**** Elections thread *****

[BananaStand]

Of course it is. If the majority of citizens are in favour of electoral reform, it's irrelevant if 63% is the same as the 66.7% of the representatives that are needed to change it. You just picked on something he said when it was clear he was referring to the same thing when he said 63% and 2/3, as if that somehow changes the meaning of what he said.

Check the rulebook. If you want to eliminate the electoral college, you need a 2/3 majority, NOT a 51% majority. 63% is not enough. What are you not getting here?

Furthermore, what you really need is 2/3 of the senate, which would probably require alot more than 2/3 of the population, so 63% is not even in the ballpark.

The fact that it's impossible to target the religion with precision doesn't prove the religion wasn't targeted.

It's certainly strong evidence that targeting a religion was NOT the goal. Setting out on impossible tasks doesn't seem like Trump's style.

So it's ok for you to dish out the insults and imply that those who disagree with you are clueless morons

Fake news.

Here's a tip: Start showing others respect around here and you'll get respect in return.

I don't respect unfounded sensational accusations presented as fact. Other than that, I think I've been a decent guy here.

What you're doing is extrapolating from my argument to some absurd extreme position that I don't hold and I never claimed to hold, like 'Trump hates muslims'.

Well you have clearly stated your belief that this policy "targets" muslims. If it's not hatred or animus, why are they being targeted?

You don't know what confirmation bias is if you think forming an impression of someone based on what they say and do is confirmation bias.

If you pick and choose which things they say and do and use only those things to form your opinion, that's confirmation bias. The general consensus opinion of the Mayor, is nothing close to yours. You have to literally invent a justification for using the term "right wing nutjob", it's not substantiated by his record at all.

There's no evidence that the majority agree with his decision, in fact the evidence is for the contrary - the majority appear to disagree with the idea.

I just gave you a link that completely refutes this. Your first statement there is only true because you used the word "majority", which I never used. I said a larger population agrees than disagrees. That was validated by the Reuters poll. A plurality, not a majority, agrees with the policy.

The media for the large part, because they sensationalize everything. Fact: Since 2001, you're more likely to die by being struck by lightning in the US, shot by your toddler, or have a coconut fall on your head than die at the hands of an islamic terrorist. Yet I don't see any ban on palm trees.

If Palm Trees took over large portions of territory in the middle east by force, trained militants, and organized a violent jihad against the west, then those Palm Trees might see a few chainsaws.

Why were there more protesters at his inauguration weekend than revelers?

Source?

By any legal expert's standards, he has not. Giving your companies' control over to your kids is not 'divesting your businesses' - it's not even close to removing the obvious conflicts of interest.

If he is in violation of the law, why isn't he being prosecuted? I'm guessing that "Legal experts" are satisfied with the steps he has taken.

What a ridiculous statement. Guess all those civil rights protesters in the 60s had no effect then.

Not even close to the same thing. In the 60's there was an obvious and palpable injustice. In 2017 we use inconvenience and injustice interchangeably. That diminishes the meaning and effect of protests.

Like I said they can protest both the policy and the man. It's perfectly logical to associate one with the other.

Fine, but I still believe that if Trump were impeached tomorrow, no one would give a shit what his successor's refugee policy is.

They have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. If they wait until the country is a dictatorship and no-one's allowed to protest, it's going to be too late.

Agreed, but you're not applying the same standard to the other side. If we wait until a terrorist slips through the cracks and kills people, it's going to be too late.

And who said anything about folks "not being allowed to protest". My point is if you do it disingenuously, it diminishes the effect of your protest. And if that happens enough, it diminishes the credibility of all protests. If you want the protests to matter, then be real. When people protest a policy they don't even understand, just to undermine someone they don't like......that's weak fucking sauce.

I don't know their motives. Why should I assume they're all pure?

It's called "benefit of the doubt". You don't know their motives are impure. So why assume that?

All I can go on are their actions, and I disagree with them for several reasons: First, it's un-American to discriminate against members of a particular religion the way they do.

Agreed. Good thing no one is doing that. There is no religious component to this act whatsoever. You're choosing to perceive one. And you're doing so in obvious defiance of known and provable facts. 43 muslim countries are unaffected. Christians in the named countries are affected. The 7 countries named share a common thread that is not related to religion, but related to the structure and cooperativeness of their government. The 43 countries that don't share that thread, are not included. These are facts you insist on ignoring or minimizing because they simply don't fit your desired conclusion.

Second, it's unclear what the ultimate purpose really is (I know what you think it is, but I'm talking about reality, not opinion. And I'm suspicious as to whether they're stated goals match their real goals).

I really can't imagine why you say its unclear. The purpose has been stated, it's been supported by facts, and it's being implemented as a continuation of a law passed by congress and signed by the previous president. I'm all for healthy skepticism, but you've maintained that skepticism despite obvious realities. That's called paranoia.

Third, it's unfair to all the people who are suffering needlessly because of this overblown paranoia and xenophobia.

I thought you just said you didn't know the motivation behind the order. Ive accused you of believing that Trump is doing this out of animus toward Muslims. You've spent pages telling me how wrong I am about that. Now you're saying it's "because of overblown paranoia and xenophobia". Make up your mind dude.

And "suffering" is a strong word

[Poopadoop]

I think I've been a decent guy here.

Your first post was calling surviva all kinds of idiot. Your first interaction with wuf was call him a tin hatter. And you haven't exactly been respectful to others either. Getting a bit better though now, slowly.

Well you have clearly stated your belief that this policy "targets" muslims. If it's not hatred or animus, why are they being targeted?

It can be xenophobia, not hatred. Not necessarily the same thing.

If you pick and choose which things they say and do and use only those things to form your opinion, that's confirmation bias. The general consensus opinion of the Mayor, is nothing close to yours. You have to literally invent a justification for using the term "right wing nutjob", it's not substantiated by his record at all.

What makes you say I pick and choose what Guiliani says or does? Because my evaluation of him differs from yours? First, I only know what I've seen myself, I haven't followed the guy around with a mic to see what he's like 24/7. And second, what I've seen suggests to me that he's a right wing nut. You don't have to agree, it's just an opinion.

I just gave you a link that completely refutes this. Your first statement there is only true because you used the word "majority", which I never used. I said a larger population agrees than disagrees. That was validated by the Reuters poll. A plurality, not a majority, agrees with the policy.

Ah ok, I was misinformed them.

Source?

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...tion-worldwide

Over half a million in Washington DC alone. More than the estimated crowd of revelers.

If he is in violation of the law, why isn't he being prosecuted? I'm guessing that "Legal experts" are satisfied with the steps he has taken.

Guess again. They're not.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/...nterest-ethics

Not even close to the same thing. In the 60's there was an obvious and palpable injustice. In 2017 we use inconvenience and injustice interchangeably. That diminishes the meaning and effect of protests.

Your argument was that protesting was pointless. My argument was it isn't. You can't say it's pointless just when you don't agree with the message of the protests.

Fine, but I still believe that if Trump were impeached tomorrow, no one would give a shit what his successor's refugee policy is.

I'm pretty confident it would still be high on the list of things people would find important.

And who said anything about folks "not being allowed to protest". My point is if you do it disingenuously, it diminishes the effect of your protest. And if that happens enough, it diminishes the credibility of all protests. If you want the protests to matter, then be real. When people protest a policy they don't even understand, just to undermine someone they don't like......that's weak fucking sauce.

You don't know why they are all protesting - you just assume it's for disingenuous reasons. That's weak sauce too.

It's called "benefit of the doubt". You don't know their motives are impure. So why assume that?

With regards to Trump, it's all about history. Nothing he has done has shown him to have an interest in helping anyone but himself.

And "suffering" is a strong word

You can downplay it, doesn't mean it isn't happening.

[BananaStand]

Your first post was calling surviva all kinds of idiot. Your first interaction with wuf was call him a tin hatter. And you haven't exactly been respectful to others either. Getting a bit better though now, slowly.

I don't know what to tell you. I talk exactly the same way in real life, and I have friends.

It can be xenophobia, not hatred. Not necessarily the same thing.

You've got to be kidding. Please look up xenophobia. That would apply to all 190+ countries. We're only talking about 7. It's been clear from the outset that your objection to this policy is your perception that it unfairly targets Muslims.

What makes you say I pick and choose what Guiliani says or does? Because my evaluation of him differs from yours? First, I only know what I've seen myself, I haven't followed the guy around with a mic to see what he's like 24/7. And second, what I've seen suggests to me that he's a right wing nut. You don't have to agree, it's just an opinion.

Fine, but your evaluation of him doesn't just differ from mine, it differs from virtually everyone else's. When you claim that a guy widely known as a populist, is a "right wing nutjob", you need to bring more backup to the table than "he talks utter shit".

Over half a million in Washington DC alone. More than the estimated crowd of revelers.

Estimated? So, no verifiable data? This looks like an "alternative facts" trap. I'm not walking into it. I will say though, it would be naive to ignore how violent the responses have been to any conservative-themed event. A girl got pepper sprayed while giving an interview on camera. Just for wearing a Trump hat. No arrests. I wouldn't go out there either.

Guess again. They're not.

Oh puh-leeeeze. Vanity Fair is far from an authority on the law. And the summation of that article is "Vanity Fair found a bunch of liberal-minded "experts" to slam Trump". They don't seem to cite any actual law, or legal precedent. Or when they do, it's full of conjecture and "what-ifs".

Your argument was that protesting was pointless. My argument was it isn't. You can't say it's pointless just when you don't agree with the message of the protests.

No, that's not my argument. Protesting is pointless if your motive is disguised as something else. Like, if you got fired from KFC and you were pissed off at your former boss, then you joined a PETA protest outside corporate headquarters seeking to end cruelty to chickens. You didn't give a fuck about chickens yesterday. In fact, you served up their fried carcasses with gravy. If you're just there to shit on the Colonel, you're a dick-brain.

I'm pretty confident it would still be high on the list of things people would find important.

Not important enough to stand in a crowded airport all day.

You don't know why they are all protesting - you just assume it's for disingenuous reasons. That's weak sauce too.

You claim to not know why Trump signed the order. But you have assumed that it's NOT for the national security reasons he has stated. How is that any different? I don't believe the protesters are sincerely interested in helping refugees enough to demonstrate this way. It's Anti-Trump sentiment that's fueling these demonstrations. he could have signed an executive order requiring the White House kitchen to keep the ice cubes cold, and some of these people would still be holding signs.

With regards to Trump, it's all about history. Nothing he has done has shown him to have an interest in helping anyone but himself.

This totally ignores the reality, and precedent set by every elected official ever, that says there can, and SHOULD be differences between campaign rhetoric, and actions after taking office. You talk about "history" when the guy was only in office a week when he signed this order.

You can downplay it, doesn't mean it isn't happening.

You can up-play it. That doesn't mean I care about it nearly as much as I care about America's national security. I'm all for the ending of suffering, but when leaders of National Intelligence have said that we can't perform that good deed without putting Americans at risk.....fuck em. They can wait until we get things fixed.

[Poopadoop]

Estimated? So, no verifiable data? This looks like an "alternative facts" trap. I'm not walking into it. I will say though, it would be naive to ignore how violent the responses have been to any conservative-themed event. A girl got pepper sprayed while giving an interview on camera. Just for wearing a Trump hat. No arrests. I wouldn't go out there either.

There is no verifiable data - they didn't do a head count. Still, seems more people went to protest than to support him. There were easily way more protesters than at any other inauguration, and just as easily way more people at Obama's inauguration than Trump's. By just about any measure barring those espoused by the ministers of propaganda Conway and Spicer the guy has been swimming in unpopularity.

They don't seem to cite any actual law, or legal precedent. Or when they do, it's full of conjecture and "what-ifs".

When the chief ethics advisor for the gov't says it's pretty obvious he hasn't resolved his conflicts of interest and is violating the constitution, and you still don't want to believe it, then I don't know what else to tell you.

Protesting is pointless if your motive is disguised as something else. Like, if you got fired from KFC and you were pissed off at your former boss, then you joined a PETA protest outside corporate headquarters seeking to end cruelty to chickens. You didn't give a fuck about chickens yesterday. In fact, you served up their fried carcasses with gravy. If you're just there to shit on the Colonel, you're a dick-brain.

I don't understand this argument. You're suggesting some people who are protesting Trump's policies are actually protesting Trump-in-general instead? How do you divorce the two?

Not important enough to stand in a crowded airport all day.

So, the fact that he has people ready to protest him at the drop of a hat suggests what about him?

You claim to not know why Trump signed the order. But you have assumed that it's NOT for the national security reasons he has stated.

Nope. All I said was that I was skeptical. I don't claim to know the full extent of his reasons. You, OTOH, seem to be happy to believe that whatever reasons they've been spoon-feeding you are the real and only ones, as far as i can tell.

I don't believe the protesters are sincerely interested in helping refugees enough to demonstrate this way. It's Anti-Trump sentiment that's fueling these demonstrations. he could have signed an executive order requiring the White House kitchen to keep the ice cubes cold, and some of these people would still be holding signs.

Why do you think there's so many people against him? I mean what is their beef with him if not what he's doing and saying?

This totally ignores the reality, and precedent set by every elected official ever, that says there can, and SHOULD be differences between campaign rhetoric, and actions after taking office. You talk about "history" when the guy was only in office a week when he signed this order.

History goes back further than two weeks. All you have to do is look at the number of times he's been sued, stiffed contractors, lied, gotten into spats with people over petty things, etc., to see how he behaves. It's not hard to go from that to thinking he's a self-serving narcissist.

Maybe you just have a bit too much respect for your country's institution of president to realise you've elected such a character. Maybe that's the problem here, that you lack perspective. I mean a lot of the rest of the world thinks he's a major twat.

[BananaStand]

Can't do the copy/paste project anymore man. My comments are in blue.

There is no verifiable data - they didn't do a head count. Still, seems more people went to protest than to support him. There were easily way more protesters than at any other inauguration, and just as easily way more people at Obama's inauguration than Trump's. By just about any measure barring those espoused by the ministers of propaganda Conway and Spicer the guy has been swimming in unpopularity.

Old news. Whoever won the election was going to be the most unpopular incoming president ever. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with this 'my protest is bigger than your protest' game. I don't deny that there are more anti-trump demonstrations. But I think one would be naive to ignore the violence and rancor that gets brought upon outspoken conservatives

When the chief ethics advisor for the gov't says it's pretty obvious he hasn't resolved his conflicts of interest and is violating the constitution, and you still don't want to believe it, then I don't know what else to tell you.
He's not violating the constitution. In fact, the one salient fact in that article is that ethics regulations don't apply to the President, and he could legally continue to run his business while serving as President, and it would be fine. The fact that he's taken the steps should be encouraging. Plus, the idea that Trump would make decisions to help his business at the expense of national security or American interests is totally preposterous. He's a 70 year old man with 10 billion dollars sitting in the most powerful seat in teh world. What on earth could possibly tempt him enough to compromise that. Sheesh.

I don't understand this argument. You're suggesting some people who are protesting Trump's policies are actually protesting Trump-in-general instead? How do you divorce the two?
You do understand the argument, that's exactly what I'm saying. I divorce the two when the objection to the policy is based on false premises like the idea that it's a "muslim" ban, or that he's cherry picking the countries that don't affect his business. When those arguments are so demonstrably false, yet stubbornly adhered to, it suggests to me that the demonstrators don't understand, or simply don't care about the thing they claim to be protesting.

That diminishes the credibilty of your protest. And when it happens alot, it diminishes the credibility of all protests.

So, the fact that he has people ready to protest him at the drop of a hat suggests what about him?
American progressives are addicted to outrage? They've been stirred up by combative media that glorifies and glamorizes efforts to de-legitimize Trump. Also, it seems there is at least anecdotal evidence that many of these demonstrators are paid

Nope. All I said was that I was skeptical. I don't claim to know the full extent of his reasons. You, OTOH, seem to be happy to believe that whatever reasons they've been spoon-feeding you are the real and only ones, as far as i can tell.
I thought we weren't doing the ad hominem game. When you say "spoon fed", it implies that I consume things like a baby. I have to eat food to stay alive. The spoon is a convenient food delivery mechanism. And if someone wants to do the heavy lifting for me, great. I work, I raise kids, I climb mountains, I do a lot of things that keep me from personally keeping tabs on the status of middle east immigrants and refugees. I trust my government officials to do that for me, and keep me informed. As a sensible person, I look for other sources to confirm the things being 'spoon fed' to me. I see a man using a faked Syrian passport shoot up a concert in Paris. I see Sweden become the rape capital of the world, overnight. I could go on, but I'd just be repeating myself. Looking beyond that free spoonful, I see enough to make me trust what I'm hearing from government.

Why do you think there's so many people against him? I mean what is their beef with him if not what he's doing and saying?
Do you think it would be different if Hillary were President? Old news man. They were both monumentally disliked. Their beef with Trump is related to their persistent disbelief over the results of the election. You have members of congress stating publicly that Trump is "not legitimate" and citing Russian interference and teh popular vote. They're motivated by a delusional drive to re-write the results of the the election by undermining Trump's policies and neutering his presdiential power.

History goes back further than two weeks. All you have to do is look at the number of times he's been sued, stiffed contractors, lied, gotten into spats with people over petty things, etc., to see how he behaves. It's not hard to go from that to thinking he's a self-serving narcissist.
Narcissist, sure. But that doesn't mean he's not also capable of patriotism. You don't make 10 billion dollars in business without stepping on toes. I'm not really phased by the number of times he's been sued. He's probably been wrong a few times, and I'm sure he's lost and/or settled a few lawsuits over the years. So what? How does that make him incapable of differentiating between business and government?

Maybe you just have a bit too much respect for your country's institution of president to realise you've elected such a character. Maybe that's the problem here, that you lack perspective. I mean a lot of the rest of the world thinks he's a major twat.
Yes, I respect the office of President. I respect the outcome of fair elections. I respect the authority of a federal government. Approaching a new administration with an open mind doesn't mean I lack perspective. I've never said I love the guy's whole playbook. Ten minute ago I texted my girlfriend "I swear, Trump would be the best president ever if he just never talked"

You can't please all of the people all of the time. That's perspective.

[Poopadoop]

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/...g-constitution

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opini...ticle30019623/

[BananaStand]

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/...g-constitution

In case you missed it earlier, ethics regulations do not apply to the President. Trump could spend half his day being President, and half his day being CEO, and it's perfectly legal. He's violating no law.

The only law he's being accused of violating is the emoluments clause, which prevents Trump from receiving gifts from foreign governments. And thus far, he hasn't received one. The entire case is based on a hypothesis, and a completely absurd one at that.

The suggestion is that foreign visitors could attempt to curry favor with Mr. Trump by patronizing his hotels and businesses during their stay. For that to even matter, you'd have to subscribe to the roundabout logic that says patronizing a business constitutes a gift. In the rest of the economy, this is a fair exchange of goods and services. They get a bed, Trump sends them a bill. The emoluments clause does not apply to these exchanges. You'd have to believe that represents a gift to Trump, which is nuts.

Also, the entire premise is silly. Trump is an old man, with all the money in the world, a smokin hot wife, and the most powerful seat in the world. What amount of hotel profits would tempt him to make a foreign policy decision against America's interests? Give me a number?

And if you're still not convinced, Trump has committed to donate those profits to the Treasury. To that, his opposition says "well, he could be lying". We could go on like this forever. Any concession Trump makes, could be a lie, so he can't be president! It's clear that whoever is beating this 'ethics' drum is just out to undermine and de-legitimize Trump. There's no conflict here, no crime. Just petty liberal bullshit.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opini...ticle30019623/

So poverty = crime. That's not news. Should we have an income test for refugees then? This article you've linked admits that poverty only accounts for 75% of the difference in the crime rate. What about the other 25%? It also conflates the facts by referring to a 'crime rate' that includes murders and robberies. Those crimes are indicative of an economic defect. Rape is something different altogether.

In America, black people represent 14% of the population but account for more than 50% of murders and robberies. That difference can be attributed to poverty. If poverty had the same influence on all crimes, including rape, then the numbers should be the same across the board, but they're not. Black people only commit 29% of rapes in America.

"When men first come into contact with crime, they abhor it. If they remain in contact with crime for a time, they become accustomed to it, and endure it. If they remain in contact with it long enough, they finally embrace it, and become influenced by it."
-Napoleon Hill, citing a "famous criminologist"

These people are coming from countries where men keep and trade sex slaves. Certainly that is going to have an 'influence' on their attitudes towards women. The article you linked concedes a 'handful of headline grabbing incidents'. Well, when does a handful become a trend? What's the number?