Jump to content

Minor Politics & News

Dad

By Dad
in General

Recommended Posts

Dad Apprentice

Dad

Posted
Posted

Henceforth, this thread can be used for political short-posts.  What does that mean?  Perhaps you've seen an interesting or questionable tweet by a senator, mayor, or congressman.  Feel free to share it and talk about it.  Got some new statistics that you wanna share and there isn't a thread for it in Debates?  Share it here.  If it sparks discussion, feel free to create a thread for it either in General or Debates.  Threads deeming more serious discussion about controversial topics (abortion, civil rights, religion, LGBTQ, etc) should begin in debates.  Threads will be moved as necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 158
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Phantom Roxas Enthusiast

Phantom Roxas

Posted
Posted

Responding to posts from the Administration thread.
 

I'm curious, are we allowed to state our opinion and takes on the news in this thread, I was mostly trying not to, but it seems I was mistaken. I figured this was gonna be more than a news dump thread than a "here's what this means thread" If you remember the last thread, that's how it went to sheet.

 
Some of his actions have been very hostile towards all media, including Stephen Bannon telling the media to "keep its mouth shut" (Hey Bannon, how's Breitbart doing for you?), so I'm focusing on whether or not Trump's hostile censorship of the media is warranted. I'm learning towards it being unwarranted. 
 

1. Oh boy, I heard about that. Rep. Lamar Smith is totally off the walls.
2. No comment. I don't go on Twitter.
3. I don't know what you think, but this is REALLY bad -- basically this is likely to mean he won't accept any climate data unless it denies CC (which has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be real) and reinforces points 4, 5, 6 and 7.

 
I wanted to try and be fairly neutral in introducing that point, but I do believe that it's awful. It seems like Trump has already decided what he'll want to believe, and even if scientific proof is staring him in the face, this could give him the power to dictate whether or not something actually counts as proof. It's confirmation bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ryusei the Morning Star Community Regular

Ryusei the Morning Star

Posted
Posted

Responding to posts from the Administration thread.

 

 

Some of his actions have been very hostile towards all media, including Stephen Bannon telling the media to "keep its mouth shut" (Hey Bannon, how's Breitbart doing for you?), so I'm focusing on whether or not Trump's hostile censorship of the media is warranted. I'm learning towards it being unwarranted. 

 

Read the entire quote

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Wv_sc6PIa8

 

Or listen to Ben explain that snippet. It's not accurate 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ryusei the Morning Star Community Regular

Ryusei the Morning Star

Posted
Posted

Wow, you'd go far to protect this tangerine headed blonde.

You should have seen me defend President Obama back when I liked him in 14

 

Syria and Crimea ruined that for me tho

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/24/asia/tpp-rcep-nafta-explained/index.html

 

Dad sent me this, said it was a good peace to defend NAFTA/TPP

 

I disagree with it, but might as well put info out there

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aerion Brightflame Newbie

Aerion Brightflame

Posted
Posted

Obama's a likable dude but even I will admit that some of his foreign policy is no bueno. 

 

I'd exchange foriegn policy with policy in general.

 

I adore the man as a political figure, he is everything I think that the president of the united states should be, charming, level headed, effortlessly charasmatic, and a phenomial orator, but he did some seriously questionable sheet in office, both foriegn and domestically (Domestically being the surveillance sheet, and not being hard enough on the banks/not taking enough steps to prevent another crash).

 

He's exactly what the US needed to patch it's public perception after the Bush years, did a good job notgetting into any personal contraversies despite an immense amount of irrational hatred towards him from certain branches, but I don't think history will be amazingly kind to him. He won't rank badly, but he won'trankaswell ashe should have done given the wave of support he had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ryusei the Morning Star Community Regular

Ryusei the Morning Star

Posted
Posted

I just wish more people could find a balance between hailing him as the messiah or decrying him as the devil.  

http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/18/the-obama-administration-stopped-processing-iraq-refugee-requests-for-6-months-in-2011/

 

Nobody complained when he did this (I still say it was the right thing)

 

Now when Trump does it, it's the end of the world

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Resident Fascist Newbie

Resident Fascist

Posted
Posted

http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/18/the-obama-administration-stopped-processing-iraq-refugee-requests-for-6-months-in-2011/

 

Nobody complained when he did this (I still say it was the right thing)

 

Now when Trump does it, it's the end of the world

 

I'm sure people actually decried it when it happened. Also, just because someone else did it doesn't make it right. Your post comes across as a petty "HAHA 1-UP OBAMA!" agenda at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ryusei the Morning Star Community Regular

Ryusei the Morning Star

Posted
Posted

No, it's racism and assuming that everyone from X country is part of Y ideology, which is complete funking bullshit. 

No...it's called caution to know a large number of people from X country are part of Y ideology and want to screen them for that

 

rac·ism ˈrāˌsizəm/Submit noun prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

 

Not a race

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aerion Brightflame Newbie

Aerion Brightflame

Posted
Posted

Dismissing 'it's racism' on the grounds of it technically being not a race kind of ignores the point of the statement. The statement is meant to imply 'It's discriminatory' more than 'You hate these people because they belong to X race'. Whilst the other side could, and should use a better term, you somewhat gloss over the reasoning behind the statement by focusing on the technical word choice.

 

But whatever;

 

Every sovergien nation has the right to restrict it's borders as it so wishes to whichever countries it wishes to restrict for whatever reasons it wants. I would just prefer it being a reason that has reasoning beyond fear at what remains the irrational or improbable. Islamic Extremists from that region of the world have commited very few attacks in the US in the past decade. Most incidents of Jihadist terrorist has been a result of native American's being radicalised (From an initial look over recent terrorist incidents). The last incident I found with a terrorist from OOCUS was Somalian, which is not I believe a region of the world Trump is targetting with this.

 

Given that attacks, with the current rate of refugee's are few and far between, it leads the level of increased security that Trump has proposed is dispropoionate and irrational to me. And thus I'd rather it not be done.

 

It's similar to the wall in Mexico right? A big flashy statement that doesn't actually deal with the real part of the issue it's trying to fix. Admittedly the Wall could have secondary beneficial effects.

 

EDIT: I don't particularly condone of Obama's one, but just from the article it had some legitimacy; The existing screening process failed to detect the fairly obvious fact that a pair of individuals who'd been detained during the Iraq war were allowed through. An obvious, and somewhat immediate failing that needed readdressing.

 

I've not seen evidence that gives Trump's the same legitimacy (Of attacks occuring with the United States). I think his executive order is even too far reaching, and threatening those who've been proven to be no threat to society and are flouroshing with the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ryusei the Morning Star Community Regular

Ryusei the Morning Star

Posted
Posted

Somalia is restricted I thought

 

He banned areas that have known ISIS infiltration and terrorist states (Iran)

 

There's a reason he didn't ban people from India or Indonesian...cuz its not a Muslim ban.

 

I'm rejecting Shards claim of racism not only on poor terminology but cause of lack of intended substance

 

 

https://apnews.com/f4e4419aabab4d6594752bbf16bfc9f5?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

 

Lobbyists banned

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...