US Trump Administration Discussion Thread

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Whoa, that's amazing, I didn't realize you have gone to Kashmir or Chechnya. Tell me your experiences please, that'd be helpful. Because of course you wouldn't be making the argument of "Actually go there and get personal experience before saying if you should or should not be afraid" without personal experience yourself, right?

Okay so this was obvious sarcasm but the point is that telling someone to have personal experience before making a claim is a horrible argument; especially if you, yourself, don't have the personal experience you're saying someone else should have.

 

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/05/viral-image/fact-checking-comparison-gun-deaths-and-terrorism-/

 

I don't mean to link it to gun deaths but this was the best thing I could find for the numbers. I would like to say that, while terrorism is a huge threat, it's not entirely inaccurate to say that the threat (at least on American soil) is fairly inflated. At very least not downplayed.

Gladly. Haven't been to the front lines, but been in the area. It sucks to be a non-muslim

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Gladly. Haven't been to the front lines, but been in the area. It sucks to be a non-muslim

Please explain more. What exactly is it you personally saw there? It'd be nice if you have proof, too. Because otherwise this is all conjecture right?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Please explain more. What exactly is it you personally saw there? It'd be nice if you have proof, too. Because otherwise this is all conjecture right?

Sure, how about them not letting a Hindu temple be build in ayodhya, the sacred birthplace of Rama for Hindus. Not sure what proof I can offer you, but to encourage you to use a tool called Google to look up something that may not agree with your world view. If you want pics of Muslims beating me up, I don't them

 

It's the same sheet they pull with Jerusalem, except they actually won

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Sure, how about them not letting a Hindu temple be build in ayodhya, the sacred birthplace of Rama for Hindus. Not sure what proof I can offer you, but to encourage you to use a tool called Google to look up something that may not agree with your world view. If you want pics of Muslims beating me up, I don't them

There we go. That's my point right there. You don't need to GO to the places to have an opinion about it.

So don't say "Go there and then say this". It may be surprising but it's entirely possible to accept that there are terrible things happening, and feel bad about it, but still think that, overall, it's not right to go to the level that people have in regards to Muslims and Islam. Roxas has a different opinion about the subject. That does not mean he doesn't know about the things you do. It's not a good argument to tell somebody with a different opinion that they have said opinion just because they are hiding from the facts. Now if they REFUSE the facts that is different. But it's possible to think about things differently even with the same knowledge.

So thank you for your condescending response; it showed me you do know that you don't need to have personal experience to form an opinion on something.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

There we go. That's my point right there. You don't need to GO to the places to have an opinion about it.

So don't say "Go there and then say this". It may be surprising but it's entirely possible to accept that there are terrible things happening, and feel bad about it, but still think that, overall, it's not right to go to the level that people have in regards to Muslims and Islam. Roxas has a different opinion about the subject. That does not mean he doesn't know about the things you do. It's not a good argument to tell somebody with a different opinion that they have said opinion just because they are hiding from the facts. Now if they REFUSE the facts that is different. But it's possible to think about things differently even with the same knowledge.

So thank you for your condescending response; it showed me you do know that you don't need to have personal experience to form an opinion on something.

The irony here is thick

 

CowCow clearly I can't change your opinion, and that's fine becuase our President-Elect isn't as naive about the threat of Islam

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

The irony here is thick

 

CowCow clearly I can't change your opinion, and that's fine becuase our President-Elect isn't as naive about the threat of Islam

Which part? Because if it's what I think it is then there's a reason for the "irony"

 

And you only "can't" change my opinion because you've said nothing that would change it. I'm completely open to changing my opinion but I need some actual reason. I believe you are overstating the threat. Parts of Islam have done terrible things yes but that's all you've got so far.

Also the fact that you're trying to shut down my opinion, again, by saying I'm naive kinda shows to me you're not even responding to the things you quote.

 

What you quoted wasn't to do with the threat of Islam. It's fairly telling that you respond to my post, which was saying that it's a bad argument to say one's opinion is due to lack of knowledge, by implying I had that opinion due to naivety.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Which part? Because if it's what I think it is then there's a reason for the "irony"

 

And you only "can't" change my opinion because you've said nothing that would change it. I'm completely open to changing my opinion but I need some actual reason. I believe you are overstating the threat. Parts of Islam have done terrible things yes but that's all you've got so far.

Also the fact that you're trying to shut down my opinion, again, by saying I'm naive kinda shows to me you're not even responding to the things you quote.

 

What you quoted wasn't to do with the threat of Islam. It's fairly telling that you respond to my post, which was saying that it's a bad argument to say one's opinion is due to lack of knowledge, by implying I had that opinion due to naivety.

Not at all, I respect your opinion that maybe Islam isn't as bad as I think it can be. I disagree because it seems like it's hounded my family from every angle possible, but I understand if you're a little more open minded towards it than me.

 

I hope your family hasn't suffered from intolerance in a majority-hostile environment. But at the same time, I'm happy my future president is skeptical towards Islam because that lines up more with my current view point

 

When I said I can't change your opinion, that's really fine, because group think isn't healthy

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Not at all, I respect your opinion that maybe Islam isn't as bad as I think it can be. I disagree because it seems like it's hounded my family from every angle possible, but I understand if you're a little more open minded towards it than me.

 

I hope your family hasn't suffered from intolerance in a majority-hostile environment. But at the same time, I'm happy my future president is skeptical towards Islam because that lines up more with my current view point

 

When I said I can't change your opinion, that's really fine, because group think isn't healthy

I'm glad to hear it. It often seemed you have been saying that the other opinion is just not knowing the facts.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Florida certifies its results: Trump 4,617,886 (49.0%), Clinton 4,504,975 (47.8%), Others 297,178 (3.2%).

North Dakota certified results: Trump 216,794 (63.0%), Clinton 93,758 (27.2%), Others 33,808 (9.8%).

 

South Carolina certifies its results: Trump 1,155,389 (54.9%), Clinton 855,373 (40.7%), Others 92,265 (4.4%)

 

Delaware certifies its results: Clinton 235,603 (53.4%), Trump 185,127 (41.9%), Others 20,860 (4.7%).

 

Louisiana certified results: Trump 1,178,638 (58.1%), Clinton 780,154 (38.4%), Others 70,240 (3.5%).

 

Vermont certifies its results: Clinton 178,573 (56.7%), Trump 95,369 (30.3%), Sanders (W/I) 18,183 (5.7%)

 

Trump lost the state that I regard closest to as home. I'll never live down the shame of NOVA

[Tentacruel]

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/05/viral-image/fact-checking-comparison-gun-deaths-and-terrorism-/

 

I don't mean to link it to gun deaths but this was the best thing I could find for the numbers. I would like to say that, while terrorism is a huge threat, it's not entirely inaccurate to say that the threat (at least on American soil) is fairly inflated. At very least not downplayed.

You're missing the point. This is exactly what I'm talking about.  You're literately downplaying it right now.  You know what else kills more people than terrorism? (And even more than guns?)  Obesity.  Being fat.  As does driving a car.  They're all completely unrelated to this issue.

 

Polio hardly kills anyone anymore, should we stop vaccinating for it?  Of course not, because that would increase the risk from negligible to an actual risk.  

 

Why is it so important that we ignore any risk from anyone that identifies with the Islamic faith?  Is it out of political correctness?  You tell me.  I really don't understand.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

You're missing the point. This is exactly what I'm talking about.  You're literately downplaying it right now.  You know what else kills more people than terrorism? (And even more than guns?)  Obesity.  Being fat.  As does driving a car.  They're all completely unrelated to this issue.

 

Polio hardly kills anyone anymore, should we stop vaccinating for it?  Of course not, because that would increase the risk from negligible to an actual risk.  

 

Why is it so important that we ignore any risk from anyone that identifies with the Islamic faith?  Is it out of political correctness?  You tell me.  I really don't understand.

I am going to refer to the thing you quoted. "I don't mean to link it to gun deaths but this was the best thing I could find for the numbers."

I'm not comparing it. I don't care which kills more.

My point is that Terrorism does not kill as often as many say. Meaning the issue is being...whatever the opposite of downplayed is.

The reason I "downplayed" it is to bring it down to a more reasonable level.

Nothing good comes from not looking at the facts and realizing that the threat isn't the "be all end all" that many make it out to be.

It's equally dangerous to claim it's more severe and make people fear it more than is logical as it is to ignore it entirely.

I never said ignore any risk. But there have been so many overreactions that it's absolutely sickening. I have witnessed myself people saying they would attack anyone wearing Muslim clothes if they went near their child. The reasoning behind "downplaying" as it were, again, is to make it more level. Basically it's calling out people when they try to claim that it's the biggest threat to modern society.

And it's a very bad idea to ignore the comparisons to Japanese internment camps. People of that day thought it was totally reasonable to react in such a way. Because we currently were in a war with a certain group of people. And so the decision was made to single out that certain group of people. And it had horrible effects on many innocents. This is not something we can afford to jump in guns blazing and not think about it from EVERY possible angle.

[Tentacruel]

I am going to refer to the thing you quoted. "I don't mean to link it to gun deaths but this was the best thing I could find for the numbers."

I'm not comparing it. I don't care which kills more.

My point is that Terrorism does not kill as often as many say. Meaning the issue is being...whatever the opposite of downplayed is.

The reason I "downplayed" it is to bring it down to a more reasonable level.

Nothing good comes from not looking at the facts and realizing that the threat isn't the "be all end all" that many make it out to be.

It's equally dangerous to claim it's more severe and make people fear it more than is logical as it is to ignore it entirely.

I never said ignore any risk. But there have been so many overreactions that it's absolutely sickening. I have witnessed myself people saying they would attack anyone wearing Muslim clothes if they went near their child. The reasoning behind "downplaying" as it were, again, is to make it more level. Basically it's calling out people when they try to claim that it's the biggest threat to modern society.

And it's a very bad idea to ignore the comparisons to Japanese internment camps. People of that day thought it was totally reasonable to react in such a way. Because we currently were in a war with a certain group of people. And so the decision was made to single out that certain group of people. And it had horrible effects on many innocents. This is not something we can afford to jump in guns blazing and not think about it from EVERY possible angle.

 

 

I apologize for misunderstanding the link.  That aside, there has to be some middle ground between ignoring any threat and letting anyone come into the country out of fear of racism and being a psychotic racist dumbfuck scared of anyone with a head covering. 

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I apologize for misunderstanding the link.  That aside, there has to be some middle ground between ignoring any threat and letting anyone come into the country out of fear of racism and being a psychotic racist dumbfuck scared of anyone with a head covering. 

The issue is trying to work people from one extreme to the middle. Sometimes you have to use the other extreme to...balance it out. It's sort of human nature to react to one extreme with the other, now that I think about it.

I guess the important part is acknowledging the extreme and saying that the end goal is compromise. Which I suppose the latter half is something I need to get into the habit of. I sometimes think that it's implied when it's not.

The first thing that comes to mind is...oddly, having everyone, regardless of race/religious/etc, go through the same, careful, screening. As long as we make the screening something that won't be overly invasive (or at least have it be extremely confidential) or difficult to pass for those not a threat it shouldn't be an issue.

The problem here is...what would that even be?

[Tentacruel]

The issue is trying to work people from one extreme to the middle. Sometimes you have to use the other extreme to...balance it out. It's sort of human nature to react to one extreme with the other, now that I think about it.

I guess the important part is acknowledging the extreme and saying that the end goal is compromise. Which I suppose the latter half is something I need to get into the habit of. I sometimes think that it's implied when it's not.

The first thing that comes to mind is...oddly, having everyone, regardless of race/religious/etc, go through the same, careful, screening. As long as we make the screening something that won't be overly invasive (or at least have it be extremely confidential) or difficult to pass for those not a threat it shouldn't be an issue.

The problem here is...what would that even be?

I mean,  it's not like other countries haven't already implemented checks like this.  

 

Standard criminal background checks.  Check to see if they have any ties to terrorist groups, if not, great.  If so, goodbye. 

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I mean,  it's not like other countries haven't already implemented checks like this.  

 

Standard criminal background checks.  Check to see if they have any ties to terrorist groups, if not, great.  If so, goodbye. 

Curious though what constitutes "ties"?

[mido9]

I apologize for misunderstanding the link.  That aside, there has to be some middle ground between ignoring any threat and letting anyone come into the country out of fear of racism and being a psychotic racist dumbf*** scared of anyone with a head covering. 

I think I had a picture for this

[vla1ne]

well, to jump on the whole terrorism thing, that has a lot to do with population and values. for the best example, look at germany. it's not that everybody coming over would be a criminal, but that those coming over might have different views as to what constitutes "criminal" behavior. the people that are obvious terrorists aren't the only problem. accommodating those whose views clash so spectacularly with those of america is by far a larger one.not everybody coming over will be as open towards thae gays being gay, not everybody coming over will have the same religious tolerance, not everybody coming over will be as open to debate on their values and traditions. not everybody coming over will like seeing the women of america wearing clothes that cover so little (in comparison to what their own culture permits) not everybody coming over will be as willing to place the laws of america above those of their home country. the overt terrorism is the smallest facet of the problem, no less a problem, but it's merely the head of the beast. it's the part most attention grabbing, but the dissonance between the middle east and america is by no means less impressive without it.

 

 

I think I had a picture for this

 

may want to add a bit more. this is still debates.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Trump meeting with a Democratic Hawaiian Congresswoman for VA sec post, note here is she broke ranks to endorse Bernie over HRC

 

After updates from counties in Pennsylvania, Trump has officially crossed the natl popular vote record for Republicans set by George W Bush.

 

We'll have to see if HRC can beat the DEM record of 08' Obama

 

 

Lackawanna County PA (Scranton) by precinct. 2012, 2016 and % change.

 

Joe Biden's hometown

 

Franklin County, Ohio (Columbus, aka Kasichland) President by precinct. HRC (blue) - 60%, Trump (red) - 34%.

 

[Tentacruel]

Trump meeting with a Democratic Hawaiian Congresswoman for VA sec post, note here is she broke ranks to endorse Bernie over HRC

 

 

Tulsi Gabbard is bae.  She's my pick for the next President.   (Be it in 2020 or 2024)

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Tulsi Gabbard is bae. She's my pick for the next President. (Be it in 2020 or 2024)

Seconded. Gorgeous woman w/ a spine and decent policy propositions

 

Bannon and Jared are both big fans apparently, so fingers crossed. Better than funking Mitt Romney

 

Daesh has taken back 1. Diyala 2. South of Samaraa 3. Tikrit ...Obama still thinks Bombing Assad and harassing Putin is the smart idea? His ego is letting Daesh thrive

 

>:l >:l >:l >:l

[cr47t]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/21/why-one-of-the-hills-top-bernie-sanders-democrats-is-meeting-with-donald-trump/

 

Gabbard, one of two female combat veterans to join Congress in 2013, also got national attention last fall for duking it out with Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.), then the Democratic National Committee chair, on Democrats' debate schedule, an implicit criticism that the party wasn't doing enough to help candidates not named Hillary Clinton compete. (It was a refrain Trump himself echoed in the final days of the primaries.)

 

@above quote; Primary flashback?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/a-scramble-to-assess-the-dangers-of-president-elects-global-business-empire/2016/11/20/1bbdc2a2-ad18-11e6-a31b-4b6397e625d0_story.html

 

The president-elect’s Turkey deal marks a harrowing vulnerability that even Trump has deemed “a little conflict of interest”: a private moneymaker that could open him to foreign influence and tilt his decision-making as America’s executive in chief.

 

But the ethics experts eyeing Trump’s empire are now warning of many others, found among a vast assortment of foreign business interests never before seen in past presidencies. At least 111 Trump companies have done business in 18 countries and territories across South America, Asia and the Middle East, a Washington Post analysis of Trump financial filings shows.

 

Other Trump properties, like most large projects in the real estate industry, are buoyed by a river of loans, including from big banks in China and Germany. Deutsche Bank, Trump’s biggest lender, is negotiating what could be a multibillion-dollar settlement over housing-crisis-era abuses with the Justice Department, whose leaders will be Trump appointees.

 

A group of ethics advisers, including former chief White House ethics lawyers during Democratic and Republican administrations, wrote Trump a letter Thursday urging him to sequester his business in a genuine blind trust or commit to a “clear firewall” between his Oval Office and his family.

 

“You were elected to the presidency with a promise to eliminate improper business influence in Washington,” they wrote. “There is no way to square your campaign commitments to the American people — and your even higher, ethical duties as their president — with the rampant, inescapable conflicts that will engulf your presidency if you maintain connections with the Trump Organization.”

 

The potential conflicts entangle not just Trump, but also his advisers, including Michael ­Flynn, the retired lieutenant general tapped to become White House national security adviser. Flynn’s consulting firm has been hired to lobby on behalf of a group tied to the Turkish government. Flynn recently wrote an opinion piece calling for dramatic changes to U.S. policy that would parallel the Erdogan government’s goals and declaring that the country “needs our support.”

 

Everyone; do you think he has possible conflicts of interests? Why or why not?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Tulsi Gabbard is reportedly the front-runner for the SoS spot. Rudy is being shunted to head the intelligence department ( a better fit IMO than SoS).

 

Mitt Romney gets jack sheet :)

[Sunshine Jesse]

Huh. Something I unambiguously agree with.

 

lmao @ people even considering Romney, they forget what kind of person he is.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Huh. Something I unambiguously agree with.

 

lmao @ people even considering Romney, they forget what kind of person he is.

Also totally opposite to Trump's foreign policy of not sticking our nose in every conflict ever. I'll be very disappointed if Trump picks him.

 

But Bannon and Jared like Tulsi, so there's hope. She may get VA sec though

 

VA certifies its results: Clinton 1,981,473 (49.8%), Trump 1,769,443 (44.4%), Others 231,836 (5.8%).

 

Well that stings

 

 

It was a beautiful dream, I'll keep hoping

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

To be fair though, Gabbard is technically still serving in the US military (National Guard), so yeah, she has seen her share of combat roles. But otherwise, she's done good for Hawai'i (enough that she got re-elected). If she gets picked for VA or something, then it'll work. 
 
Speaking of her meeting with Trump though, a lot of local Democrats here aren't too pleased about it (or they see her as flip-flopping). Don't know if any of them saw these tweets though, as local news didn't cover that. 
 

Tulsi Gabbard is bae.  She's my pick for the next President.   (Be it in 2020 or 2024)

 

A little note that she's 35 right now, so she has age on her side. Though yeah, she was nominated as VP for Sanders during his run, so that might do her some good in the long run. 

 

Question is, will the United States accept a Samoan president (and one who practices a different religion than a good chunk of the country), or are they going to try to demerit her candidacy b/c of these facts? She was born in American Samoa (her mother was a US citizen at the time though) and practices Hinduism.