Politics 2017 part II

[Volourn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FTFB9GDfls&t=567s

 

 

"Dunno, I'd say a 47-Pulitzer-winner newspaper is a pretty damn trustworthy source of information."

 

Nope. Not enccessarily. Who gives Pulitzers out? If it was the International Nazi Party would that be proof? If you trust fake news good for you. I don't.

 

 

Also, where is the crying about all the countries who ban jews/isrealis from entering their countries.  rather hypocritical. L0L

Edited January 30, 2017 by Volourn

[algroth]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FTFB9GDfls&t=567s

 

 

"Dunno, I'd say a 47-Pulitzer-winner newspaper is a pretty damn trustworthy source of information."

 

Nope. Not enccessarily. Who gives Pulitzers out? If it was the International Nazi Party would that be proof? If you trust fake news good for you. I don't.

I am not in disagreement with what you link there, but it doesn't negate the other article. Do I think that Obama (or whoever facilitated what is quoted on the video) should have gotten their due flack when these things occured? Absolutely. But Obama's no longer in power, and all of this looking back to blame him about new infringements to human rights serves no purpose when the man who is publicly signing them is right now seated where he is instead. Both should be held accountable for their respective actions, one doesn't negate the other just because they stand on opposite parties. So with all this said, I don't see the issue to protesting Trump right now, or for an article to combat a false claim regarding Obama's policies when compared to Trump (because what you quote above might be true, but it is not the same as the accusation that Trump is just "doing the same as Obama"). Maybe it should have been done sooner, but I think it's very disingenious to use this as an argument to deny the validity of protest right now.

Edited January 30, 2017 by algroth

[Volourn]

"Both should be held accountable for their respective actions, one doesn't negate the other just because they stand on opposite parties."

 

That's the point.

 

 

"to use this as an argument to deny the validity of protest right now."

 

Actually, it's the perfect argument. The people protesting don't care about the banned individuals. They don't care about the morality or lack of morality of the ban. They care about the who. Thoie people are pieces of crap and need to be called out for their hypocritical lying fake news bullcrap.

 

Again, the people who are calling Trump a 'literal nazi' for this are the same people who see Obama as some Messiah figure even though he did the same thing. Yet you say that shouldn't be highlighted? COME ON. 
 

[Ben No.3]

"Both should be held accountable for their respective actions, one doesn't negate the other just because they stand on opposite parties."

 

That's the point.

 

 

"to use this as an argument to deny the validity of protest right now."

 

Actually, it's the perfect argument. The people protesting don't care about the banned individuals. They don't care about the morality or lack of morality of the ban. They care about the who. Thoie people are pieces of crap and need to be called out for their hypocritical lying fake news bullcrap.

 

Again, the people who are calling Trump a 'literal nazi' for this are the same people who see Obama as some Messiah figure even though he did the same thing. Yet you say that shouldn't be highlighted? COME ON.

 

I agree that calling trump a Nazi is completely out of proportion and completely ridiculous. Though I will say he's a right win populist. Which isn't a type I particularly like... populism in general is awful, but I feel like left winged populism at least has an underlying theory, while right winged populism feeds on fear, anger and hate.

[Chilloutman]

if anything is populistic its socialism as opposed to capitalism so i don't know why all the sudden 'right wing' is populist, i though that giving free stuff from state to people was viewed as populistic...

[HoonDing]

Americans protesting America banning people rather than Iran or Saudi Barbaria banning jews seems to the point. America first.

[Ben No.3]

if anything is populistic its socialism as opposed to capitalism so i don't know why all the sudden 'right wing' is populist, i though that giving free stuff from state to people was viewed as populistic...

 

I meant "right wing" as on nationalist/conservative, rather than internationalist.

 

Sorry. Left and right are really awful terms

[algroth]

"Both should be held accountable for their respective actions, one doesn't negate the other just because they stand on opposite parties."

 

That's the point.

 

 

"to use this as an argument to deny the validity of protest right now."

 

Actually, it's the perfect argument. The people protesting don't care about the banned individuals. They don't care about the morality or lack of morality of the ban. They care about the who. Thoie people are pieces of crap and need to be called out for their hypocritical lying fake news bullcrap.

 

Again, the people who are calling Trump a 'literal nazi' for this are the same people who see Obama as some Messiah figure even though he did the same thing. Yet you say that shouldn't be highlighted? COME ON. 

 

You speak about misinformation and fake news. What you're defending above is the promotion of fake news for a political end. So, history time. 1955 saw the first of a series of military coups d'etat in Argentina, in this case led by Eduardo Lonardi and Pedro Eugenio Aramburu, thus overthrowing Juan Domingo Perón. As per the norm with military dictatorships in South America, this came hand in hand with a lot of censorship and manipulation of information. However, in 1957, with Argentina still under power of Aramburu, a law was passed that marked the first time film was officially recognized as an artistic medium and thus defended by the Constitution from censorship as with all other artistic media. Of course, this moment of freedom of speech was eventually snuffed, but this change to the Constitution marked the first time the Argentinian government in any of its iterations granted film any of the protections shared by other artistic media. This is important, because whilst the dictatorship, as with any dictatorship, was a horrible thing in which civil rights were largely ignored, and censorship and power abuse abounded, you *cannot* move this pivotal point to the ensurance of freedom of speech in cinema ten years earlier just to allign historical facts to your political views. To do so is to be dishonest, it's to promote misinformation for your ideology's convenience.

 

Likewise, to accuse Obama of having banned the people of Iraq from entry to the US so as to shift the blame he did not get at the time for other policies back to him, is to be dishonest. It likewise runs counter to the point: you want Obama to face the charges for things that he *did*, not for things that he *didn't*. You wouldn't charge a robber for rape so long as the latter may get him in prison for the former. That's not how justice works. Likewise (I hope) you wouldn't defend the charges for the latter just because you know the former to be true.

 

So with all this said, you have a point, but it does not contradict the Washington Post's article, which is about an accusation Obama's administration is not guilty of.

Edited January 30, 2017 by algroth

[Gfted1]

Its been a few hours since bitter tears rolled down our cheeks. For our next installment of "QQ on Parade" I bring you:

 

Uber triggers protest for collecting fares during taxi strike against refugee ban.

[213374U]

if anything is populistic its socialism as opposed to capitalism so i don't know why all the sudden 'right wing' is populist, i though that giving free stuff from state to people was viewed as populistic...

 

Doesn't really matter. Populism is pandering to the lowest common denominator and using a rhetoric based on appeals to emotion and other assorted fallacies. Whether it's "muh handouts" or "muh nation", anyone can be a populist. All it takes is a soapbox and a hefty amount of dishonesty.

 

edit: the original "populists" were demagogues back in ancient Greece. Predates left/right wing politics really.

Edited January 30, 2017 by 213374U

[Agiel]

I'm coming around to Gromnir's "Razzle-Dazzle" theory, and that this disastrous refugee EO serves to distract from a development that will prove far more sinister down the line, Trump pushing the JCS and DNI out of the NSC and replacing them with Flynn and Bannon.

 

 

For god's sake, I thought the criticism of the "PC-gone-crazy" college campuses was that the humanities professors were depicting to students the world as they would like it to be rather than how it is. The reason _why_ we have the highest-ranking military officer and highest-ranking intelligence officer on the NSC is to relay to the Executive the hard truths out there to outfit them with the tools they need to make the world "as they would like it to be."

 

Perhaps given that Bannon seems to be on to ensure ideological purity there was more to his claim of being a "Leninist" that goes beyond commie industrial policies. "Comrades! Former Marshal Dunford has been removed on grounds of insufficient enthusiasm for our glorious revolution! He has since been airbrushed out of all Politburo photos and the bill for the bullet has been sent to his widow!"

Edited January 30, 2017 by Agiel

[Volourn]

"Americans protesting America banning people rather than Iran or Saudi Barbaria banning jews seems to the point. America first."

 

Be a valid point but it isn't just Amerikans protesting..

[Ben No.3]

"Americans protesting America banning people rather than Iran or Saudi Barbaria banning jews seems to the point. America first."

 

Be a valid point but it isn't just Amerikans protesting..

I don't think "america first" is a very good principle... the US is the worlds most powerful nation and biggest economy, and certain responsibilities come with that.

 

Say you apply "America first" to big companies like apple. That means you'll ensure that they, as American companies, can grow as big as posssible, right? But while doing so, they will build ever more awful factories where ever more workers will be exploiter on terrible ways. Either you'll leave them so much freedom that they'll do that in the US, or, since "America first" thinking might avoid that, they'll exploit the workforce of some poor country, paying the workforce as little as humanly possible while having them working as long as humanly possible. There is something very wrong about that strategy, don't you think?

 

If you are te worlds largest economy, you should set an example by caring for the workers of your companies regardless of nationality.

[Chilloutman]

Well we probably now starting to really live in corporations owned countries when corporation can sue state for its own border control... its like suing stated over its tax laws... oh wait...

[Ben No.3]

http://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2017/01/29/exp-gps-0129-take-travel-ban.cnn/video/playlists/donald-trump-muslims/

 

 

This is great!!

 

Seems like facts disagree with the rationality of Mr Trumps deciscion

Edited January 30, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Zoraptor]

 

 

I can't find any actual references of direct bans by Obama, only that he made getting in USA much much more harder for people from certain countries, by adding visa requirements and security checks etc..

 

 

The Trump 'ban' at least theoretically isn't an actual ban either though despite how it's being reported. It's a suspension until proper (extreme) vetting can be put in place. That could, of course, be a constructive ban and the temporary measure is meant to be permanent, but the legal basis for it is near identical to Obama's, and Obama rigorously defended his right to issue such edicts on the subject. Certainly there's more than a whiff of hypocrisy about criticism from Obama of such things, and a fair bit of selective reporting going on.

 

(ftr measure is stupid populism. I have no objection in theory since the US is perfectly justified in wanting to control its borders but it also needs to be applied even handedly, and an even handed application means that KSA/ Egypt etc get banned as well since KSA especially is the prime jihadi exporter)

[Wrath of Dagon]

Facts and Zakaria are two words which should never be mentioned in the same sentence.

[Ben No.3]

Facts and Zakaria are two words which should never be mentioned in the same sentence.

I don't know him. He seems like a satiric guy. But good satire is usually build upon fact, and he does mention sources, so....

 

There's this great sentence about satire...

"If you say things better than they are, you're an naive idealist. If you say th worse than they are, you're an pragmatic realist. If you say them just like them are, you're an satirist."

I think that's the job of satire... a "mirror of society's bad sides and flaws"

Edited January 30, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Gromnir]

Facts and Zakaria are two words which should never be mentioned in the same sentence.

you sudden believing facts is worthy o' concern is high humor.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Elerond]

 

 

 

I can't find any actual references of direct bans by Obama, only that he made getting in USA much much more harder for people from certain countries, by adding visa requirements and security checks etc..

 

 

The Trump 'ban' at least theoretically isn't an actual ban either though despite how it's being reported. It's a suspension until proper (extreme) vetting can be put in place. That could, of course, be a constructive ban and the temporary measure is meant to be permanent, but the legal basis for it is near identical to Obama's, and Obama rigorously defended his right to issue such edicts on the subject. Certainly there's more than a whiff of hypocrisy about criticism from Obama of such things, and a fair bit of selective reporting going on.

 

(ftr measure is stupid populism. I have no objection in theory since the US is perfectly justified in wanting to control its borders but it also needs to be applied even handedly, and an even handed application means that KSA/ Egypt etc get banned as well since KSA especially is the prime jihadi exporter)

 

He himself calls it a ban so I don't see any point to argue opposite

[Zoraptor]

I'm not particularly hung up on the use of the word 'ban' itself, I do think that suspension is more accurate. Trump using ban doesn't mean much, especially on twitter where he has limited characters available; he's an off the cuff speaker anyway.

 

Mostly though, the EO itself is very careful not to couch this as either a (permanent) ban but as a (temporary) suspension or as a religious thing- except insofar as it 'encourages' receiving persecuted religious minorities (practically, ME christians since I don't think it's aimed at, say, Rohinja from Burma or Shia from Saudi) yet it has generally been described as both by the media. When it doesn't get struck down as targeting religion there will be a lot of people reading WaPo/ NYT type articles who will be outraeged!!!!1!!! because they haven't read the EO and are going by what the media is saying. There's enough there to dislike without distortion.

[Elerond]

I'm not particularly hung up on the use of the word 'ban' itself, I do think that suspension is more accurate. Trump using ban doesn't mean much, especially on twitter where he has limited characters available; he's an off the cuff speaker anyway.

 

Mostly though, the EO itself is very careful not to couch this as either a (permanent) ban but as a (temporary) suspension or as a religious thing- except insofar as it 'encourages' receiving persecuted religious minorities (practically, ME christians since I don't think it's aimed at, say, Rohinja from Burma or Shia from Saudi) yet it has generally been described as both by the media. When it doesn't get struck down as targeting religion there will be a lot of people reading WaPo/ NYT type articles who will be outraeged!!!!1!!! because they haven't read the EO and are going by what the media is saying. There's enough there to dislike without distortion.

 

But it is also very carefully constructed so that it mostly only effects Muslims. You can see what it is purpose is even though it is tried to make so that it don't blatantly break law. But its intention is quite clear from how it is constructed.

 

I must say that way it is constructed reminds me of German's so called anti-Jew laws that never actually named Jews as their target, but in reality they were about only population group targeted by those laws. 

[Gromnir]

I'm coming around to Gromnir's "Razzle-Dazzle" theory, and that this disastrous refugee EO serves to distract from a development that will prove far more sinister down the line, Trump pushing the JCS and DNI out of the NSC and replacing them with Flynn and Bannon.

 

 

For god's sake, I thought the criticism of the "PC-gone-crazy" college campuses was that the humanities professors were depicting to students the world as they would like it to be rather than how it is. The reason _why_ we have the highest-ranking military officer and highest-ranking intelligence officer on the NSC is to relay to the Executive the hard truths out there to outfit them with the tools they need to make the world "as they would like it to be."

 

Perhaps given that Bannon seems to be on to ensure ideological purity there was more to his claim of being a "Leninist" that goes beyond commie industrial policies. "Comrades! Former Marshal Dunford has been removed on grounds of insufficient enthusiasm for our glorious revolution! He has since been airbrushed out of all Politburo photos and the bill for the bullet has been sent to his widow!"

am increasingly convinced trump doesn't care if his executive orders and directives is legal or viable.  trump needs to be seen doing something.  he needs to be in the discussion.  he needs to be important.  is not stupid o' trump.  sit back and wait to negotiate with Congress?  months would go by and in the meantime he would be increasing marginalized.  trump is not popular enough to bargain effective with Congress, so instead he is daring 'em to go down in flames with him.  

 

Congress has a chance to halt this idiocy, but is gonna be hard.  trump is the President, and a republican Congress fighting with a republican President will not sit well with many.  but even so, how many republican senators lost their seats in 1974? 3?  quite a bit more in the House.  most incumbents is gonna retain their seats, but they is gonna need decide quick if it makes more sense to back trump or oppose him.  trump is challenging Congress to man-up, which is something they ain't done for decades.

 

Razzle dazzle 'em

Show 'em the first rate sorcerer you are

Long as you keep 'em way off balance

How can they spot you've got no talent

Razzle Dazzle 'em

 

is razzle-dazzle.  is flimflam.  could still work.  just 'cause trump can't actual do what he has done, it doesn't mean Congress will let him fail. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited January 30, 2017 by Gromnir

[Malcador]

Wonder why they didn't wait until they had an AG, or give future date to enact it or give this much thought.

 

 

Seems like typical pirvate sector project management.

[Elerond]

 

How many of these we can mark as checked these days.