Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns. The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns.

01-31-2017 , 04:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor
for real? he is like a bad movie villain at this point. I mean, this is like straight out of childrens cartoon.
i am not joking. he was at a media event showcasing his appointment of rudy giuliani for the head of making cyber security stronger. i am not joking.
01-31-2017 , 04:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sighsalot
these next 4 years will be a valuable lesson to the american people. elections matter, not voting matters, it all matters. The good thing about being an american is knowing that this too shall pass, and in 4 years his bull **** will be sent out the door with him.
First part is true. Second part, I'm gonna scream. He's taking a wrecking ball to everything including elections. We have to fight just for an election in 4 years. If you think you can just wait 4 years and he'll be gone, you are wrong. If minorities can't vote, he wins in a landslide among a million other things I can think of.
01-31-2017 , 04:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NxtWrldChamp
These WH press briefings are must watch TV every day

Just gold

I make sure to watch these everyday after work.
01-31-2017 , 04:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacktheDumb
In what period of time do you think was Russia a democracy?
They had one for a couple years. I just read it in kasparov's book on putin. (it's the bad stuff everyone's saying, spoiler alert)
01-31-2017 , 04:44 PM
Just want to put it out there that I'm an atheist and I am 100% against Trump and any ban against any religion. I believe in American civil liberties and values and freedom of (and from) religion.

I frequent a few atheist and secular sites, and I can't think of one person on those sites who claimed to be for the ban because "the less religion the better" or whatever.

Kind of insulted that anyone would think atheists would be for the ban, to be honest.
01-31-2017 , 04:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by champstark
DeVos plagiarized her questionnaire

https://www.washingtonpost.com/power...=.6a32336e9d2f

Nice example we are setting for American students
lol everyone in my English dept. are absolutely befuddled why that woman is the appointee.
01-31-2017 , 04:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dominic
Just want to put it out there that I'm an atheist and I am 100% against Trump and any ban against any religion. I believe in American civil liberties and values and freedom of (and from) religion.

I frequent a few atheist and secular sites, and I can't think of one person on those sites who claimed to be for the ban because "the less religion the better" or whatever.

Kind of insulted that anyone would think atheists would be for the ban, to be honest.
It's b/c atheists don't give a**** about religion thus we don't have the need to dominate or feel superior or the fear of another one doing it to us. We don't give a **** at all. So naturally, the entire world is about to be religious again by force. World history always cycles, I was naive to think maybe it wouldn't for once this century but nope.
01-31-2017 , 04:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dominic
lol everyone in my English dept. are absolutely befuddled why that woman is the appointee.
She's a christofascist just like the rest of them. That's why. They're taking everything radical christianity hates out of education. ie gg science. Yep, religion going straight into schools with her. (or they just take all the $ from public schools and give it to private christian schools)

That and 200M donated to the party which would normally be the only reason but that's just a bonus here.
01-31-2017 , 04:58 PM
World history always cycles, yo!
01-31-2017 , 04:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sighsalot
these next 4 years will be a valuable lesson to the american people. elections matter, not voting matters, it all matters. The good thing about being an american is knowing that this too shall pass, and in 4 years his bull **** will be sent out the door with him.
Since the end of the Cold War and colonial rule in Africa, countries -- for instance, Ethiopia -- have vacillated between genuinely competitive multi-party elections in the early 1990s to backsliding into autocracy by the mid 2000s. The backsliding isn't always obvious and doesn't always involve goose-stepping down the street in uniform and the cops roughing up political opponents (although violent intimidation of political opponents does happen in Ethiopia). But on the merits, there's enough political freedom for political opponents to operate and vote counting is done transparently and fairly enough that you see results like this where in 2010 the opposition Medrek party wins more than 30% of the popular vote but got 1 seat out of 547 in parliament due to the ruling party re-writing the rules on how the seats get awarded.

The cynics and thisisfine.jpg types will cry foul but the GOP is essentially crafting the same system where gerrymandering, voting restrictions and burdens will functionally suppress the popular will and where expressed, the results are designed not to reflect it, to empower certain voters over others. Consider how much time Trump is STILL dedicating to myth-making about voter fraud. Think about how many GOP controlled state legislatures are sitting on voter ID laws and other similar legislation and regularly trotting them out, and how much mind-share and consensus building exists on the right to mythologize voter fraud to justify this stuff. They mean it. They should be taken both seriously and literally.

Transparently, the GOP has abandoned outreach and growth as a party and have set to work on a project to entrench the political power of ~25% of the eligible electorate (turnout in 2016 was ~55% and Trump got 46% of the vote) as far as they can take it.

The GOP is obviously distracted this week but as the elections approach in 2018 and 2020, their efforts will be focused on both rewriting districts (gerrymandering), rewriting the rules (e.g., having blue state legislatures controlled by GOPers turn their electoral apportionment into Maine/Nebraska style systems where EVs are awarded by CD) and curtailing the voting rights of populations they perceive as opposition (voter IDs, limiting polling hours, aggressively pursuing drug crimes and then disenfranchising felons, other onerous voting restrictions).

And that's just the obvious, transparent stuff. The hand they will play completely face up. Who knows what Nixonian-or-worse type tactics Trump will engage in to use the state authority for propaganda and/or harassing his opponents.

t;ldr summary: your confidence this too will pass due to free and fair elections providing a bulwark against malfeasance seems misplaced, GOP is absolutely going to work on that now.

We have agency to create a different outcome and this is not fate but I'm not convinced a confident attitude democratic norms will ensure voters' will is respected is the right play anymore.

Last edited by DVaut1; 01-31-2017 at 05:05 PM.
01-31-2017 , 05:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dominic
Just want to put it out there that I'm an atheist and I am 100% against Trump and any ban against any religion. I believe in American civil liberties and values and freedom of (and from) religion.

I frequent a few atheist and secular sites, and I can't think of one person on those sites who claimed to be for the ban because "the less religion the better" or whatever.

Kind of insulted that anyone would think atheists would be for the ban, to be honest.
The guy who said that was a repeatedly banned white supremacist and half wit.
01-31-2017 , 05:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dominic
Just want to put it out there that I'm an atheist and I am 100% against Trump and any ban against any religion. I believe in American civil liberties and values and freedom of (and from) religion.

I frequent a few atheist and secular sites, and I can't think of one person on those sites who claimed to be for the ban because "the less religion the better" or whatever.

Kind of insulted that anyone would think atheists would be for the ban, to be honest.
+1
01-31-2017 , 05:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dominic
Just want to put it out there that I'm an atheist and I am 100% against Trump and any ban against any religion. I believe in American civil liberties and values and freedom of (and from) religion.

I frequent a few atheist and secular sites, and I can't think of one person on those sites who claimed to be for the ban because "the less religion the better" or whatever.

Kind of insulted that anyone would think atheists would be for the ban, to be honest.
True, but one cannot ignore the normalizing of islamophobia by the Bill Maher and Sam Harris types in the guise of #rationality and #logic. Atheists for regime change!

edit: Oh, and Dawkins too.

Last edited by ShallowMalePig; 01-31-2017 at 05:15 PM.
01-31-2017 , 05:14 PM
Trump going to use Facebook live for sc nom announcement
01-31-2017 , 05:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheatrich
They had one for a couple years. I just read it in kasparov's book on putin. (it's the bad stuff everyone's saying, spoiler alert)
I assume this is "Winter is Coming"....would you recommend it?
01-31-2017 , 05:32 PM


Budweiser Super Bowl ad...pretty good troll of Trump
01-31-2017 , 05:33 PM
Reuters poll has Americans in favor of the travel ban, 49-41

sigh
01-31-2017 , 05:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShallowMalePig
True, but one cannot ignore the normalizing of islamophobia by the Bill Maher and Sam Harris types in the guise of #rationality and #logic. Atheists for regime change!

edit: Oh, and Dawkins too.
Do they say what they say because they are not nice people or because they are not smart enough to recognize that their thoughts are based on shoddy reasoning?
01-31-2017 , 05:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zikzak
I need a cable news/major network news version of our regular Chiefsplanet updates. I'm in the "I cut cable" bubble, and I don't know how everything is playing out in the medium that reaches a hudge percentage of the US. What is Erin Burnett saying? How about Lester Holt? Does any of this crap make it to Good Morning America? Has anybody figured out how to get Wolf Blitzer off the air yet?
I'm also in the bubble, but I'm guessing the CP crew is really happy that libs are mad and the media is all still chasing after the laser pointer like a kat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DVaut1
Also while I'm ranting before I likely go away for a week, some self-defeating nonsense I've seen from some people is mind-boggling. Some combination of either: 1) the travel ban is under inclusive because it doesn't even include the countries where all the Mohammedmen terrorists breed, like whatabboutery Saudi Arabia or Pakistan?! And 2) oh, Trump has business interests in these other countries, see, look at his self-interest at work!

Both of these are missing the point.

To wit:

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...xecutive-order







No! Don't set the moral and humanitarian questions!

But then: the technocratic point is terrible too! Making the law more inclusive to include Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Egypt wouldn't make anyone materially or significantly safer either.

Like I just got done ranting about virtue signaling being pointless, but jesus, wtf is this ****? Would we be happier if Trump's ban was MORE inclusive to include any nation with a lot of Muslims?

Like, OK, hammering Trump for his lack of virtue is a bad idea, but what the **** is this "well, come to think of it, Hitler really should have stayed focused on the Jews, but he didn't even bother Belgian Jews and got distracted by the Roma! What a moron" ****? Like, what the ****?

If we insist on virtue signaling, can we at least do it correctly? And we should be lampooning Trump as inept, but can we do it in ways where his logical pivot isn't more heinous? These arguments all read that basically, Trump is correct to institute the travel ban, he just forgot Egypt and Saudi Arabia. No wonder voters wind up confused.
Should we though? I feel like pointing out trump's ineptitude is what we've been trying for 2 years, because it's so obvious to us. But he's their god. Not because they always agree with him, but because the liberals are the devil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rococo
This might be the right move for the SCOTUS nomination, but I would be careful about embracing obstinacy for obstinacy's sake. There has to defensible reasons for being obstinate. Being obstinate merely for the purpose of making Trump look incompetent may be strategically sound, but it's really bad government, as the GOP has proved for the last 25 years.

In other words, I don't endorse a strategy of making the country as terrible as possible for four years just so the GOP can stew in it and get blamed.
It's easy to be obstinate because the gop has a long track record of always being wrong, about everything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DVaut1
Uh huh. So 'simple' = good, and these kinds of arguments are simple because a huge majority of people who are functionally math-illiterates just need to 'look at the past data' and 'the countries involved' which presumably most Americans couldn't even find on a map to see how it refutes Trump's swirling tornado of moving objectives.

Maybe for you and I they are 'simple' but for most people they hear Trump signaling "I will protect you from the brown people" and the Democrats bringing out color coded maps to show how Trump didn't even get the whole Middle East with one color and some spreadsheets of refugee/terrorist kill ratios.

So, as I said: bad arguments are like Vox's. Wonky, technocratic, but if only half-way understood, suggest the failure of the EO was that it wasn't broad enough.

Better arguments:

It's a bad to issue blank visa bans of countries like this because almost no global travelers intend to harm us, and Trump screwed it all up anyway by abusing lawful citizens who can expect to travel out of and back into the US without harassment.

The end. One sentence, declarative, doesn't require a map or a spreadsheet, speaks to shared negative-liberty type values, and is hard to misunderstand or misconstrue the underlying point.
Trumpkins stopped reading after the word "bad", because emails you libtard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 13ball
On Meet the Press Chuck Todd asked Priebus about not including Saudi Arabia, etc. His response was "well, we'll have to look into doing that too." It's the perfect parry to the question. They planned this carefully and knew what the responses would be.

And, no, that's not 3D chess. It's just regular ****ing chess. The Democrats response just makes it look 3D.
Yeah. The media is failing harder than ever. Lol at Chuck Todd for having these people on his show.

"Mr. Priebus, welcome to the show. You helped elect the birther, so now you can **** off. Up next, I tell lying ass spin artist Kellyanne Conway that her birther supporting ass is either stupid or doesn't give a **** about her own childrens' future. Followed by the round table, where Doris Kearns and I take turns beating the **** out of a trump piñata with baseball bats. Because if it's Sunday, it's meet the protest mother ****er."
01-31-2017 , 06:00 PM
I would watch that
01-31-2017 , 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DVaut1
Since the end of the Cold War and colonial rule in Africa, countries -- for instance, Ethiopia -- have vacillated between genuinely competitive multi-party elections in the early 1990s to backsliding into autocracy by the mid 2000s. The backsliding isn't always obvious and doesn't always involve goose-stepping down the street in uniform and the cops roughing up political opponents (although violent intimidation of political opponents does happen in Ethiopia). But on the merits, there's enough political freedom for political opponents to operate and vote counting is done transparently and fairly enough that you see results like this where in 2010 the opposition Medrek party wins more than 30% of the popular vote but got 1 seat out of 547 in parliament due to the ruling party re-writing the rules on how the seats get awarded.
****, I know ****s bad right now, with all that Trump, but you really think Ethiopia is a good example for comparison? Ethiopia?

For all you say there are no examples post WW2 of any country with a long history of strong institutions, strong democratic tradition and strong civil society/rights bugging out on those traditions to an authoritarian one.

Yes there are plenty of examples with countries with very weak institutions, endemic corruption and/or very recent democratic development vacillating between "democracy" and authoritarianism, but for all sorts of reasons they cant really be compared to USA.

This cuts both ways though, its a reason for some hope, but also dread.

Also obviously need to work around how arbitrary the whole post WW2 line is, but even if we roll it back, there were unique conditions in Germany and also Democracy was still in an earlier phase of development then.

Last edited by O.A.F.K.1.1; 01-31-2017 at 06:17 PM.
01-31-2017 , 06:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by champstark
Reuters poll has Americans in favor of the travel ban, 49-41

sigh
Only a matter of time until he does something which only a very small minority will favor and creates massive protests. Things should get interesting then!
01-31-2017 , 06:30 PM
www.twitter.com/TrumpDraws for a few more drawings...
01-31-2017 , 06:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbfg
Only a matter of time until he does something which only a very small minority will favor and creates massive protests. Things should get interesting then!
Like what? Seriously, give me something that only 20% of Americans support and would result in even conservatives protesting against it. I cannot think of anything. No matter what, it will be spun and they will still support him.
01-31-2017 , 06:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by champstark
Like what? Seriously, give me something that only 20% of Americans support and would result in even conservatives protesting against it. I cannot think of anything. No matter what, it will be spun and they will still support him.
denouncing religion including Christianity
killing Americans on purpose
nominating Ted Cruz to the Supreme Court seat

that was 3 pretty easy ones

      
m