President Donald Trump and his Administration

[APSMS 1,893]

19 minutes ago, _Michael said:

These information sources more often than not take sides, and that is what Vox is doing. Go watch Fox for pro-trump coverage, or flick over to CNN for more critical coverage. It was the opposite during Obama - Fox moaning and CNN supporting. They take sides.

What's your point? I'm not defending Sean Spicer or Trump's narcissism.

I'm pointing out that it's about time they stopped repeated the party line because "everything that the democratic president does must be for the good of the country".

If you watched Fox lately you would realize that they put up with Trump, but they are not necessarily for him nor are they particularly happy that he's not a true conservative. They will support him because he is willing to assist them with their agenda when it matches up with his own, but my point was that if NOW is the time that they realize that the White House doesn't necessarily tell the truth or that the government is not their best buddy, it's too late, and no wonder we're in the state we're in, with Donald Trump as the president. You can blame a lot of things for Trump's victory, but if you still think that the government will be your friend long after he's gone and replaced with a progressive (or anyone really) that "upholds and understands the law," you've got another thing coming.

Main reason I preferred him over Hillary: we need someone to check the advance of "progressive" ridiculousness that is left-wing identity politics. It's going to happen anyways. I'd prefer it be less rabid and silly than it currently is, particularly since the way that they've been going about it is highly undemocratic and oppressive (labeling your opposition xenophobic and racist does not promote good discussion, especially if you're trying to bring them over to your point of view, even if there's a possibility that it might be true).

[krbe 193]

1 hour ago, APSMS said:

About time they got off their butts and started doing some real reporting rather than being orifices for the government! Where was this when Obama and Bush were in office?

Bush and Obama were political professionals, with professionals to do the jobs. This seeps through the entire Trump administration; just look at the amateur way the travel ban EO was written and how they've been backpedalling, first on green card holders and then dual citizens on a country-by-country basis, at least for NATO allies.

But to be fair, the Obama administration had a minor version of this with Matt Lee at the State Department, who refused to accept that department's narrative when reporting for Associated Press.

[APSMS 1,893]

4 minutes ago, krbe said:

Bush and Obama were political professionals, with professionals to do the jobs.

As far as I'm concerned this just means that they were better liars.

Not that Trump's not a liar either. Just, you know...he's only good at it because he doesn't believe that you can catch him in the act even when his fingers are in the jar. It doesn't actually mean that Obama and Bush were more honest. I hope you weren't trying to imply that they were.

[Fantozzi 4,068]

1 hour ago, APSMS said:

labeling your opposition xenophobic and racist does not promote good discussion

Don't understand this. Should we name racists racists or should we name them different? But naming things different if there is already a word for it what is it good for?

 

Wikipedia says:

"Racism is discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity. Today, the use of the term "racism" does not easily fall under a single definition ."

 

No?

If you say Yemenites can't enter our country because they are Yemenites - I would have troubles to find an example that fits the definition better given by wikipedia.

But maybe wikipedia is wrong. Maybe all those words must have a new definition to be true. Or maybe better: to be right.

But if so many words are wrong - what could this mean? Maybe there is some left-wing conspiration going on manipulating the meaning of words?

And we wake up one morning and realize those slobs have corrupted the meaning of those words.

That's a standard rhetoric: I'm no homophobic but this gay teacher will spill our children."

But shure he is.

If someone starts a sentence "Im no ... but ..."

You can be shure he is. It's a formula of confession: I have insight in my doing. I know the accusation. Why does he know the accusation before it was even expressed by anybody else? Because he knows he did something wrong - it's just a rhetoric to make it look like a 'missunderstanding'.

It's just that 'missunderstanding' has to be introduced in the discurse - 'you missunderstand me'.

No I don't.

You need this 'missunderstanding' like an escape from the fact: this is racism.

And the same it is how Trump supportes try to make those Hitler comparisons their own jokes and just in advance make those comparisons in a hyperbolic way to make the critics ridiculous. Those silly tricks to create missunderstanding - you missunderstand him.

No. I don't.

[APSMS 1,893]

2 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

Don't understand this. Should we name racists racists ore should we name them different? But naming things diffferent if there is already a word for it what is it good for?

Islam and Arabs are not races. Arab people are Caucasian. Arabs comprise an ethnic group, but Muslims do not.

2 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

If you say Yemenites can't enter our country because they are Yemenites - I would have troubles to find an example that fits the definition better given by wikipedia.

This assumes all Yemenites share the same cultural, social, and ethnic background and history. They do not.

2 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

"Racism is discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity. Today, the use of the term "racism" does not easily fall under a single definition ."

Why isn't Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and other Arab nations allowing any refugees in? Are they racist against their fellow muslims? But aren't they all Arab, and muslim? Nationalism does not mean a lot in a region where tribal alliances are king. National boundaries only really dictate which oil reserve your country can claim as its own. So why aren't Saudis racist for denying Syrians entry into their country even in refugee camps (which is not where refugees in America are going)?

Discrimination also apparently includes anti-religious bias (given that discrimination as a term is fairly broad, this makes good sense).

My religion and ethnic culture is a traditionalist Christian one. When people call me homophobic for what they perceive my beliefs to be, is that racism, because it happens a lot on the internet? I would normally call it callous and mean, but not racist, despite my minority status (both racially and ethnically speaking, not counting religion). How far is a religion part of someone's ethnic culture? When a religion is so ingrained into your culture that they are inseparable, does that make it an ethnicity? For what fundamental believer is their religion not a major part of their culture? Even Christianity calls for significant contributions of lifestyle choices to adapt to its tenets.

How much of someone's ethnicity is their nationality? In America we would argue that the two are inherently separate things. There is, of course, the American experience, but then again even America is pretty disparate when it comes to what it means to have an "American Identity" so I'm not sure American ethnicity has much concrete meaning either.

Muslims often share similar views with fundamental Christians regarding the origins of life, the social issues of homosexuality, marriage, family. In higher education institutions even suggesting such beliefs (but not teaching them or advocating them in class) gets you fired or at the very least marginalized. Even issues like suggesting that life begins at conception would place you at odds with the "ideology" of the school. I thought schools were to be places of learning where we learn about different ideas. Instead they've devolved into one ideal; only these views are expressed. All else are heretical; need not apply.

Isn't that racist, if we're equating religion to ethnicity, and if so where's my racism card so I can complain to someone?

I don't need to defend the ban. It sounded like a marginally reasonable idea (except for the elephant in the room), but at length it seems poorly executed and worded, with a load of gaps and failings that I am very amazed at. There's not a consistent suggestion for enforcement of the ban, and I'm concerned about how widespread the confusion is on what should be straightforward to have had worked out before its implementation. The concern over future immigration of people that hold US passports is absurd fear mongering, but the rest seems very valid. I'd prefer not to marginalize their concerns about the ridiculous cases that have come up that get so populized like with the vetted refugees that suddenly can't come over, but at the same time the arguments that "back-up" these analyses of the "wrongness" of the law fail so incredibly that I find it hard to take a lot of them seriously (the analyses, that is).

____________________________________________________________________

If it were up to me, I would suggest that we let people join ISIS, rather than prevent them or arrest them for trying. To do so is operating like a police state. Just because ISIS is evil does not mean that we should be able to dictate how people believe. I would simply say that if you ever leave to fight for ISIS (where proof is clear, which apparently there seems to be a lot of when it comes to people's intent regarding the matter, which quite frankly puzzles me a lot), if you ever leave to join ISIS, and you ever set foot back into America, you will be a traitor and tried for treason. It should be that simple. We are at war with ISIS; people who fight for ISIS are opposed to American ideals and want to enact Sharia law over the US (I'm ignoring the practicality of such an ambition). ISIS is a terrorist organization that utilizes everyday people who are willing to die if they can bring some infidels down with them to further the Jihad.

[APSMS 1,893]

More to the point, you (not personally) reduce the impact of the serious call of racist when you call those with whom you disagree racist.

Everything cannot be racist simply because there are judgments being made. That's called prejudice, which is not the same thing (related, but not immediately interchangeable).

Racism is a serious charge, and when pundits throw it around like candy, when presidential nominees write off 1/5 of the country as racist and therefore irredeemable (and implicitly not worthy of being a part of the nation, which has its own serious ramifications), you seriously dilute the impact of the accusation, which is exactly the opposite of what you want to happen.

Consider that when you write off the other opinion as completely irredeemable, or wrong, or refuse to listen to it on the grounds that it holds zero merit and therefore need not be entertained, consider that the holders of such beliefs aren't actually going anywhere. They're still there. Either you make an attempt to bring them into your fold, or you listen to their concerns and try to work with them so that together you can build a better world, rather than try to construct one without their approval.

Quote

Let me explain. If you are truly convinced that there is some solution to all human problems, that one can conceive an ideal society which men can reach if only they do what is necessary to attain it, then you and your followers must believe that no price can be too high to pay in order to open the gates of such a paradise. Only the stupid and malevolent will resist once certain simple truths are put to them. Those who resist must be persuaded; if they cannot be persuaded, laws must be passed to restrain them; if that does not work, then coercion, if need be violence, will inevitably have to be used—if necessary, terror, slaughter.

...

The idea that to all genuine questions there can be only one true answer is a very old philosophical notion.

...

This is the idea of which I spoke, and what I wish to tell you is that it is false. Not only because the solutions given by different schools of social thought differ, and none can be demonstrated by rational methods—but for an even deeper reason. The central values by which most men have lived, in a great many lands at a great many times—these values, almost if not entirely universal, are not always harmonious with each other. Some are, some are not. Men have always craved for liberty, security, equality, happiness, justice, knowledge, and so on. But complete liberty is not compatible with complete equality—if men were wholly free, the wolves would be free to eat the sheep.

Isaiah Berlin

If you attempt to silence opposition by trying to marginalize by calling it racist, you lose out on the opportunity to achieve the necessary compromise that will be required to ensure that tyranny does not arise. How can you be aware that the other side still exists when you refuse to listen to it? How can you protect against it when you ignore it because "it's racist" and not worthy of discussion? When the fundamental questions are being asked, how does one ignore 60 million people? You could argue that a small fraction of people voted for Trump. I argue that if you did not vote in the election and were able to, then you have no right to complain. Just because half the electorate didn't vote for Trump (or anyone at all) does not mean that it gives us a right to ignore the people that did vote for him, nor does it mean that we should ignore the voice of people who cared enough about their country to help determine its future direction.

How can one be outraged against something, if you were given a chance to stop it and did nothing? I'll admit there are times that this is not so simple and easy to do, but voting in America is safer and easier than ever before, and excuses like the candidates were lousy is just that: an excuse, a non-reason to not have done something that you should have done (my dad did it for the first time in 30 years without breaking a sweat).

I fundamentally disagree, by the way, with the idea that there is not one answer to the ultimate question (if you read the whole essay--it's short--you'll see what I mean), but I agree wholeheartedly with the notion that trying to answer the question via government and overhead rules and philosophies leads to destruction, death, and tyranny. Fundamentally the answer is not something to try to be decided by human institutions, and that I agree with strongly.

[SecretMbr_735754 2,158]

Good essays here and great crisis in the world today.

I like Donald Trump, he's a player, he mans up to the ultimate game of alpha male great gig in the sky, so here's my response to 'Go Nuclear'.

Evidently a higher power did endow in humanity qualities of empathy, compassion, mercy, and capacities of reason, of perception, cognition and skill effective to learning and advancing in health, dignity and good conscience.  I don't see any evidence that human beings invented either themselves, this living planet or any structure of nature or the universe.

It is not evident that human knowledge is established effective to qualified comprehension of the origin of nature, the origin of the universe, or the origin of life.  Any claim of knowledge or power without precise and complete definition of the associated action of objects or transitions of form is either incorrect or insufficient.  Neither it is evident that the human species can define the precise end of either life or of the universe.

It is extremely improbable that if the human species was so advanced in knowledge and skill, that the world of humankind would exhibit severe behavior of tyranny and oppression, manipulative, exploitative, deceptive character, or of conflict of violence and actions of abuse.

So, I'll pass on 'Go Nuclear' and raise on the equation for the law preceding the conservation of energy and the identity of the 2nd near Earth object approaching.

[krbe 193]

12 hours ago, APSMS said:

As far as I'm concerned this just means that they were better liars.

Not that Trump's not a liar either. Just, you know...he's only good at it because he doesn't believe that you can catch him in the act even when his fingers are in the jar. It doesn't actually mean that Obama and Bush were more honest. I hope you weren't trying to imply that they were.

You are of course right. In particular Mr Obama was a master of protocol -- and hiding said protocol. There's a lot to learn from him.

I see Mr Trump as being Mr Obama's complete opposite -- not in policy or judgment, but in the way they operate. Mr Trump needs everything out there, and he need constant validation. It's going to be exhausting and annoying whether you like him or not; but the fact of the matter is that in the face of irrational, emotional humans, that is an efficient approach. And the other way with the Obama administration -- sleek and efficient of countering the bureaucracy that opposed him, and calm and composed when he passed his message on.

[Fantozzi 4,068]

15 hours ago, APSMS said:

How much of someone's ethnicity is their nationality?

Answer to this is given in the link in the wikipedia article to ethnicity.

15 hours ago, APSMS said:

Isn't that racist, if we're equating religion to ethnicity, and if so where's my racism card so I can complain to someone?

No, it's a part of the definition of the word ethnicity - it has not the same meaning as the word 'race' so basically the word 'racist' doesn't base on prejudices agains a 'race', it bases on prejudices agains a group. Ethnicities they define themselfes. A jew isn't member of a race. He's a member of a ethnicity. This is no biological question. Biological ethnicities don't exist. A jew can decide to be no more jew. Ethnicity is echangegable. There is no reason why nation and ethnicity have to be different.

At least this is my knowledge and that's how I understand the article on wikipedia.

15 hours ago, APSMS said:

My religion and ethnic culture is a traditionalist Christian one

Isn't that an equitation of religion and ethnicity? But well, to me it's right.

I don't think a definition of the word 'ethnicity' has to conflict with this:

" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "

America's declaration of independence bases on equality not on difference of men. But maybe the declaration of indipendence was declared on a wrong believe?

So it won't work to define ethnicities as differences - only as identity. Like you find maybe identity in saying "I am american." You declared your ethnicity (not by saying "I am no mexican" - in differnce to another ethnicity, but by forming identity). It's not that I can define your identity by comparing you with others.

Isn't it you to decide what you say: "I am ..."?

And isn't this 'equality' that others can do it the same. And so racism depends not on you to decide what is to be called a 'ethnicity' or a race but to disrespect this saying 'I am ...' whatever they say they are?

 

[APSMS 1,893]

2 minutes ago, Fantozzi said:

Isn't that an equitation of religion and ethnicity? But well, to me it's right.

It was meant to be a self-demonstrating article (cue: Department of Redundancy Department). It was not meant in seriousness, despite how much religion may ultimately affect what sociologists might call "cultural choices"

3 minutes ago, Fantozzi said:

America's declaration of independence bases on equality not on difference of men.

All men are created equal, and should be held as such before the law, but men do not remain equal, nor should they. Fundamental equality is not the same as literal equality.

4 minutes ago, Fantozzi said:

Like you find maybe identity in saying "I am american." You declared your ethnicity.

For better or worse I do not think that the American question is so simple. Maybe in smaller countries, but even geographical differences prevent this from maintaining a uniform meaning, much less the ramifications that propagate from the inherent regional differences.

6 minutes ago, Fantozzi said:

But maybe the declaration of indipendence was declared on a wrong believe?

For better or worse the Declaration of Independence is not part of the basis of laws which govern America. Some would argue that it is inherently faulty because of the citation of a Creator, whom some might find fault with because they deny he exists. It's a fair enough argument, but one wonders then from where equality derives from. The mouths of men? Such a value would be equally easy to remove at a stroke, with no implication that such a "right" could ever be restored, even by force.

8 minutes ago, Fantozzi said:

Isn't it you to decide what you say: "I am"? But you define what others are? Can this be called 'being equal?'

If I decide which ethnicity I belong to, wouldn't that define nationality as a separate entity? One cannot withdraw their citizenship in a country without first being admitted to another, nor can they deny their country of origin, even if that country's majority population holds diametrically opposed beliefs or practices or cultures. A Jew might decide to convert to Islam, but if he is born in Israel that will always be the country of his birth, no matter where he moves afterwards. If he does not move after ending his "Jewishness" he is still a resident of Israel, even if he is no longer a Jew.

Such things are not easy to distinguish, but it seems to me that even modern conversations where we can discuss things like the mass genocide of ethnic Albanians living in Kosovo suggests that ethnicity and nationality do not always align, nor are they perhaps appropriate when discerning between populations of people. It is perhaps not fair to lump the multiple ethnicities that comprise modern nations into one group, particularly in things like the travel ban where entire national populations were blocked, but it does suggest something other than racism.

For what it's worth, although unconstitutional, a muslim ban would still not be racist. It would, however, be unfairly discriminatory. The same would apply for any ban with a religious test/requirement. Religion != race.

[Fantozzi 4,068]

28 minutes ago, APSMS said:

For what it's worth, although unconstitutional, a muslim ban would still not be racist. It would, however, be unfairly discriminatory. The same would apply for any ban with a religious test/requirement. Religion != race.

If I understand this right your argumentation is that segregation isn't racism as long it is based on religion?

Like banning jewish children from school in 1937 in germany f.e.?

 

[APSMS 1,893]

@Fantozzi Really? That's where you went?

The Jewish ban was not a religious one. If I remember correctly, the Nazi regime banned any Jew, including Lutheran and Catholic Jews (since Jewishness encompasses more than simply religion). It also killed Christian and non-religious Jews. The Nazis had a thing against the Jewish people as a racial (as they perceived it, despite Jews being Caucasian/White Semitic) and ethnic group, not specifically against the Jewish religion. Even today modern antisemitism does not take a religious form; most Muslims, particularly those occupying nations surrounding Israel, do not object to the Jewish faith any more than the Christian faith. It is the Jewish presence which they object to, in both national and ethnic form. Jewish persecution existed long before the controversial establishment of the modern State of Israel; perhaps this persecution and isolation is why Jewish culture remains intact and why Jewishness is hard to completely define. If it were merely the culture associated with the religion this would be easy, but it appears to go beyond this, as a large number of European Jews were not particularly religious following WWI and Hitler described Communism as a Jewish invention (Karl Marx was Jewish), which is inherently at odds with the Jewish faith. Clearly Judaism as a religion was not the metrical test applied to determine whether you were sent to the gas chamber in Nazi Germany, though I will admit that it was one of them (thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses--there were far less JWs than Jews--were imprisoned and hundreds killed as well for their refusal to fight for the German Army).

Other non-religious Jews were also persecuted. This is not the same thing, and even then the US ban is not targeted. It does not say Chaldeans (a primarily Christian ethnic group in Iraq) are allowed but Arabs are not. It does not say that Sudanese Christians are allowed, but their Muslim counterparts are not. It merely says Sudanese. I will freely admit that the ban has problems but calling it racist is a misnomer, and I'm really tired of people equating race with religion, because the two are fundamentally different.

You can change your religion. You can't change (easily) the color of your skin and you can never change your heritage although you can determine whether or not you participate in its customs.

I'm not suggesting Muslims change religions either (don't go there). I am suggesting that whenever someone suggests that we consider threats and our values and what we stand for, and determine whether blind acceptance/tolerance is really acceptable, consider that labeling everyone who merely suggests otherwise a racist is not particularly constructive.

Similarly I would argue that not liking someone's culture does not make you racist, and we should avoid that kind of labeling as well. If all cultures were equally liked by all people (liberals/civil rights activists/social justice warriors included) what would be the point in practicing one over the other?

[JP Schriefer 5,591]

On 01/02/2017 at 8:46 PM, _Michael said:

Oh please.

The video above, while some may argue play on emotional strings, is factual, and the details given at Sean Spicer's first press conference were false. Here's an image tor prove it.

The image, from the same perspective, during the inauguration (You can see Trump's and Obama's image on the screens) clearly shows how the crowd was larger at Obama's first inauguration. "Period"

News channels take sides. In the UK, the Daily Mail is right-wing & pro-Brexit; the Guardian is left-wing and pro-remain (I grant you these are newspapers bu the point stands). These information sources more often than not take sides, and that is what Vox is doing. Go watch Fox for pro-trump coverage, or flick over to CNN for more critical coverage. It was the opposite during Obama - Fox moaning and CNN supporting. They take sides.

To be honest I can't understand why these images were so viral, it kinda proves nothing. I'm not conspiring, but to take that comparison in consideration we have to know if  1) the pictures were taken at the same time of the day - or at least at the proportionally time to the ceremony. 2) The angle of the pictures doesn't allow us to see if there are other parts near to the Capitol with more people - maybe there are holes there in Obama's ceremony but not in Trump's. Personally I've no doubt Obama's inauguration was larger indeed, but I'm not sure if it was with such discrepancy. I just don't think people should use a single picture to take conclusions and I think crowds in inaugurations means nothing, that's why I still have a number 3) in 2007 the United States and the whole western world were not so polarized as it is today. Probably there are Trump's supporters who resigns to go to the inauguration because well..the country is on fire and since weeks or months before that day there were already big protests being planned and noticed, and it undoubtedly generates fear. 4) Washington's population is, in its majority, democrats, just like it's surroundings cities, so obviously this kind of event naturally can assure more of them. 5) Finally, does the size matter? (No pun here ). Half of the United States support Trump, just as half supported Obama, what difference inauguration crowd numbers do?

I think I said too much about something I think it's useless, but I just can't get the point of using that if we have to consider so many variables.

---

I said once I wouldn't gave my opinion about political discussions that are not from my country because I don't live there to know exactly what's going on, but with recent events and what happened to Milo yesterday it's impossible to say American liberals act exactly like the leftists from my country. What I've to say is that the way liberals are acting isn't something good to witness daily, but I'm sure it's great to Trump's government and to Conservatives in the US and another countries.

[SecretMbr_735754 2,158]

"Nothing is off the table."

I don't know about 'Arnie', but I'm good,  Under the Trump Administration advanced defense systems remain configured and purposed correctly for the defense of humankind and the peace of the world.  Issue resolved.

Near Earth objects Issue pending.  Its not just me, others in the scientific community are a bit 'unnerved' as the current pattern of approach is unusual.

Edit:

Recommendation: Elevate security levels "across the table".

[LexusInfernus 908]

On 30-1-2017 at 8:14 PM, MilitantRadical said:

Most of those are Milo articles, and he's just being a sassy provocateur.

Riiiight. That adorable scamp, he is just being sassy and provocative. He doesn't actually mean anything by it, its all just for some good lulz. The problem is that there is literally no proof whatsoever that its meant as being sassy and provocative. If I think its meant as serious, you can count on it there are a lot of other people who take it seriously as well. And I see no reason why I shouldn't take it as being serious. 

On 30-1-2017 at 8:14 PM, MilitantRadical said:

Trump already said he would protect LGBTQ people from violence. Who knows how or in what context, but he said that at the RNC.

Trump also said his campaign was for the working man, that they should think of voting for him as sticking it to those greedy corporate fatcats on Wallstreet who caused the financial crisis. And what does he do the moment he is elected? Takes on three Goldman Sachs bankers as his top advisers and starts tearing down the regulations that protect the working man from the greedy corporate fatcats on Wallstreet. Bankers rejoice because it will soon be possible again to screw over your customers and walk away with fat bonuses. 

So yeah, if I were you I wouldn't put a lot of trust in what Trump said and instead focus on what he does. 

On 30-1-2017 at 8:14 PM, MilitantRadical said:

Heh, it's not an argument. Just didn't want to get bogged down in a debate that usually just goes on and on. The racial purity aspect of Nazism is certainly a form of conservatism as it tries to conserve an ideal of what and who the German people are supposed to be (racially). That does not associate it to other forms of conservatism. Hitler's idea of racial purity and genetic superiority were also based on modern scientific beliefs (of the time). Just because Nazis or Hitler held a value doesn't mean that value leads to being like the Nazis. Hitler was a vegetarian who abhorred violence against animals. That doesn't mean vegetarians, if taken to their extreme, will necessarily be like Hitler.

Have you ever talked to a vegetarian?  

Besides, Nazi conservatism went a lot further than just the racial purity nonsense. Again, think about stuff like womens rights or gay rights. Women were fit only for breeding more Nazis and nothing else according to Nazi philosophy. Giving women political rights would seem as an abomination to the Nazis. And sure, gay rights weren't really a thing back in the 30's and 40's, but the Nazis were the only ones who went and put gay people in the gas chambers. 

Culturally the Nazis were extremely conservative too. Modern art? You mean degenerate art. Nazism is rooted in an extreme form of Romanticism, which in itself is really conservative and stands in direct opposition to ways of thinking propagated by the Enlightenment. Where the Enlightenment propagated things such as rational thinking, science, more liberal and tolerant forms of government, more freedom for people, etc. Romanticism had an idealized vision of the dark ages. Brave knights saving damsels in distress, the idea of the noble farmer in touch with nature and his surroundings, feelings over facts, action over careful consideration. Did I mention that the ideal Nazi state was one that had gone back to a pre industrial economy with a heavy focus on agriculture? 

No, nearly every aspect of Nazism was drenched with extreme conservatism. Not just their love for racism. Indeed, one might argue that was the least conservative aspect of their entire ideology, precisely because it pretty much matched with overall European and American views on race of the time. 

On 30-1-2017 at 8:14 PM, MilitantRadical said:

Conservatism all depends on what values you're trying to conserve and how you're trying to conserve them.

That just determines how conservative you are. Again, I'm not saying that all conservatives are like Nazis, I'm just saying that in its most extreme form, conservatism becomes Nazism. 

On 30-1-2017 at 8:14 PM, MilitantRadical said:

It's their job to be objective. So when you have two sets of data, one that says Hillary is 11 points ahead with oversampled democrats, and another that says Trump is ahead by one points, you don't report: "The Race Is Over, Hillary Has A 98% Chance of Winning". Which is what they did.

And you really think they did that on purpose? Why would they? They know it would make them look stupid if they got it wrong, so why would they report the wrong facts on purpose? Unless of course, they really believed that what they were reporting was the truth. And the fact that nearly everyone else thought so too reinforced that idea. 

On 30-1-2017 at 8:14 PM, MilitantRadical said:

Lol, your argument is still based on accusing the conservative side of basically being racist. You're still just shouting "racism!".

Besides, I proved my point that the travel suspension was not racist as the people of these countries are not a homogeneous race, and according to _Michael race doesn't exist anyway.

And until they actually prove me wrong I will keep saying they support, or at least fail to acknowledge the rampant racism on their side. 

On 30-1-2017 at 8:14 PM, MilitantRadical said:

And by bombing and supporting poorly vetted rebel factions Obama further destabilized those countries.

The reason the moderate opposition made such little headway is exactly because they got vetted. And not a lot of groups made it through that vetting process. 

On 30-1-2017 at 8:14 PM, MilitantRadical said:

It's not because they are Muslim, it's because they come from nations with terrorist organizations trying to infiltrate the United States. And I'm sorry but the people most likely to be Islamic Radicals in that bunch are Muslim, not Christians. Now please get me straight here, and I can't believe I have to repeat this, but that doesn't mean all Muslims are terrorists.

Sure, which is why you let Egyptians and Saudi's still into the country when thats were all the actual terrorists have come from. And the people that come from those countries already had to be vetted first. So the chances of actually letting a radical in are minimal. And even though you say that not all Muslims are terrorists, why support a measure that disproportionally targets Muslims on the basis that they are Muslims? 

On 30-1-2017 at 8:14 PM, MilitantRadical said:

Is the ban ideal? No because I think at least one of those countries does not belong on that list, Iran. However, I think Trump is trying to send a message: "America is getting tough". It will make terrorists trying to enter the US think twice.

You are talking about people willing to blow themselves up for their idiotic cause. You think those people are impressed by a travel ban? If anything it will act as another motivator, because its proof that American hates Muslims. And you and Trump may say that this measure is not designed to target Muslims because they are Muslims, but the only people who believe that is you and Trump (and I'm not even sure if Trump believes it). 

Or they happen to be from Egypt or Saudi Arabia, get on a plane and can enter America just fine. 

On 30-1-2017 at 8:14 PM, MilitantRadical said:

Now I'm no fan of Chris Kyle, I think that despite his service he's still a lying POS, but I thought this was interesting:

Chris Kyle's Iraqi Interpreter Has Blistering Message for All the Protesters Over Trump's 'Muslim Ban'

"I agree 100% with President Trump's decision. The national security of the United States is a paramount issue.

All President Trump is doing is ensuring that people can go about their day without living in so much fear. Women won't have to worry about walking around the mall; kids won't have to worry about going to the school.

Just because they have the word 'independent' in their name doesn't mean its actually independent or trustworthy. Maybe next time don't quote the conservative version of Buzzfeed. 

On 30-1-2017 at 8:14 PM, MilitantRadical said:

It depends when you do the wiring and over what period of time. You can close off sections of the building for "construction". You can do it at night. And if you did it over a long period of time, which I suspect they did (starting a few years before, maybe in 1998 or 1999), then it is possible. Also, again pure speculation here, but unlike WTC 7, Towers 1 and 2 were not designed to be clean demolitions, so they didn't have to rig it with as much precision.

Yeah right, a whole construction crew goes in at night with jackhammers and what not and clean it up before the first people come in the next morning for years and no one notices? There never was anyone working late? No cleaning staff ever saw them? And no one of that construction crew ever spilled the secret? And even if you didn't want it to be precise, you still need to place explosives on a lot of load bearing beams. 

And ignoring the improbability of such an event, you also ask me to believe that a conspiracy that would have involved hundreds of people could be kept silent. That just doesn't happen. People can't keep secrets and organizations even less so. 

[Fantozzi 4,068]

On 3.2.2017 at 1:09 AM, APSMS said:

and I'm really tired of people equating race with religion, because the two are fundamentally different.

Is it possible for me to believe in my race? But maybe, if someone is tired of people, it's not a good moment to make this question.

 

Don't read - again completely off topic.

 

As far as I can see we don't agree on the word 'ethnicity' - how ethnicity is formed.

Now, if I understod it right, you try to bring the word 'ethnicity' back on the word 'race' by saying wether nation nor religion forms 'ethnicity' but biological characteristics. And that's what makes prejudices racist but other prejudices agains a religion or a nation aren't racist.

Did I get this right?

And I don't know exactly why - but you talk to me as if I didn't know that. But yes, you are absolutely right: prejudices against a nation or a religion aren't racism. Shure the term can only be applied on human beings, even on any other animal it doesn't make sense. <This dog is a cat-racist?>

Now - if we both agree on this extremly simple fact - is it possible to advance from there?

As population genetics shows (with few rare exceptions) 98 percent of the genetics of all men worldwide is identical, so to define 'races' in a biological way there are 2 percent of the 'source code'. Instead, from a more generic point of view you can use arbitrary elements to define a race - the colour of skin, the size of the ears or nose, having a double eye lid, the colour of hair and so on. But as for cats - the colour of the fur doesn't make the 'race' for real - even if the fur has different patterns, it's still the same race. So on humans - the race is always homo sapiens, there is only this one left, all other human races sadly became extincted.

So to think of some races isn't aligned to racism. Would you agree? If I invent a 'red fur cat race' or if I think germans are a race or catholics are a race - you may call me stupid but it isn't racism. And the biologists by making races more profund then me - they are no racists. Agree? So 'making races' has nothing to do with racism.

Could you agree to that too?

So, how I form an 'ethnicity' doesn't make racism. If I form them by their religion or by their nation or by their noses or having or not having double eye lids - this doesn't make any racism. If I believe all long haired bearded men are a special race - again, you may call this oafish but it isn't racism. And if I form them on what they are eating - the 'fish and rice eaters' and the 'potato and buffalo eaters' - to form groups of people by arbitrary characteristics, this isn't racism.

So would you agree that for racism it doesn't matter on what characteristics the ethnicity is formed you have prejudices against? That the prejudice and the characteristics haven't to match but mainly are applied separate? So first you make up an ethnicity and then you apply prejudices? So racism has to be in this second step but isn't addicted to the first?

Or is it mandatory to have biological characteristics? But then - aren't all ethnicities aiming on cultural features - you may distinguish a 'dark skinned race' from a 'pink skinneded race' and an "ochre skinned race" but this doesn't has any consequences as long as you don't deduce features from those races - f.e. pink skinned can read and write better than dark skinned, ochre skinned are better hunters etc. Or in short: the biological difference don't matter as long as it doesn't imply abilities of any kind. And on civilized people what matters are cultural ablities - use of rifles instead of throwig stones, having a peaceful religion or an agressive religion etc. So if the difference of ethnicities are only exterior charakteristics but doesn't result in different abilities - what is their importance? Isn't the importance - this claws are good for hunting, these legs are good for jumping etc.? So those characterstics of ethnicities are only interesting if they can be linked to abilities? Apartheid - isn't it to deduct cultural difference from physical difference? Could it be, that physical features (dark skin, big ears, single eylids) are the minor part but the cultural difference attached to them is the big issue? So 'race' itself - applied on humans - never was a biological term, it was taken only from biology but to be used as a cultural term when applied instead?

Would that explain why the talking of human races can outlive the insight that there is only one race,why homa sapiens can be racist against homo sapiens but not dog against cat? Would that explain this strange use of the word - that it isn't a biological term 'racism' but a cultural term instead. Wouldn't that explain why a man can't be rasist agains a spider now matter how much prejudices he has against spiders? Because it isn't a biological term?

But then - why should it be completely impossible that you define an ethnicity on their believe and have prejudices against it? Like Celts are identified by their artwork? Or Romans by their empire? This makes up the ethnicity at the end? The inferior ones and the superior ones - those having metalworking, those living in huts those only good for slavery work etc. - to use a term: cultural ability?

Doesn't this explain - why the word 'ethnical cleansing' was used during the balkan war mainly on religion? Those hundreds of ethnic groups along the amazonas, isn't it culture they are distingished by or ist their biology?

So if you can accept this two conditions a) the word racism isn't aligned to the definition of races in biology and b) the word ethnicity isn't aligned to the biological definition of races either - if it's in the range of your good will to give it a thought that this might be instead a question of cultural concepts, what's the meaning?

Now, I hope we both agree on this - to ban someone from Simtropolis this person must at least have done something wrong, to say: you aren't allowed to enter the site no more. You banned him according to the site rules. Racism? No, thats justice. Now you ban someone just for fun, because you want to show you are powerfull. Racism? No, that's despotism. Now you ban a group of people just for your pleasure. So you weave some characteristics together - f.e. they have no avatar, they never post, they are chatting with each others in a language you don't understand. You ban them. Racism? No, but getting closer, let's call this despotism with a grain of discrimination? But now you think this isn't enough - I want also other users to think they are evil. So you take this group again and link it to the first one you've banned. You remember, the one that did something wrong and was banned for good reason, for justice. And you say: they are aligned to him. It's totally unimportant what kind of alignment you give - if they have the same religion, they have the same country - any cultural construct is good for this. And now you do this one additional move: you post: "They are all the same like this one I catched earlier and therefore they are banned." Now you are a racist, you applied a prejudice to a group of people you formed by some predefined characteristics. Always two steps needed, first define a group than apply something evil on them. A priest abused a child. He his catholic. All catholics are child molesters. A mexican works in the fabrik. I have no job. All mexicans steal our jobs.

This kind of ascriptions to groups of people are racism, to make up groups isn't the point. It's how you align them to a 'feature' to create prejudices against them.

That's the meaning of the word as I know it.

So not the ban is the racist act. It's how you make up a group of people to have prejudices against.  You can create racism with everything against everybody. Make a group of people by some characterstics and ascribe something evil to them.

Shure you can make your own definition of the word 'racism'. And that's how I understand your arguments. You say racism has to be aligned to the difference of human races. But as there is only one human race, homo sapiens, there can't be racism. Arabs, Norwegians, French, Indians, Hindus - all homo sapiens. So racism doesn't exist between them. At least it seems to me - that's the solution you offer. But maybe I got your tiredness wrong.

 

 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Trump's disregard to the Seperation of Powers (by trying to bully/overrule judges) might be another impeachable offense.

[catty-cb 4,412]

23 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

..... So on humans - the race is always homo sapiens, there is only this one left, all other human races sadly became extincted...

....You say racism has to be aligned to the difference of human races. But as there is only one human race, homo sapiens, there can't be racism. Arabs, Norwegians, French, Indians, Hindus - all homo sapiens. So racism doesn't exist between them. At least it seems to me - that's the solution you offer. But maybe I got your tiredness wrong.

Perhaps this post and others should be split off from the Donald Trump topic, but anyway ...

Scientists over the last few years have found we are not all one human race called homo sapiens in fact most of us have other "homo" ancestors in our DNA

http://www.livescience.com/42933-humans-carry-20-percent-neanderthal-genes.html

and it seems we didn't just stick to neanderthal relations, DNA testing has shown a couple of other "homo" species played a part in who we are

http://www.livescience.com/41610-ancient-human-sex.html

-catty

[Ocram's Razr 964]

@catty-cb : Human pubic lice is the same species as gorilla body lice. Our ancestors likely mated with genetically incompatible apes as well. This would be bestiality if it wasn't for the fact that our ancestors were more like beasts themselves than modern humans.

[APSMS 1,893]

On 2/4/2017 at 11:12 AM, Fantozzi said:

So not the ban is the racist act. It's how you make up a group of people to have prejudices against.  You can create racism with everything against everybody. Make a group of people by some characterstics and ascribe something evil to them.

Shure you can make your own definition of the word 'racism'. And that's how I understand your arguments. You say racism has to be aligned to the difference of human races. But as there is only one human race, homo sapiens, there can't be racism. Arabs, Norwegians, French, Indians, Hindus - all homo sapiens. So racism doesn't exist between them. At least it seems to me - that's the solution you offer. But maybe I got your tiredness wrong.

I see your points. You raise good ones. I see where you might make the correlation between religion and groups of people, and how that is perhaps a valid argument for identifying "racism" as it may exist around the world. I can concede this point, even though I do not wholly agree. The problem you've identified is articulated better than I could say, and it makes good sense.

I am tired because it suggests that the opposition's concern's are baseless. It disregards other factors. It pretends that humans are all alike, and therefore disagreements that might align along cultural differences are inherently false. It removes discussion about the issues at hand. How can you argue with a racist, about clearly racist ideas? Such ideas are wrong, ergo no discussion and no consensus. There will be no debate. How could I convince someone so clearly committed to such an outrageously prejudiced ideology? People can't change; why would I even try?

Mostly, I am tired because the term has been overused to describe those with whom we disagree, who might possess some desire to protect against that which is foreign without any attempt to understand the basis of their concern. It has been used, perhaps wrongly, to place people into a group which they don't belong and marginalize their feelings about politics and society.

Racism is a serious term, and should be used in serious contexts not to label people who might be xenophobic, or who might exhibit views which lean unfavorably to the ideology which directly opposes theirs (and, to be fair, significant parts of Islam are directly at odds with Western politics and lifestyles, even if not all Muslims adhere to such tenets), but to identify those cases where thoughts devolve into actions that cause harm or persecution for no other reason than otherness or dissimilarity.

We do not, yet, live in a world where the thought police are a real thing. Racism should be something that is involved primarily with actions; determining motives of actions, and ascribing thought patterns to people is not something to be taken lightly, and the way the term gets thrown around about anyone who suggests that maybe they don't like the way other people live is ridiculous, and reduces the term eventually to something with which we describe our opponents, our enemies. They don't like me for my beliefs, therefore they must be racist. Is this politics, and democracy? We are not allowed to dislike the opposition? We are not allowed to find some ways of life less favorable than others? We cannot express concern at a thought system that suppresses women and democracy and minorities and religion and expression?

We have come to an era where the politically correct thought police have determined that all unapproved thought must be terminated. It cannot be that tolerance is intolerant of intolerance; this cannot be the credo if we are to gain universal acceptance. That is not tolerance. It is homogeneity, and a removal of the differences which make us unique. It is understanding that there will always be people who do not agree with us, who may always have prejudices. It is not possible to live life in the real world without prejudices. Those who do not are frequently called naive, seen as people to be taken advantage of. Judgments must be made, and for better or worse, the human brain is very good at identifying patterns and categorizing things; sometimes this may manifest itself as racist views or thought patterns. Until they manifest themselves as actions that cause identifiable harm I would refrain from characterizing them as such; it marginalizes those who hold such views, it makes them unwilling to change or rethink their perspectives. It does not make such people less prevalent, merely less likely to talk about what they truly think. Donald Trump was so unfavorable very few people who were polled wanted to express their actual opinions. Consider that all the main polls reported required direct verbal confirmation, either over the phone or in person. If we simply push the debate about racism, or racist views underground, it will fester and boil, and emerge worse than before, when it might have been slowly addressed over time. Suppression and homogeneity is not tolerance. Intolerance of intolerance is not tolerance. Tolerance is understanding that there will be those who are different, those who are racist, and those with whom we disagree, and learning to get along with them all, regardless of whether they change their views or not and without the name-calling, even if it is, strictly speaking, an accurate description.

Consider:

Spoiler

Quote

It was an odd thing to assert in the case of Christianity, a religion that until recently was taken to be another shibboleth of the uncool, not a loving faith misunderstood by bigots. But this is knowing: knowing that the new line on Jesus is that the homophobes just don't get their own faith.

Kim Davis was behind the times. Her beliefs did not represent a legitimate challenge to liberal consensus because they did not represent a challenge at all: They were incoherent, at odds with the Good Facts. Google makes every man a theologian.

This, I think, is fundamental to understanding the smug style. If good politics and good beliefs are just Good Facts and good tweets — that is, if there is no ideology beyond sensible conclusions drawn from a rational assessment of the world — then there are no moral fights, only lying liars and the stupid rubes who believe them.

Quote

In November of last year, during the week when it became temporarily fashionable for American governors to declare that Syrian refugees would not be welcome in their state, Hamilton Nolan wrote an essay for Gawker called "Dumb Hicks Are America's Greatest Threat."

If there has ever been a tirade so dedicated to the smug style, to the proposition that it is neither malice, nor capital, nor ideological difference, but rather the backward stupidity of poor people that has ruined the state of American policy, then it is hidden beyond our view, in some uncool place, far from the front page of Gawker.

"Many of America's political leaders are warning of the dangers posed by Syrian refugees. They are underestimating, though, the much greater danger: dumbass hicks, in charge of things," Nolan wrote. "...You, our elected officials, are embarrassing us. All of us, except your fellow dumb hicks, who voted for you in large numbers. You — our racist, xenophobic, knuckle-dragging ignorant leaders — are making us look bad in front of the guests (the whole world). You are the bad cousin in the family who always ruins Thanksgiving. Go in the back room and drink a can of beer alone please."

Among the dumb hicks Nolan identifies are "many Southern mayors" and "many lesser known state representatives." He cites the Ku Klux Klan — "exclusively dumbass hicks," he writes. "100%," he emphasizes — despite the fact that the New York Times, in an investigation of white supremacist members of Stormfront.org, found that "the top reported interest of Stormfront members is reading." That they are "news and political junkies." Despite the fact that if "you come compare Stormfront users to people who go to the Yahoo News site, it turns out that the Stormfront crowd is twice as likely to visit nytimes.com."

"They have long threads praising Breaking Bad and discussing the comparative merits of online dating sites, like Plenty of Fish and OKCupid," the Times reports.

In another piece, published later the same month, Nolan wrote that "Inequality of wealth — or, if you like, the distribution of wealth in our society in a way that results in poverty — is not just one issue among many. It is the root from which blooms nearly all major social problems."

He's right about that. But who does he imagine is responsible for this inequality? The poor? The dumb? The hicks?

Hamilton Nolan isn't stupid. He has even, lately, argued that even the worst of the rubes must be allies in class struggle. Yet the trouble is still swallowing what "motherfuckers" those people are.

Nolan is perhaps the funniest and most articulate of those pointing fingers at the "dumbass hicks," but he isn't alone. It is evidently intolerable to a huge swath of liberalism to confess the obvious: that those responsible have homes in Brooklyn, too. That they buy the same smartphones. That they too are on Twitter. That the oligarchs are making fun of stupid poor people too. That they're better at it, and always will be.

No: The trouble must be out there, somewhere. In the country. Where the idiots are; where the hicks are too stupid to know where problems blossom.

"To the dumb hick leaders of America, I say: (nothing). You wouldn't listen anyhow," Nolan writes. "My words would go in one ear and right out the other. Like talking to an old block of wood."

It's a shame. They might be receptive to his concerns about poverty.

Quote

Pretend for a moment that all of it is true. That the smug style apprehended the world as it really is, that knowing — or knowing, no inflection — did make our political divide. That the problem is the rubes. That the dumbass hicks are to blame. They can't help it: Their brains don't work. They isolate themselves from all the Good Facts, and they're being taken for a ride by con men.

Pretend the ridicule worked too: that the videos and the Twitter burns and destroying the opposition made all the bad guys go away.

What kind of world would it leave us? An endless cycle of jokes? Of sick burns and smart tweets and knowing? Relative to whom? The smug style demands an object of disdain; it would find a new one quickly.

It is central to the liberal self-conception that what separates them from reactionaries is a desire to help people, a desire to create a fairer and more just world. Liberals still want, or believe they still want, to make a more perfect union.

Whether you believe they are deluded or not, whether you believe this project is worthwhile in any form or not, what I am trying to tell you is that the smug style has fundamentally undermined even the aspiration, that it has made American liberalism into the worst version of itself.

It is impossible, in the long run, to cleave the desire to help people from the duty to respect them. It becomes all at once too easy to decide you know best, to never hear, much less ignore, protest to the contrary.

At present, many of those most in need of the sort of help liberals believe they can provide despise liberalism, and are despised in turn. Is it surprising that with each decade, the "help" on offer drifts even further from the help these people need?

Even if the two could be separated, would it be worth it? What kind of political movement is predicated on openly disdaining the very people it is advocating for?

The smug style, at bottom, is a failure of empathy. Further: It is a failure to believe that empathy has any value at all. It is the notion that anybody worthy of liberal time and attention and respect must capitulate, immediately, to the Good Facts.

If they don't (and they won't) you're free to write them off and mock them. When they suffer, it's their just desserts.

Make no mistake: I am not suggesting that liberals adopt a fuzzy, gentler version of their politics. I am not suggesting they compromise their issues for the sake of playing nice. What I am suggesting is that the battles waged by liberalism have drifted far away from their old egalitarian intentions.

I am suggesting that open disdain for the people they say they want to help has led them to stop helping those people, too.

Source. Emphasis Added

What happens when you ignore the people who hold such views, and regard them as worthless rather than engaging them in their concerns? What happened to any empire that routinely disregarded the concerns of significant populations of its subjects?

[clhigh7 583]

He got his way - Betsy DeVos is the education secretary. This will be interesting

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I'd become an expat if I could afford it. My only option now is protest.

 

The Donald broke constitutional laws by spitting on Seperation of Powers (trying to overrule judges in regards to his travel ban and the Dakota pipeline)

by having several conflicts of interest http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38069298

and by breaking laws before taking oath of office (senators and representatives have been impeached over less severe violations)

 

He will likely lie under oath eventually. Then he will be guilty of all impeachinle offenses of the previous 2 administrations and more.

  Edited February 8, 2017 by OcramsRzr  

[SecretMbr_735754 2,158]

Okay so the Trump Administration has now come up to its limitation under law, and is rendered effectively impotent by the psychotic culture of politics, business and legalism.   Bottom line is Trump will never do anything that threatens his status as a 1%er.

The DPRK has launched another ballistic missile.  Iran and the DPRK amuse the world with basic ability to launch chemical missiles on a hyperbolic trajectory.  

Nice launch, and evidence merely that all the legalists and politicians and business people in the western world are no further advanced than the very basis of early to mid 20th century competence and operation.

Ah but those of who actually did learn and grow, and pursue higher virtues of ethics and technology...

We have successfully breached the barrier of light.

[APSMS 1,893]

On 1/30/2017 at 4:48 PM, OcramsRzr said:

the best way to deal with it is to call for his impeachment.

So that the liberals can deal with Mike Pence, the diehard socially conservative Republican that has a great relationship with the Republican congress, dots his i's and crosses his t's, and will basically run roughshod over everything that the Democrats stand for while being totally untouchable scandal-wise (you would only be able to complain about his views, which aren't impeachable offenses anyways).

Is that really what you want? Pence is a smooth operator in comparison to Trump. Liberals would be blindsided. The only thing I can foresee is that you would have the status quo returned, but that's not really ideal if the Democrats in Washington want to effectively stop the Right-wing agenda.

 

On 2/8/2017 at 0:35 PM, OcramsRzr said:

and by breaking laws before taking oath of office

Presidents are protected from prosecution of prior "crimes" during their tenure in office. This was determined I think back for Clinton in the 90s. They had to find something impeachable that he did during his term, and of course they found it. It didn't work, though.

On 2/8/2017 at 0:35 PM, OcramsRzr said:

He will likely lie under oath eventually.

If this isn't enough to even get an indictment for Hillary Clinton (she lied under oath before Congress about sending classified information over her private server), what makes you think it's going to hold any more weight for Donald Trump? Why would he even put himself in a situation where he has to testify under oath? When do you put a sitting president under deposition that this could happen? Trump has few impeachable vices (and a whole lot of unfavorable, but non-impeachable views); it's unlikely he will create a scandal that will require him to testify before congress, and even then it's unlikely he would lie about something that he doesn't think he needs protection from.

Trump might be a liar and a charlatan, but does anything he do suggest that he doesn't believe implicitly in all his actions? Isn't that why the left fears him so much? Because he's just "dumb enough" to believe in himself completely and totally regarding the rightness of his opinions?

[matias93 7,535]

On 08-02-2017 at 5:35 PM, OcramsRzr said:

I'd become an expat if I could afford it. My only option now is protest.

I really doubt it would be so expensive, most countries in the world are poorer than the US, and hence, their cost of life is much lesser; of course, if you want to emmigrate to some leftist terrenal paradise¹ like the Scandinavian countries, Canada or Uruguay (I would love to settle there, for the exact same motives), it would be hard to get enough savings to get around until finding an adequate job. But in the rest of Latin America is fairly a bargain to get to the end of the month ("meet ends" is how you say this?): food is almost free, there is no point on having a car with the congestion so there is no expenditure on gas, housing overcrowding makes miracles for rent prices and you can always opt to some welfare benefits (lean, of course, but useful nevertheless).

1 hour ago, APSMS said:

So that the liberals can deal with Mike Pence, the diehard socially conservative Republican that has a great relationship with the Republican congress, dots his i's and crosses his t's, and will basically run roughshod over everything that the Democrats stand for while being totally untouchable scandal-wise (you would only be able to complain about his views, which aren't impeachable offenses anyways).

Is that really what you want? Pence is a smooth operator in comparison to Trump. Liberals would be blindsided. The only thing I can foresee is that you would have the status quo returned, but that's not really ideal if the Democrats in Washington want to effectively stop the Right-wing agenda.

Certainly, for the sake of liberalism, a Pence unified GOP government would be the worst possible escenario, both on moral and economic issues. In fact, I would say that elite liberals embracing a process to ditch Trump and put Pence in charge would be a death sentence for the Dem party: it would be a clear signal to the US leftists that the democrats have no interest on economic transformations, and the perfect moment for a fructiferous fracture. Aside from political fiction, dems have basically nothing to gain from collaborating with establishment republicans, only to reaffirm the widespread perception that they are a political caste without spine or minimal regard for the people.

Quote

If this isn't enough to even get an indictment for Hillary Clinton (she lied under oath before Congress about sending classified information over her private server), what makes you think it's going to hold any more weight for Donald Trump? Why would he even put himself in a situation where he has to testify under oath? When do you put a sitting president under deposition that this could happen? Trump has few impeachable vices (and a whole lot of unfavorable, but non-impeachable views); it's unlikely he will create a scandal that will require him to testify before congress, and even then it's unlikely he would lie about something that he doesn't think he needs protection from.

I would say that the key part on this is that 'normal' politicians, nowithstanding their ideological alleigance, aren't prone to break the very system that gives them their power and position. And while Trump and his entourage aren't normal (but populists), most, if not all current US legislators are, and will avoid to risk their safety for any means possible. It is perfectly feasible to see democrat legislators negating to collaborate with efforts to oust Trump, simply because that would unstabilise the regime and risk their position. The only chance is with a clear and institutional path, as the aforementioned recursion to the 25th Amendment (requiring the explicit endorsement from Pence and several cabinet members), and as I said, that would be suicidal for the most risk-averse democrats: incumbent legislators.

Resuming: unless Trump does something impressibly stupid, enough to make his own Cabinet and coalition to desire his departure from office, democrat legislators (the only ones in the opposition with the factual power to promote a remotion) won't risk their seats or the comfortable place of their party: don't hold your breath expecting a critical number of them making more than lip service to the so-called 'resistance'.

_________________________________
1: I know the mentioned countries aren't the paradise, is only an exageration because Internet is for mocking and over-hyping everything

[APSMS 1,893]

The image below I found pretty funny. It's totally safe for work, but is a little beyond what I'd like to post on the ST forums, so I didn't embed it. Minor language warning.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cw_H5DFUkAAcsVj.jpg

Not auto-inserted due to potential inappropriateness.

This was posted shortly after the elections. You'd think that with the difficulty that the average American has in emigrating to Canada that Mexico would be the obvious choice. Then again the most vocal proponents of leaving were rich celebrities. Mexico is so easy to move to it's not even funny; I know people who've moved there, and then back to CA with ease. Plus houses are super cheap. You can easily live in Mexico and work in the US and have more than enough money left over, if you are in a decent paying job stateside (none of the people that I know who do this are particularly wealthy; at least, I would assume this given that they all live in trailers--and not the mobile home kind--or government housing).

13 minutes ago, matias93 said:

to get to the end of the month ("meet ends" is how you say this?)

To "make ends meet", though you could say "live month-to-month". I think something like >90% of Americans live from paycheck to paycheck. Most have almost no savings as well. I suppose that last fact is true for most of the rest of the world, but then again the rest of the world isn't as "rich" as America either.

[matias93 7,535]

14 minutes ago, APSMS said:

The image below I found pretty funny.

There is so much more in the continent than Mexico, though! Nevertheless the natural beauty and the impressibly rich culture, I wouldn't like to live there, because of the violence (mainly because as a chilean I'm accustomed to ridiculously low homicide and crime rates, so normal countries seem frightening to me). For liberals looking for people approving their ideas, I guess Costa Rica would be a good idea (they are in their first liberal leftist government ever, and is working better than expected), and for a safe option, Chile is always a place where white people is still considered demi-gods: you can be literally the most abusive bigot in the earth and chileans will still drool on your presence, considering you so civilized and beautiful.

14 minutes ago, APSMS said:

I think something like >90% of Americans live from paycheck to paycheck. Most have almost no savings as well. I suppose that last fact is true for most of the rest of the world, but then again the rest of the world isn't as "rich" as America either.

I guess that situation would make them upper middle class here . Here about 80% of the households are debtors and most people do the 'financial bicyle': paying debts with newly lent money, just to avoid legal garnishment. Just to give you an idea, my own household now debts to several banks the modest sum of ~60.000.000 CLP = ~94.000 USD (with a monthly income of 940 USD), and we have no expectation to have that paid before 2040

[catty-cb 4,412]

On Thursday, 9 February 2017 at 9:35 AM, OcramsRzr said:

I'd become an expat if I could afford it. My only option now is protest.

New Zealand requires you to have an essential job skill and in most cases a job offer from someone, but its pretty amazing just what our government considers an essential job skill including it seems being a golfer

http://onlineservices.immigration.govt.nz/opsmanual/35165.htm?_ga=1.135378551.795046407.1486949779

[APSMS 1,893]

2 hours ago, matias93 said:

Just to give you an idea, my own household now debts to several banks the modest sum of ~60.000.000 CLP = ~94.000 USD (with a monthly income of 940 USD), and we have no expectation to have that paid before 2040

Yikes! In America we have this thing called bankruptcy. It ruins your credit, but very few people at the lower end of the middle class scale would take on that kind of debt without having a reasonable payoff scheme. Usually if you aren't a homeowner (in the US) and have that kind of debt (and it's not student loans), you would declare bankruptcy and cut your losses. In fact, since most of the debt here tends to be accumulated by credit cards, CC companies actually factor in bankruptcy losses in their annual profit structure.

Of course, the debt structure is all relative. My parents are into their house for $330 000, and a car for $40 000, but have a monthly income closer to $6000 after taxes. My parents would have cut and run rather than have a debt of that size (comparatively). The home loan is for 33 years (so payoff in 2049), but is a fixed payment, as is the car, so there's no money shuffling to avoid debtors.

Then again, my parents rented a 2 bd/1ba house for 14 years with 4 kids before we finally got some housing assistance to move and purchase a home. Debt structures are weird in America, though I suppose given your family's situation they're weird everywhere. I think the American notion of a complete debt forgiveness structure (bankruptcy) stemmed from the Biblical idea of the Year of Jubilee. You can lose a lot of stuff if you declare bankruptcy while having assets, but it's mostly designed to allow those with nothing to not get stuck in the cycle of neverending debt payments they'll never be able to pay off (and having filed the paperwork for my family before, our total assets were definitely under what the government considers not worth its time).

I suppose it's a good thing that those states (nations) have better welfare setups, but man, they shouldn't be absolutely necessary for survival.

2 hours ago, matias93 said:

I wouldn't like to live there, because of the violence

If you're a foreigner, or if you know where to go, Mexico is generally a safe place. I say that living next to the border where a lot of the violence occurs. Rosarita is very lovely, and very safe if we're only considering drug/gang violence. Foreigners, I think, are more trouble than they are worth typically. Of course never go by yourself if you don't have to, but that really goes for any travel in a strange or unfamiliar place. Of course, some places are worse than others (Juarez) but at least with Baja, most of the drug/cartel violence was against other gang members and Mexicans, which as unfortunate as it sounds, meant that US and other citizens (including ex-pat Mexicans) were typically safe from the violence, especially if you stay in the areas where foreigners frequent, probably because bothering foreigners ends up getting their governments involved in what is otherwise a manageable (for the gangs) domestic anti-police war. I've never been particularly concerned about it; the only reason I haven't visited in a while is because the US changed the rules about re-entry from Mexico, and I don't have the requisite passport (only ever traveled outside the US to Mexico, so it wasn't previously needed).

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Mike Pence might be a Liberal's nightmare but The Donald is a Utilitarian's nightmare. Pence is objectively more competent and law-abiding than The Donald. Therefore, I'm in favor of Mike Pence as president if it means impeachment of the current holder of the position.