30 Governors opposed the resettlement of Syrian refugees into their states after the Paris attacks. The reason Obama gave the middle finger to the Governors is because extreme vetting already existed before that point. No one is arguing for just letting people waltz in here.

Trump has taken this way, way, way too far. It's a poorly thought out plan and has been executed even worse. The sad thing is that those of us who have asked for better controls and some regulation of our borders look exactly like what our critics have called us. Racist idiots.

I'm still not a racist idiot. I still believe we should have more controls. I still believe the illegal immigrants in this country are a problem and we can't continue to allow them to come over at a few hundred thousand a year and pretend like everything is ok. There is a space between the dream act and between Trumps asshattery.

The chances we find an in between seem to be dying a horribly quick death.

Again I ask. What is your in between? You're not bringing up arguments at this point, just sniping at both sides (and yet again crying about being called racist) so you can look better for being in the middle. Do you want more than the extreme vetting that is already in place? What would that entail? Explain your actual position and quit bringing up strawman arguments to make yourself look better.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

What the hell are you talking about? You're just making stuff up now. In 2015, 30 Governors opposed the resettlement of Syrian refugees into their states after the Paris attacks. The reason Obama gave the middle finger to the Governors is because extreme vetting already existed before that point. No one is arguing for just letting people waltz in here

2 years and numerous steps (I think there are 10?) in the process apparently isn't 'extreme' enough. Apparently we need 10 years and double, no triple, the steps.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

2 years and numerous steps (I think there are 10?) in the process apparently isn't 'extreme' enough. Apparently we need 10 years and double, no triple, the steps.

Quit calling Troy racist.

[Izulde]

I've had a few students over the years who were refugees. It does take years to get into the US that way, and one of them wrote about the conditions of the refugee camp he had to stay in while waiting out the process. It wasn't pretty - put it that way. It's very much a rigorous process, and he'd been in the US a few years already, so this is by no means recent.

[Izulde]

dola,

I was going to put this in the how many five years old thread, but I really don't have time to search, so I'll just drop this here:

White House claims five-year-old boy detained in US airport for hours 'could have posed a security threat' | The Independent

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Izulde

dola,

I was going to put this in the how many five years old thread, but I really don't have time to search, so I'll just drop this here:

White House claims five-year-old boy detained in US airport for hours 'could have posed a security threat' | The Independent

Well really, how much trouble could a 70 year old cause.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

One can easily argue (and some liberals have) that protests that were organized by the Tea Party had some pretty substantial effects.

One can also easily argue that a nuanced reading of my posts above suggest that if your skill set is organizing protests, that's perfectly fine as one dimension of resistance. As is accurate reporting of the news. As is writing hair-on-fire political screeds. As is creating eye-poking memes.

It's when the full spectrum of resistance is SMH and complaining about the world not being as cool and progressive as one would like, then you've got a problem as a movement.

It doesn't have to be just about the President. If the election was a conservative mandate (judging by the sweeping victories at all levels of government), plenty of people can think globally but act locally by using their skills to take down/antagonize/impede politicians in their own towns.

[Easy Mac]

Still not racist

https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/uploads/cho...sibility.0.pdf

[Kodos]

[Drake]

Gorsuch doesn't seem like an asshole.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Drake

Gorsuch doesn't seem like an asshole.

He's not. Obama would've gotten a nominee in if he had nominated an in-kind replacement for Scalia, but alas, he didn't and wouldn't. It is the next nominee that will be the key and I hope and pray that it will continue to be a pro-life jurist.

[Kodos]

Yes. Then old men can tell young women what to do with their bodies with impunity!

[Easy Mac]

Tonight, @POTUS nominated a Supreme Court Justice who will uphold the God-given liberties enshrined in our constitution — Judge Gorsuch. President Trump on Twitter: "#JusticeGorsuch #SCOTUS https://t.co/Y96Hi2bbIj"

This is Mike Pence's tweet. It makes me feel like he doesn't know where the Constitution came from.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Yes. Then old men can tell young women what to do with their bodies with impunity!

You of all aliens... Tiny American flag for me sir

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

He's not. Obama would've gotten a nominee in if he had nominated an in-kind replacement for Scalia, but alas, he didn't and wouldn't. It is the next nominee that will be the key and I hope and pray that it will continue to be a pro-life jurist.

Well yes, if Obama had nominated a far right jurist the GOP would have confirmed that person. Why would a Dem president ever do that?

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Yes. Then old men can tell young women what to do with their bodies with impunity!

US abortion laws are far more liberal than most of western Europe. Also, there's the irrefutable biological evidence of two bodies.

Europe vs US abortion laws

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

He's not. Obama would've gotten a nominee in if he had nominated an in-kind replacement for Scalia, but alas, he didn't and wouldn't. It is the next nominee that will be the key and I hope and pray that it will continue to be a pro-life jurist.

So it was a requirement for this replacement to be like Scalia, but the goalposts should move for the next replacement?

[RainMaker]

Most pro-life supporters don't care about abortions, they care about women having sex. And this is coming from someone who is not exactly a pro-choice guy.

[cuervo72]

Right, Trump or Pence or whomever would definitely pick an in-kind replacement for Ginsburg!

[CrescentMoonie]

It's a shame there isn't an adult in the White House at the moment, I like Gorsuch and I would be in favor of Garland getting his day as well when the next opening occurs.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Most pro-life supporters don't care about abortions, they care about women having sex. And this is coming from someone who is not exactly a pro-choice guy.

Exactly, as a society we're still not comfortable with the fact that women choose to have sex outside of marriage for pleasure.

[JPhillips]

Under different circumstances I'd accept Gorsuch and resist calls for a filibuster, but given what happened last year the Dems should filibuster anybody Trump puts up. That will probably end the SC filibuster, but that will be beneficial in the long run.

The only possible exception to that would be a nominee that was like a placeholder Pope, somebody old enough that confirmation isn't a thirty or forty year commitment.

[Brian Swartz]

I agree. I want conservative justices on the court, but they should demand Trump re-nominate Garland and refuse to consider anyone else. Blatantly unconstitutional stonewalling can't be rewarded at any cost.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I agree. I want conservative justices on the court, but they should demand Trump re-nominate Garland and refuse to consider anyone else. Blatantly unconstitutional stonewalling can't be rewarded at any cost.

We get a court with a decent person, by any means necessary afaic.

The left's reign of terror over the nation is OVER. #NeverAgain

edit: though it ain't exactly been a stellar week in that regard frankly. But now we know why Trump tried to throw a bone to the left earlier.

[Ragone]

And the protestors are now at the supreme court, i swear these people would protest if trump declared the sky to be blue.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by Ragone

And the protestors are now at the supreme court, i swear these people would protest if trump declared the sky to be blue.

Trump would only do that while it's overcast, so they would be right to protest.

[JPhillips]

I don't think it's necessary to make a big deal out of this. If it were me I wouldn't even discuss his qualifications. They should just remind people of Garland and say they will filibuster. The election proved that no persuadable voter cares.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I don't think it's necessary to make a big deal out of this. If it were me I wouldn't even discuss his qualifications. They should just remind people of Garland and say they will filibuster. The election proved that no persuadable voter cares.

The election proved that people supported stopping the further slide into the leftist abyss.

I'm sure that's painful to acknowledge but there's your heavy dose of reality for the day.

Learn it.
Know it.
Live it.

[RainMaker]

You're more dramatic than a teenage girl who just got dumped.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The election proved that people supported stopping the further slide into the leftist abyss.

I'm sure that's painful to acknowledge but there's your heavy dose of reality for the day.

Learn it.
Know it.
Live it.

The people voted for Clinton you know