US Trump Administration Discussion Thread

[cr47t]

I didn't see these Liberal Newspapers crying when the AG was the president's brother

Under what president?

 

He settled becuase America doesn't need its president fighting a lawsuit

Well if that is the case why did he not say so?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Under what president?

 

 

Well if that is the case why did he not say so?

JFK

 

Anyone with a decent law background wouldn't realize he could win. Becuase he wants America to heal

And he did say so

[Dad]

The problem isn't what Palin will get.  The problem is that she is possibly the most uninformed, ignorant person Trump could add to his team.  It's a global -5 to his intelligence stat.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

The problem isn't what Palin will get.  The problem is that she is possibly the most uninformed, ignorant person Trump could add to his team.  It's a global -5 to his intelligence stat.

0 chance she will get anything, meanwhile our defense sec is all but confirmed

 

 

I like him already

[Dad]

0 chance she will get anything, meanwhile our defense sec is all but confirmed

 

 

I like him already

 

Weren't you just attacking pro-war people for being warhawks?  Now you wanna go back out and fight?  I'm confused, which is it?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Weren't you just attacking pro-war people for being warhawks?  Now you wanna go back out and fight?  I'm confused, which is it?

He's pro-russian

[Dad]

He's pro-russian

 

Right, so even if we're not going to war with Russia, you're praising Mr. Pro Russian because he wants to go to war.  Period.  You literally attacked the opposing side for being pro-war.  Whether it's with the Russians, Syrians, Daesh, or whomever.  You're anti-war.  Are you, or aren't you?  And if you're not, then what changed that suddenly you're ready to put lives on the front line?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Right, so even if we're not going to war with Russia, you're praising Mr. Pro Russian because he wants to go to war.  Period.  You literally attacked the opposing side for being pro-war.  Whether it's with the Russians, Syrians, Daesh, or whomever.  You're anti-war.  Are you, or aren't you?  And if you're not, then what changed that suddenly you're ready to put lives on the front line?

The main problem I had with Hillary was her no-fly zone with Syria which would result in war with Russia. I'm quite fine with us taking out Daesh, I don't wanna get into another prolong cold war with Russia. That's been my stance as far as I remember 

[Phantom Roxas]

The main problem I had with Hillary was her no-fly zone with Syria which would result in war with Russia. I'm quite fine with us taking out Daesh, I don't wanna get into another prolong cold war with Russia. That's been my stance as far as I remember 

 

This is a simple question: Are you pro-war or anti-war. Does your preference for war differ based on which country we would go to war against?

 

Moving over to a different issue. A while ago, you and I debated over whether or not Mike Pence is really against same-sex marriage. I would highly encourage you to read this: http://time.com/4576513/mike-pences-hateful-laws/

[Tentacruel]

I know my opinion on war wasn't asked for but Imma chime in.

 

I'm personally neither full anti or pro war as I think as with most issues there is some merit to both sides.

 

That being said, I am not a fan of the ooo-rah jingoistic real-men-fight-in-wars bullshit.  However anti-war protesters who actually harass vets are funking douchebags too. 

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I didn't see these Liberal Newspapers crying when the AG was the president's brother

I didn't believe you meant who I thought you meant given that was like 60 years ago but then you confirmed it. I don't understand the point you're making here. Could you explain what the relevancy is?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Time doesn't make it less relevant

 

Roxas, I don't typically deal in absolutes. Don't like war, but it's needed in some cases. War with Russia is WW3, and on that, I'll pass

[Phantom Roxas]

I didn't believe you meant who I thought you meant given that was like 60 years ago but then you confirmed it. I don't understand the point you're making here. Could you explain what the relevancy is?

 

He's trying to frame Liberals as hypocrites, and then continuing to dismiss any sort of backlash to anything as "crying".

 

Winter, if you're concerned about what is detrimental to debates, your repeated comparisons to crying, whining, or "faux outrage" are not helpful. Those are just put-downs, so if you disagree with what people are complaining about, please prioritize with actual counters to what they are saying, not because you think they're too "sensitive".

 

Time doesn't make it less relevant

 

Roxas, I don't typically deal in absolutes. Don't like war, but it's needed in some cases. War with Russia is WW3, and on that, I'll pass

 

My impression is that it's the other way around, where you do seem to like war, but oppose it in some cases. For example, not going to war with Russia seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Wait what? It's not nepotism if RFK gets to be JFK's AG, but it is if Jared works with Trump. I don't need to paint anyone as hypocritical. The left set the precedent

Roxas, maybe. Mostly a desire to avoid WW3

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Wait what? It's not nepotism if RFK gets to be JFK's AG, but it is if Jared works with Trump. I don't need to paint anyone as hypocritical. The left set the precedent

Roxas, maybe. Mostly a desire to avoid WW3

Once again. 60 years ago. Completely different circumstances. It's ridiculous to call hypocrisy for something with that big of a time difference. Time does make it less relevant.

Shall we compare things Trump said 10, 20, 30, years ago to what he says now and if they don't match up call him a hypocrite?

Hell many people reporting on RFK in that time might be dead now.

[Phantom Roxas]

Wait what? It's not nepotism if RFK gets to be JFK's AG, but it is if Jared works with Trump. I don't need to paint anyone as hypocritical. The left set the precedent

Roxas, maybe. Mostly a desire to avoid WW3

 

If you want to talk about a precedent, the GOP is citing Japanese internment as a precedent to justify what they want to do against Muslims. Even if a "precedent" exists, they can still realize that it's a bad precedent and therefore not want to repeat it. Oh, and Lyndon B. Johnson (Who was a Liberal, by the way) signed a law against nepotism because he didn't like that it happened with JFK. The left didn't "set the precedent". Someone from the left went out of his way to crush that very precedent. So, if time doesn't make it any less relevant, please consider how that time includes how this issue was actually resolved.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

If you want to talk about a precedent, the GOP is citing Japanese internment as a precedent to justify what they want to do against Muslims. Even if a "precedent" exists, they can still realize that it's a bad precedent and therefore not want to repeat it. Oh, and Lyndon B. Johnson (Who was a Liberal, by the way) signed a law against nepotism because he didn't like that it happened with JFK. The left didn't "set the precedent". Someone from the left went out of his way to crush that very precedent. So, if time doesn't make it any less relevant, please consider how that time includes how this issue was actually resolved.

That's not exactly what happened, the guy in question was considering a register of people coming into this country. That's something I do think it needed. 

 

CoS affirmed it would be a regional ban instead of a religious one like today

 

Good thing that the clintons set a more recent precedent with regards to nepotism

 

Again Islamophobia is miss-named, a phobia is an irrational fear, and anyone can see that Islam's values don't correlate to America's

[Phantom Roxas]

https://newrepublic.com/article/138835/team-trump-keep-talking-japanese-internment

"George Takei told MSNBC Thursday, “Registration of any group of people, and certainly registration of Muslims, is a prelude to internment.” It certainly was during World War II."

 

I'm going to listen to the man who actually survived an internment camp. The registry is either a pretense or, as George Takei said, a prelude to internment. Neither of which are good.

 

Do you have a link to a source on it being a regional ban instead of a religious ban?

 

So now you're moving the goalposts away from when you originally mentioned Kennedy, and of course, you fall right back into the "BUT CLINTON!" tactic. By the way, that precedent relies on a loophole, since the law was about the role of Attorney General. You know, the specific role that you were discussing in the first place. Do you want to talk about something other than the role of Attorney General?

 

It's not necessarily a fear. It's just bigotry, and it's conflating extremists as though they were indicative of the entire religion. The values are different, but that does not excuse the registry, which has less to do with illegal immigration, and instead brings us right back to where we were during George W. Bush's term.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

https://newrepublic.com/article/138835/team-trump-keep-talking-japanese-internment

 

"George Takei told MSNBC Thursday, “Registration of any group of people, and certainly registration of Muslims, is a prelude to internment.” It certainly was during World War II."

 

I'm going to listen to the man who actually survived an internment camp. The registry is either a pretense or, as George Takei said, a prelude to internment. Neither of which are good.

 

Do you have a link to a source on it being a regional ban instead of a religious ban?

 

So now you're moving the goalposts away from when you originally mentioned Kennedy, and of course, you fall right back into the "BUT CLINTON!" tactic. By the way, that precedent relies on a loophole, since the law was about the role of Attorney General. You know, the specific role that you were discussing in the first place. Do you want to talk about something other than the role of Attorney General?

 

It's not necessarily a fear. It's just bigotry, and it's conflating extremists as though they were indicative of the entire religion. The values are different, but that does not excuse the registry, which has less to do with illegal immigration, and instead brings us right back to where we were during George W. Bush's term.

It's not like George is even-minded on Trump, he's advocated stuff like unfaithful electors. I'm questioning his motives behind this

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/306938-priebus-were-not-going-to-have-a-registry-based-on-a-religion

 

That's the chief of staff

 

http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=50137

 

"“There are some people within that particular religion that we do fear,” Priebus said of Islam. “We don’t believe in religious tests and ... are not blanketly judging an entire religion, but, in fact, we will try to pinpoint the problems and temporarily suspend those areas from coming into the United States until a better vetting system is in place."

 

Sure, maybe a bit. The point is, that there's been a lot of conflating with the nepotism laws. Jared has shown to be a brilliant tactician, and I for on would not be remiss to seeing him continue that.

 

Not quite, whabbism and all it followers are not compatible with America. Iran's take on Islam is no longer compatible. Yes there are states like Egypt that are getting more secular, and President Sisi should get a lot of credit for that.

 

A fundamental principle of America is the sep of church and state, many Muslims from the ME don't buy that

 

You're misusing the word bigotry btw, xenophobia is closer to what you're looking for

 

Edit:

 

George on his high horse about Islam is hysterical, maybe you should go to Kashmir or Chechnya and then come back and tell me I shouldn't be afraid of Islam....and no that's not ISIS or Al-Queda, that's your average homegrown intolerant Muslim

 

I support President Trump's plan to build safe zones in Syria, they can stay the funk out of my country 

[Phantom Roxas]

Stop telling people to go to a country and then tell you what it's like. You've done that before, and it does not help. You say George Takei is "hysterical", but a Japanese man speaking from his experience as a victim of internment is not funny. I'm pretty sure George Takei's "motive" is that he had a horrible experience and so he wouldn't wish that on anyone else. Why suspect that he has any motive other than that?

 

Okay, so I see how he's trying to impose a regional ban. However, it is still not a good ban. He's not blanketly judging an entire religion, but he has no qualms about blanketly judging an entire area? That's hardly any better.

 

Do you mean Wahhabism? Also, "all its followers"? So much for not blanketly judging an entire religion.

 

You were just disagreeing with describing something as a phobia, and while I agree with calling it xenophobia, that doesn't mean I was misusing the word bigotry. Both are correct, as the Islamophobia is active prejudice.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Stop telling people to go to a country and then tell you what it's like. You've done that before, and it does not help. You say George Takei is "hysterical", but a Japanese man speaking from his experience as a victim of internment is not funny. I'm pretty sure George Takei's "motive" is that he had a horrible experience and so he wouldn't wish that on anyone else. Why suspect that he has any motive other than that?

 

Okay, so I see how he's trying to impose a regional ban. However, it is still not a good ban. He's not blanketly judging an entire religion, but he has no qualms about blanketly judging an entire area? That's hardly any better.

 

Do you mean Wahhabism? Also, "all its followers"? So much for not blanketly judging an entire religion.

 

You were just disagreeing with describing something as a phobia, and while I agree with calling it xenophobia, that doesn't mean I was misusing the word bigotry. Both are correct, as the Islamophobia is active prejudice.

Well it's all fine and dandy to tell us peasants not to be afraid from your high tower in SF, but you have to realize that's not the real world. I mentioned those two areas because it's my parents home counties. If you look at northern India or southwestern Russia, you would see exactly the blight that Islam has become on those nations. 

 

hys·ter·i·cal

deriving from or affected by uncontrolled extreme emotion

 

Don't think it's "funny", I think he's a very partisan man, who is upset about the election results, just as I might have been if HRC had won. 

 

The people of Saudi Arabia have shown time and time again they don't believe in American values, the government should keep track of them if they do indeed get into this country. The registration act was targeting immigrants last I checked anyway

 

I'm not President Trump or his policy makers; they're more tolerant of Islam than I would be. My opinion is different than his, I think he's too soft on it

 

Bigotry is an inability to accept someone one else's opinion. Saying some sects of Islam is incompatible with America is not bigotry, it's potentially xenophobic or Islamophobic if you feel that the fears are irrational. I don't, but you might

[Phantom Roxas]

If you have a personal experience, then focus on relating that to us.
 
Maybe the reason George Takei is upset with the election results because he believes Trump will put other people through the same horrible situation that he endured. It is completely inappropriate for you to dismiss that by talking about his "high horse".
 
There are many people in America itself who do not uphold the country's own values, so it's not like "the" people of Saudi Arabia (What was that about blanket judgments?) are any worse than select segments of America.
 
If you think the guy who relies on Japanese Internment as a "precedent" and treats Muslims exactly the same way Hitler treated the Jews, then I am absolutely going to believe that anything meant to be harder than that is xenophobic and Islamophobic. It's not "potentially" those. It just is those. And yes, I do believe that those fears are irrational. "Bigotry" is not simply the inability to accept someone else's opinion. That outdated definition only comes up as a way of trying to avoid admitting to flaws with one's own argument, and it completely takes the word out of context. Someone pointed out that your views may be harmful? Simple, just call them a bigot!
 
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

"a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)"

 

A bigot is not simply someone who does not accept another's opinion because that opinion is different. It's about why they don't accept that other person, and it's directly because of prejudice.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

If you have a personal experience, then focus on relating that to us.

 

Maybe the reason George Takei is upset with the election results because he believes Trump will put other people through the same horrible situation that he endured. It is completely inappropriate for you to dismiss that by talking about his "high horse".

 

There are many people in America itself who do not uphold the country's own values, so it's not like "the" people of Saudi Arabia (What was that about blanket judgments?) are any worse than select segments of America.

 

If you think the guy who relies on Japanese Internment as a "precedent" and treats Muslims exactly the same way Hitler treated the Jews, then I am absolutely going to believe that anything meant to be harder than that is xenophobic and Islamophobic. It's not "potentially" those. It just is those. And yes, I do believe that those fears are irrational. "Bigotry" is not simply the inability to accept someone else's opinion. That outdated definition only comes up as a way of trying to avoid admitting to flaws with one's own argument, and it completely takes the word out of context. Someone pointed out that your views may be harmful? Simple, just call them a bigot!

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

 

"a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)"

 

A bigot is not simply someone who does not accept another's opinion because that opinion is different. It's about why they don't accept that other person, and it's directly because of prejudice.

I don't know too many segments of America that stone a woman to death for being raped, thankfully. Are there many like that where you come from?

 

Well I'm obv bias

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_conflict

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechen%E2%80%93Russian_conflict

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Zoroastrians

 

That should give you a pretty good discourse of the matter. I lived most of my life in Virginia and Iowa, my "account" of the matter wouldn't be accurate, but those should be.

 

I was talking about you actually; when you jump to defend Islam. George loves to move the goalpost a lot, but I'm not gonna deride his suffering in Internment camps. At first it was LGBT, then when Trump said he would respect Obergefell, he moved on to Abortion and Muslim while encouraging the riots that are going on in the urban centers now. That's why I take his assessment with a grain of salt 

 

Hitler didn't give the jews a chance to change, I would love to see more muslims like the ones in South India or the ones running the Egyptian government atm

 

If that's the definition of bigot you're gonna subscribe to, there's gonna be a lot of leftwing bigots buddy

[Tentacruel]

I'm not in favor of rounding up Muslims or registering them all, (and I don't think many people are), but it is astounding how far some of you go to downplay any threat of terrorism.  

 

The idea of screening people from areas where there is known terrorist activity should not be alarming.  It's pretty funking reasonable.  

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

maybe you should go to Kashmir or Chechnya and then come back and tell me I shouldn't be afraid of Islam....and no that's not ISIS or Al-Queda, that's your average homegrown intolerant Muslim

 

I support President Trump's plan to build safe zones in Syria, they can stay the funk out of my country 

 

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

 

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

 

but it is astounding how far some of you go to downplay any threat of terrorism. 

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

 

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