Author Topic: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...  (Read 263496 times)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11307
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3400 on: August 08, 2018, 01:04:01 PM »
It includes (but certainly is not limited to):
- nepotism
- hiring of incompetent people
- a steady stream of blatant (and easily disproven) lies directly from the administration
- personal attacks against individual citizens by the president
Agreed.

Quote
- attacking media organizations who report the presidents mistakes
Yes, they do report mistakes and rightly so.  They also get much wrong, and deserve to be called out for that as well.
Quote
- blatant use of government power for personal enrichment by the president and his family
Most presidents end up being enriched by the office.

Quote
- foreign policy decisions made to distract the public from investigations into wrongdoing by the president
Maybe.  Or maybe some just don't like the policy decisions and use this charge as a way to attack the decision.

Quote
- obvious foreign (Russian) control over the president / long list of monetary ties between the president and people around him to Russia
Not obvious and any global business will likely have monetary interactions with Russia.

Quote
- praising nazis, religious based travel bans
Nope.  Unless you're referring to those dastardly Venezuelan Roman Catholics?

Quote
government forced separation of children from parents (with no plan to return them),
Agreed.  Although, this says as much about governmental inefficiency as it does about Trump.

Quote
pardoning the sheriff who oversaw the worst pattern of racial profiling in US history
Don't know enough about Arpaio's details to comment.

Quote
A long stream of racist comments (Mexicans are rapists, claiming that a Mexican judge can't do his job because of his race, Africans come from shithole countries, Haitians and Nigerians all have AIDS, calling Elizabeth Warren 'Pocahontes', etc.)
Agree with some (primarily the judge comment) but not all (e.g., it does appear Warren deserves some chiding at least for claiming "Native American" status).

Quote
Near as I can figure, those aren't really right wing policies (you can correct me if I've got it wrong and they are fundamental to the right wing viewpoint).  You don't need a socialist to fix these problems, just a commander in chief (from either side of the political spectrum) who is less of a twat.
No doubt Trump is very good at shooting himself in the foot.  He also seems to cause his opponents to overreact and diminish their credibility among the all-important "independent" voters.

To answer some of your concerns:

While I agree that when news organizations get things wrong they need to be called out for it, Donald Trump has made a pattern of calling legitimate and completely true stories 'fake news'.  If Trump had a habit of sticking to calling out incorrect news reports, I don't think anyone would take issue with it.


In his own words, Mr Trump has been pretty clear regarding his Muslim travel ban:
Dec. 7, 2015: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on."
March 9, 2016: "I think Islam hates us ... We can’t allow people coming into this country who have this hatred of the United States and of people that are not Muslim.”
July 24, 2016: "People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. 'Oh, you can’t use the word Muslim.' ... I’m talking territory instead of Muslim.”
Jan. 27, 2017 (as president): Upon signing the first travel ban, entitled Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States: “We all know what that means.”
June 5, 2017: “People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!”
Sept. 15, 2017: "The travel ban into the United States should be far larger, tougher and more specific -- but stupidly, that would not be politically correct!"


Separating children from their families has nothing to do with 'government inefficiency'.


I don't know all the specifics of Arpaio's case either.  I do know that the Department of Justice concluded he was involved in "the worst pattern of racial profiling in U.S. history".  - https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/sheriff-joe-arpaios-office-commits-worst-racial-profiling-in-us-history-concludes-doj-investigation-6655328

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1148
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3401 on: August 08, 2018, 04:14:58 PM »
Trump's support has apparently led the democrats very close to victory in the Ohio special election... as of 6:00 tonight there are still over 3000 provisional ballots outstanding...

Troy Balderson  Republican  101,574   50.2%   
Danny O’Connor  Democrat  99,820   49.3%
Joe Manchik Green  1,127   06%
202,521 votes, 100% reporting (591 of 591 precincts)


Fireball

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 210
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3402 on: August 08, 2018, 04:40:30 PM »
Trump's support has apparently led the democrats very close to victory in the Ohio special election... as of 6:00 tonight there are still over 3000 provisional ballots outstanding...

Troy Balderson  Republican  101,574   50.2%   
Danny O’Connor  Democrat  99,820   49.3%
Joe Manchik Green  1,127   06%
202,521 votes, 100% reporting (591 of 591 precincts)

I saw that too. Evidently, the previous election for that seat 2 yrs ago was won by an R by a margin of 37%. Trump won that district by 11%. Plus, the Rs outspent the Ds by 4-to-1 to basically achieve a tie.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7994
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3403 on: August 08, 2018, 05:29:41 PM »
Trump's support has apparently led the democrats very close to victory in the Ohio special election... as of 6:00 tonight there are still over 3000 provisional ballots outstanding...

Troy Balderson  Republican  101,574   50.2%   
Danny O’Connor  Democrat  99,820   49.3%
Joe Manchik Green  1,127   06%
202,521 votes, 100% reporting (591 of 591 precincts)

I saw that too. Evidently, the previous election for that seat 2 yrs ago was won by an R by a margin of 37%. Trump won that district by 11%. Plus, the Rs outspent the Ds by 4-to-1 to basically achieve a tie.
what an ass-load of money to spend on a seat that will be up for re-election in less than 3 months.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8259
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3404 on: August 08, 2018, 06:01:01 PM »
While I agree that when news organizations get things wrong they need to be called out for it, Donald Trump has made a pattern of calling legitimate and completely true stories 'fake news'.  If Trump had a habit of sticking to calling out incorrect news reports, I don't think anyone would take issue with it.
Agreed.  Trump hurts his own cause when he overreaches.  Some times he has a good point, other times not.

Quote
In his own words, Mr Trump has been pretty clear regarding his Muslim travel ban:
Dec. 7, 2015: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on."
March 9, 2016: "I think Islam hates us ... We can’t allow people coming into this country who have this hatred of the United States and of people that are not Muslim.”
July 24, 2016: "People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. 'Oh, you can’t use the word Muslim.' ... I’m talking territory instead of Muslim.”
Jan. 27, 2017 (as president): Upon signing the first travel ban, entitled Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States: “We all know what that means.”
June 5, 2017: “People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!”
Sept. 15, 2017: "The travel ban into the United States should be far larger, tougher and more specific -- but stupidly, that would not be politically correct!"
That is the issue, isn't it? I.e., whether the law should be viewed in isolation, or in the context of statements made by a President (not just Trump) about motivations behind the law.

The law itself is not a "Muslim ban".  E.g., it does not affect Indonesia, the country with the largest Muslim population.  It does affect Venezuela, a country that is majority Roman Catholic. 

As for the President's authority, U.S. law is straightforward on what the President may do in this area.  See subsection (f) of 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute: "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

Quote
Separating children from their families has nothing to do with 'government inefficiency'.
Agreed.  But not being able to reunite them does.

Quote
I don't know all the specifics of Arpaio's case either.  I do know that the Department of Justice concluded he was involved in "the worst pattern of racial profiling in U.S. history".  - https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/sheriff-joe-arpaios-office-commits-worst-racial-profiling-in-us-history-concludes-doj-investigation-6655328
Was there some racial profiling?  Probably.   Given that the key DOJ person in that article is now the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, it's also possible that politics played a part in the characterization.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6783
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3405 on: August 08, 2018, 06:21:19 PM »
what an ass-load of money to spend on a seat that will be up for re-election in less than 3 months.

It wasn't just a special election, though, it was a bellwether.  It was a diagnostic test of the electorate.  It was symbolic of the winds of change, and the national republican party couldn't just stand by and let another special election drift into blue territory.  The narrative on that shift is starting to look troublesome for them. 

Whether or not it actually matters is kind of irrelevant.  They're just trying to spin the story to improve the optics of their catastrophic losses.  Trump has alienated more R voters than any president in modern history, but they need to somehow maintain the image of "so much winning".

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3302
  • Location: Avalon
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3406 on: August 08, 2018, 06:56:30 PM »

Quote
In his own words, Mr Trump has been pretty clear regarding his Muslim travel ban:
Dec. 7, 2015: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on."
March 9, 2016: "I think Islam hates us ... We can’t allow people coming into this country who have this hatred of the United States and of people that are not Muslim.”
July 24, 2016: "People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. 'Oh, you can’t use the word Muslim.' ... I’m talking territory instead of Muslim.”
Jan. 27, 2017 (as president): Upon signing the first travel ban, entitled Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States: “We all know what that means.”
June 5, 2017: “People, the lawyers and the courts can call it whatever they want, but I am calling it what we need and what it is, a TRAVEL BAN!”
Sept. 15, 2017: "The travel ban into the United States should be far larger, tougher and more specific -- but stupidly, that would not be politically correct!"
That is the issue, isn't it? I.e., whether the law should be viewed in isolation, or in the context of statements made by a President (not just Trump) about motivations behind the law.

The law itself is not a "Muslim ban".  E.g., it does not affect Indonesia, the country with the largest Muslim population.  It does affect Venezuela, a country that is majority Roman Catholic. 



It can be a "Muslim ban" without applying to all muslims, just as saying some named black people are less intelligent (a favourite Trump trope: see Maxine Waters and LeBron James) can be racist without Trump applying it to all black people.

Yeah, he added in Venezuela at the third time of asking to try to disguise what he was doing.  It's a fig leaf that doesn't hide the original purpose and intent.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8259
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3407 on: August 08, 2018, 07:20:57 PM »
It can be a "Muslim ban" without applying to all muslims, just as saying some named black people are less intelligent (a favourite Trump trope: see Maxine Waters and LeBron James) can be racist without Trump applying it to all black people.

Yeah, he added in Venezuela at the third time of asking to try to disguise what he was doing.  It's a fig leaf that doesn't hide the original purpose and intent.
One may see what one wants to see, eh?

A "Muslim ban that does not specifically ban Muslims" is a contradiction in terms.  You are welcome to argue otherwise - it's a free country. ;)

Trump is quite capable of denigrating people of all race, sex, etc.  Was it racist when he called Jeb Bush "low energy"?  As in, "ya know, those lazy, shiftless good for nothing white guys are all alike"?

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6783
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3408 on: August 08, 2018, 07:40:02 PM »
Was it racist when he called Jeb Bush "low energy"? 

If he started calling a bunch of different white people low energy, then yes it would certainly start to look that way.  Especially if he had a 30 year of history of publicly making other racist comments about white people.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4811
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3409 on: August 08, 2018, 07:42:24 PM »
It can be a "Muslim ban" without applying to all muslims, just as saying some named black people are less intelligent (a favourite Trump trope: see Maxine Waters and LeBron James) can be racist without Trump applying it to all black people.

Yeah, he added in Venezuela at the third time of asking to try to disguise what he was doing.  It's a fig leaf that doesn't hide the original purpose and intent.
One may see what one wants to see, eh?

A "Muslim ban that does not specifically ban Muslims" is a contradiction in terms.  You are welcome to argue otherwise - it's a free country. ;)

Trump is quite capable of denigrating people of all race, sex, etc.  Was it racist when he called Jeb Bush "low energy"?  As in, "ya know, those lazy, shiftless good for nothing white guys are all alike"?

That does appear to be your MO here.  Defending Arpaio? Fuck, dude.  Read up. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/the-long-lawless-ride-of-sheriff-joe-arpaio-231455/

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8259
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3410 on: August 08, 2018, 07:47:05 PM »
Defending Arpaio?
Who defended Arpaio?  Yes, it does seem reasonable to think that a future DNC chairman just might have overstated things, but other than that what defense of Arpaio do you see?

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8259
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3411 on: August 08, 2018, 07:56:23 PM »
Was it racist when he called Jeb Bush "low energy"? 

If he started calling a bunch of different white people low energy, then yes it would certainly start to look that way.  Especially if he had a 30 year of history of publicly making other racist comments about white people.

Seems there is no pattern of racism in Trump’s view of his critics’ intelligence.

Saying Trump "consistently and perhaps erroneously assails his critics' intelligence" just isn't as pithy, however, as "Trump is racist".

DreamFIRE

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1090
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3412 on: August 08, 2018, 08:01:10 PM »
It can be a "Muslim ban" without applying to all muslims, just as saying some named black people are less intelligent (a favourite Trump trope: see Maxine Waters and LeBron James) can be racist without Trump applying it to all black people.

Yeah, he added in Venezuela at the third time of asking to try to disguise what he was doing.  It's a fig leaf that doesn't hide the original purpose and intent.
One may see what one wants to see, eh?

A "Muslim ban that does not specifically ban Muslims" is a contradiction in terms.  You are welcome to argue otherwise - it's a free country. ;)

Trump is quite capable of denigrating people of all race, sex, etc.  Was it racist when he called Jeb Bush "low energy"?  As in, "ya know, those lazy, shiftless good for nothing white guys are all alike"?

Exactly.  I recall Trump stating that Ben Carson makes Jeb Bush look like the Energergizer Bunny.  LOL

DreamFIRE

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1090
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3413 on: August 08, 2018, 08:12:51 PM »
Was it racist when he called Jeb Bush "low energy"? 

If he started calling a bunch of different white people low energy, then yes it would certainly start to look that way.  Especially if he had a 30 year of history of publicly making other racist comments about white people.

Seems there is no pattern of racism in Trump’s view of his critics’ intelligence.

Saying Trump "consistently and perhaps erroneously assails his critics' intelligence" just isn't as pithy, however, as "Trump is racist".

I liked the one about Rick Perry where Trump said Rick Perry puts glasses on so people will think he's smart and that it just doesn't work.  People can see through the glasses.  LOL

I'm not surprised that people jumped on race for the comment about "making Lebron look smart, which isn't easy to do."  Ha! Everything is exaggerated and twisted by the media and the far left.   Some people still think he called all Mexicans rapists.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2018, 08:15:23 PM by DreamFIRE »

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4811
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3414 on: August 08, 2018, 08:31:04 PM »
Defending Arpaio?
Who defended Arpaio?  Yes, it does seem reasonable to think that a future DNC chairman just might have overstated things, but other than that what defense of Arpaio do you see?

Quote
I don't know all the specifics of Arpaio's case either.  I do know that the Department of Justice concluded he was involved in "the worst pattern of racial profiling in U.S. history".  - https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/sheriff-joe-arpaios-office-commits-worst-racial-profiling-in-us-history-concludes-doj-investigation-6655328
Was there some racial profiling?  Probably.   Given that the key DOJ person in that article is now the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, it's also possible that politics played a part in the characterization.

I see downplaying to a "probably" and providing excuses.

Was it racist when he called Jeb Bush "low energy"? 

If he started calling a bunch of different white people low energy, then yes it would certainly start to look that way.  Especially if he had a 30 year of history of publicly making other racist comments about white people.

Seems there is no pattern of racism in Trump’s view of his critics’ intelligence.

Saying Trump "consistently and perhaps erroneously assails his critics' intelligence" just isn't as pithy, however, as "Trump is racist".

He is, though.  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/15/opinion/leonhardt-trump-racist.html

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3302
  • Location: Avalon
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3415 on: August 08, 2018, 08:54:58 PM »
It can be a "Muslim ban" without applying to all muslims, just as saying some named black people are less intelligent (a favourite Trump trope: see Maxine Waters and LeBron James) can be racist without Trump applying it to all black people.

Yeah, he added in Venezuela at the third time of asking to try to disguise what he was doing.  It's a fig leaf that doesn't hide the original purpose and intent.
One may see what one wants to see, eh?

A "Muslim ban that does not specifically ban Muslims" is a contradiction in terms.  You are welcome to argue otherwise - it's a free country. ;)

Trump is quite capable of denigrating people of all race, sex, etc.  Was it racist when he called Jeb Bush "low energy"?  As in, "ya know, those lazy, shiftless good for nothing white guys are all alike"?


Can you not understand the difference between "a Muslim ban that does not ban all muslims" (my statement) and "a Muslim ban that does not ban Muslims" (your characterisation of my statement)?   I'm not sure whether to think that you are unable to see the difference or you see it but are deliberately eliding it in order to look as though you have found an argument in refutation.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8259
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3416 on: August 08, 2018, 09:18:27 PM »
I see downplaying to a "probably" and providing excuses.
You may see what you want to see.  I see going from "no opinion" to "probably", and exercising reasonable analysis of the accuser's possible motives.  E.g., the same analysis one might use when judging things Ronna Romney McDaniel might have said regarding some Democrat at some time.

Quote
He is, though.  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/15/opinion/leonhardt-trump-racist.html
As the URL indicates, that's an opinion. 

Much as one could say "if that's a real Muslim ban, it's incredibly poor at it," one could say "if Trumps's a real racist, why did he back this candidate in the Michigan GOP Senate primary?

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8259
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3417 on: August 08, 2018, 09:24:37 PM »
It can be a "Muslim ban" without applying to all muslims, just as saying some named black people are less intelligent (a favourite Trump trope: see Maxine Waters and LeBron James) can be racist without Trump applying it to all black people.

Yeah, he added in Venezuela at the third time of asking to try to disguise what he was doing.  It's a fig leaf that doesn't hide the original purpose and intent.
One may see what one wants to see, eh?

A "Muslim ban that does not specifically ban Muslims" is a contradiction in terms.  You are welcome to argue otherwise - it's a free country. ;)

Trump is quite capable of denigrating people of all race, sex, etc.  Was it racist when he called Jeb Bush "low energy"?  As in, "ya know, those lazy, shiftless good for nothing white guys are all alike"?


Can you not understand the difference between "a Muslim ban that does not ban all muslims" (my statement) and "a Muslim ban that does not ban Muslims" (your characterisation of my statement)?   I'm not sure whether to think that you are unable to see the difference or you see it but are deliberately eliding it in order to look as though you have found an argument in refutation.
Speaking of eliding, what happened to "specifically"?

To me, a "Muslim ban" would be something like "no person professing the Muslim faith may enter the US."  Trump's executive order doesn't say that.  It doesn't even have that effect.  What is your definition of a "Muslim ban" and why do you think that is what Trump has done?

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6783
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3418 on: August 08, 2018, 10:44:19 PM »

What is your definition of a "Muslim ban" and why do you think that is what Trump has done?

I agree that Trump's Muslim ban wasn't terribly effective at banning Muslims, compared to what an actual Muslim ban could have been (and arguably would have been, if his original plans hadn't been so blatantly illegal).

But that's totally missing the point.  Trump doesn't talk about the Muslim ban because he wants to ban Muslims, he talks about it because his followers want to ban Muslims.  He's just pandering to Christian racists.  Whether or not his current Muslim ban actually bans a single Muslim, he's going to constantly tell his most ardent supporters that it IS a Muslim ban and that he fully supports banning all Muslims, basically just because there are a lot of very afraid white Christians in rural America who think Sharia Law exists in their neighboring county.  Trump is just feeding those fears in order to whip up the right mixture of racial animus, feigned religious persecution, and hatred of progressive American values that he needs in order to win elections.  It's never been about policy, for Trump, it's just about power.  He's playing the crowd, not the facts.

So don't bother to critique whether or not his Muslim ban is effective, because he literally doesn't care.  It's just a dog whistle, another applause line at his rallies, a way to consolidate his support among good Americans who ought to know better but who have fallen prey to his particular brand of lies.  Even if he doesn't manage to ban a single Muslim from entering America, he'll publicly declare how successful he's been at keeping out those dirty Muslims.  He would declare victory in the middle of a dumpster fire of failures.  See also: "build the wall", the "tax cuts and jobs act", "repeal and replace", etc.

Sadly, I think this same fantasy/reality logic applies to much of what Trump does and that includes some other things that genuinely do hurt America (like overturning environmental protections).  For example calling the special counsel investigation into his campaign staff a "witch hunt" definitely gets his crowds a clappin', but having an American president beholden to a foreign dictator is sort of comically paradoxical, isn't it?

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4811
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3419 on: August 09, 2018, 08:41:07 AM »
I see downplaying to a "probably" and providing excuses.
You may see what you want to see.  I see going from "no opinion" to "probably", and exercising reasonable analysis of the accuser's possible motives.  E.g., the same analysis one might use when judging things Ronna Romney McDaniel might have said regarding some Democrat at some time.

Quote
He is, though.  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/15/opinion/leonhardt-trump-racist.html
As the URL indicates, that's an opinion. 

Much as one could say "if that's a real Muslim ban, it's incredibly poor at it," one could say "if Trumps's a real racist, why did he back this candidate in the Michigan GOP Senate primary?

Did you read all of the sources listed in that article? It's pretty damn clear to anyone who isn't fawning all over Trump.


What is your definition of a "Muslim ban" and why do you think that is what Trump has done?

I agree that Trump's Muslim ban wasn't terribly effective at banning Muslims, compared to what an actual Muslim ban could have been (and arguably would have been, if his original plans hadn't been so blatantly illegal).

But that's totally missing the point.  Trump doesn't talk about the Muslim ban because he wants to ban Muslims, he talks about it because his followers want to ban Muslims.  He's just pandering to Christian racists.  Whether or not his current Muslim ban actually bans a single Muslim, he's going to constantly tell his most ardent supporters that it IS a Muslim ban and that he fully supports banning all Muslims, basically just because there are a lot of very afraid white Christians in rural America who think Sharia Law exists in their neighboring county.  Trump is just feeding those fears in order to whip up the right mixture of racial animus, feigned religious persecution, and hatred of progressive American values that he needs in order to win elections.  It's never been about policy, for Trump, it's just about power.  He's playing the crowd, not the facts.

So don't bother to critique whether or not his Muslim ban is effective, because he literally doesn't care.  It's just a dog whistle, another applause line at his rallies, a way to consolidate his support among good Americans who ought to know better but who have fallen prey to his particular brand of lies.  Even if he doesn't manage to ban a single Muslim from entering America, he'll publicly declare how successful he's been at keeping out those dirty Muslims.  He would declare victory in the middle of a dumpster fire of failures.  See also: "build the wall", the "tax cuts and jobs act", "repeal and replace", etc.

Sadly, I think this same fantasy/reality logic applies to much of what Trump does and that includes some other things that genuinely do hurt America (like overturning environmental protections).  For example calling the special counsel investigation into his campaign staff a "witch hunt" definitely gets his crowds a clappin', but having an American president beholden to a foreign dictator is sort of comically paradoxical, isn't it?

Yuuup. Well said.

Inaya

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1512
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Chicago, IL
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3420 on: August 09, 2018, 08:44:38 AM »
Speaking of environmental protections, it looks like the party of states' rights is stepping in to "help" California manage their water supply. Apparently they're wasting too much water protecting endangered species (or "bad environmental laws") that it's threatening the fire fighting efforts. https://gizmodo.com/report-the-white-house-is-using-california-wildfires-a-1828212379

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7994
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3421 on: August 09, 2018, 09:09:12 AM »
Speaking of environmental protections, it looks like the party of states' rights is stepping in to "help" California manage their water supply. Apparently they're wasting too much water protecting endangered species (or "bad environmental laws") that it's threatening the fire fighting efforts. https://gizmodo.com/report-the-white-house-is-using-california-wildfires-a-1828212379
le.
Water is not a limiting factor in firefighting efforts, and water isn't a great tool for fighting massive forest fires -- fire breaks and chemical retardants are more effective.
Even then, these attacks on water conservation efforts make no sense - without them there would be far less water available.

DreamFIRE

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1090
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3422 on: August 09, 2018, 09:23:07 AM »

What is your definition of a "Muslim ban" and why do you think that is what Trump has done?

I agree that Trump's Muslim ban wasn't terribly effective at banning Muslims

I think there's a reason for that.  It's because it's not a Muslim ban.  That's just a talking point from the far left.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11307
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3423 on: August 09, 2018, 09:24:44 AM »

What is your definition of a "Muslim ban" and why do you think that is what Trump has done?

I agree that Trump's Muslim ban wasn't terribly effective at banning Muslims

I think there's a reason for that.  It's because it's not a Muslim ban.  That's just a talking point from the far left.

It's a talking point that Trump himself has used several times, as posted earlier.  Are you arguing that Trump is far left?

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7994
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3424 on: August 09, 2018, 09:31:53 AM »

What is your definition of a "Muslim ban" and why do you think that is what Trump has done?

I agree that Trump's Muslim ban wasn't terribly effective at banning Muslims

I think there's a reason for that.  It's because it's not a Muslim ban.  That's just a talking point from the far left.
Huh?  Trump called it a Muslim ban. Guiliani went all over talk news saying how Trump had instructed him to find a way to legally implement a Muslim ban. DJT talked about it on the campaign trail and a Muslim ban was on his website for months...But... its all the far left?

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1037
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3425 on: August 09, 2018, 09:46:43 AM »
Yeah, I also heard Hillary started the rumor that Obama was born in Kenya 🙄

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6783
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3426 on: August 09, 2018, 09:48:55 AM »
I think there's a reason for that.  It's because it's not a Muslim ban.  That's just a talking point from the far left.

Whether or not you think it is a Muslim ban, the president has repeatedly insisted that it is a Muslim ban, that he's going to call it a Muslim ban, that a Muslim ban is what we need, and that his real intent has always been to ban Muslims but the democrats won't let him.

In light of all that, it seemed like a weird defense to claim that it's not a Muslim ban. That would be like democrats claiming that obamacare doesn't insure millions of Americans.  You can maybe twist it into sort of a half truth, but it would mean the exact opposite of what they were trying to do. 

Why subvert your own party's basic platform by appealiing to a twisted technicality you think the opposition might support if they don't look too closely?  It doesn't hold up under the lightest of scrutiny, and it won't convince anyone anyway.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11307
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3427 on: August 09, 2018, 09:51:02 AM »
If only there was a term for this sort of blatant misrepresentation of the facts.  "Fake news" maybe?

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8259
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3428 on: August 09, 2018, 10:28:01 AM »
Much as one could say "if that's a real Muslim ban, it's incredibly poor at it," one could say "if Trumps's a real racist, why did he back this candidate in the Michigan GOP Senate primary?
Did you read all of the sources listed in that article?
Yes, and they don't prove your point.  Now your turn to answer the question posed above.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11307
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3429 on: August 09, 2018, 10:35:29 AM »
Much as one could say "if that's a real Muslim ban, it's incredibly poor at it," one could say "if Trumps's a real racist, why did he back this candidate in the Michigan GOP Senate primary?
Did you read all of the sources listed in that article?
Yes, and they don't prove your point.  Now your turn to answer the question posed above.

I'm not sure you can 'No true scotsman' your way out of this.  Trump is a real racist because of the real racist things he has said and done.  Endorsing a black candidate by tweet doesn't erase his history, or make it all right (as you seem to be arguing it should).

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8259
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3430 on: August 09, 2018, 10:36:10 AM »
In light of all that, it seemed like a weird defense to claim that it's not a Muslim ban.
If it neither looks like a duck, swims like a duck, nor quacks like a duck, then it probably isn't a duck.  Nothing weird about that. ;)

In other words, whatever Trump might say on the campaign trail (and he's known to tell a whopper or two), his executive order is legal.  I don't know that it is highly effective at stopping terrorist incursions, but that's a different issue.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2018, 10:37:51 AM by MDM »

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8259
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3431 on: August 09, 2018, 10:37:32 AM »
Trump is a real racist because of the real racist things he has said and done.  Endorsing a black candidate by tweet doesn't erase his history, or make it all right (as you seem to be arguing it should).
Just checking: do you think the same about Robert Byrd?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11307
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3432 on: August 09, 2018, 10:43:42 AM »
Trump is a real racist because of the real racist things he has said and done.  Endorsing a black candidate by tweet doesn't erase his history, or make it all right (as you seem to be arguing it should).
Just checking: do you think the same about Robert Byrd?

Yeah, he has a pretty long history of being racist.  He did seem to try to turn things around a bit at the end of his career, but overall he probably never should have been elected to the position he held.

I'm a bit confused though, what does that have to do with Trumps blatant racism?
« Last Edit: August 09, 2018, 10:45:18 AM by GuitarStv »

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1498
  • Location: MA
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3433 on: August 09, 2018, 11:12:44 AM »
Just putting this here to mark the timeline.  It only took a year and a half of Trump’s presidency before the Republican mainstream media started to push for a white ethnostate.


https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a22685107/laura-ingraham-white-nationalism-fox-news-tucker-carlson/


Dog whistles be damned and full speed ahead with white supremacy!

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1498
  • Location: MA
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3434 on: August 09, 2018, 11:24:39 AM »
I innocently used to think Trump wasn’t a real racist.  I still think he may not really care about race one way or the other directly.  What I think is absolutely apparent to anyone with a functioning brain stem is that he knows a lot of his base is racist, and is perfectly okay with destroying civil liberties, or at least making visible shows that he is trying to destroy those liberties.  Like many of the rich and powerful, he understands that racism is a useful tool for dividing those who actually have a common interest against him. 

Taking out the ad for the Central Park 5 gave a good indication of what he was willing to do.  And of course the birther conspiracy, which he did not start, but he latched onto and became the most visible supporter of.  The Muslim ban (his words, designed to appeal to bigots).  “Very fine people on both sides” in Charlottesville.

There is no real moral distinction between racism as a tool vs. having actual hate in your heart for people of a different race.  In fact, the former is worse, because the person may actually know that racism is wrong, and simply not care because it is in his best interest to perpetuate it. 


DreamFIRE

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1090
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3435 on: August 09, 2018, 11:44:30 AM »
I think there's a reason for that.  It's because it's not a Muslim ban.  That's just a talking point from the far left.

Whether or not you think it is a Muslim ban, the president has repeatedly insisted that it is a Muslim ban, that he's going to call it a Muslim ban, that a Muslim ban is what we need, and that his real intent has always been to ban Muslims but the democrats won't let him.

In light of all that, it seemed like a weird defense to claim that it's not a Muslim ban.

Rather than relying on what I "think", I double-checked official wording, and there's no reference to Muslims here:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-proclamation-enhancing-vetting-capabilities-processes-detecting-attempted-entry-united-states-terrorists-public-safety-threats/

What might have been said on the campaign trail or in other circles doesn't make the executive order a travel ban, when by its very nature, it is not.

DreamFIRE

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1090
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3436 on: August 09, 2018, 11:45:26 AM »
I think there's a reason for that.  It's because it's not a Muslim ban.  That's just a talking point from the far left.

Whether or not you think it is a Muslim ban, the president has repeatedly insisted that it is a Muslim ban, that he's going to call it a Muslim ban, that a Muslim ban is what we need, and that his real intent has always been to ban Muslims but the democrats won't let him.

In light of all that, it seemed like a weird defense to claim that it's not a Muslim ban.

Rather than relying on what I "think", I double-checked official wording, and there's no reference to Muslims here:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-proclamation-enhancing-vetting-capabilities-processes-detecting-attempted-entry-united-states-terrorists-public-safety-threats/

What might have been said on the campaign trail or in other circles doesn't make the executive order a travel ban, when by its very nature, it is not.  The Supreme Court agrees.

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2097
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3437 on: August 09, 2018, 11:45:43 AM »
If you don't think Trump is racist, bigoted, and sexist, not sure where your bar for those terms are. It's not like having to read through tea leaves or something.  The moment I realized it, is when I learned about his long time personal butler, Anthony Senecal, who is virilently foaming at the mouth racist, who is also a birther. There is no way you could be OK with someone like that working with you closely, if you didn't share the same views. And it's obvious from Senecal's idolalty of Trump they do share the same views.  But looking on, it goes back to the 70's, where he and his father repeatedly violated the fair housing act by refusing to rent apartments to Blacks. Applicants who were black had a number or letter on their forms to id they were black and told there was no housing available.   

David Duke endorsed Trump and Trump got the white supremacist vote, because as David Duke said, Trump is going to take OUR country back. Hmm, feel like I've heard those words before.

eta changing ref, since that article only went to 2106 and was very incomplete
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump

What is the statement, looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck?

what is really disturbing is the increase in hate crimes since he got elected. It is scary and not OK what is happening to this country. 
« Last Edit: August 09, 2018, 12:12:48 PM by partgypsy »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11307
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3438 on: August 09, 2018, 11:50:34 AM »
I think there's a reason for that.  It's because it's not a Muslim ban.  That's just a talking point from the far left.

Whether or not you think it is a Muslim ban, the president has repeatedly insisted that it is a Muslim ban, that he's going to call it a Muslim ban, that a Muslim ban is what we need, and that his real intent has always been to ban Muslims but the democrats won't let him.

In light of all that, it seemed like a weird defense to claim that it's not a Muslim ban.

Rather than relying on what I "think", I double-checked official wording, and there's no reference to Muslims here:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-proclamation-enhancing-vetting-capabilities-processes-detecting-attempted-entry-united-states-terrorists-public-safety-threats/

What might have been said on the campaign trail or in other circles doesn't make the executive order a travel ban, when by its very nature, it is not.

I double checked the official wording, and none of the Jim Crow laws produced during segregation in the 1950s say that they are designed to institute racism.  Actually, they talk a lot about how everyone is equal.  Separate but equal.

Therefore segregation wasn't racist.  Weird.  I wonder why the black community was against them?

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1558
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3439 on: August 09, 2018, 12:45:49 PM »
In light of all that, it seemed like a weird defense to claim that it's not a Muslim ban.
If it neither looks like a duck, swims like a duck, nor quacks like a duck, then it probably isn't a duck.  Nothing weird about that. ;)

In other words, whatever Trump might say on the campaign trail (and he's known to tell a whopper or two), his executive order is legal.  I don't know that it is highly effective at stopping terrorist incursions, but that's a different issue.

Actually it is not a different issue. The ban was adopted under the guise of national security (you know keeping those Muslim terrorist out and all). Trump originally wanted a Muslim ban, that wasn't actually a ban, except that he claimed it was a ban. Of course that's illegal and therefore wasn't passed. Dems got blamed for that as well. Apparently the Dems weren't xenophobic enough.

In regards to national security there have been exactly 0 terrorist attacks from the countries included on the banned list in the last 20 years. So what good does it do? Well I believe @sol covered that pretty well.

The only way he could get his ban passed was to water it down. What better way than to throw in a couple countries that the US isn't fond of, are not predominantly Muslim, and are pretty inconsequential to the US? Do you have any ideal how many actual North Koreans migrate to the US? A grand total of 100 Visas were issued in 2016 with half of them being diplomats. Yikes! We better sure up that fire hose of immigrants. 

Of course the fact that here we are arguing the merits of the ban proves that Trump managed to con folks yet again.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1558
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3440 on: August 09, 2018, 12:51:59 PM »
What might have been said on the campaign trail or in other circles doesn't make the executive order a travel ban, when by its very nature, it is not.  The Supreme Court agrees.

"The travel ban into the United States should be far larger, tougher and more specific-but stupidly, that would not be politically correct!" - Donald J Trump

That's twice you've contradicted Trump himself while trying to defend him. That tends to happen.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8259
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3441 on: August 09, 2018, 01:19:18 PM »
Trump is a real racist because of the real racist things he has said and done.  Endorsing a black candidate by tweet doesn't erase his history, or make it all right (as you seem to be arguing it should).
Just checking: do you think the same about Robert Byrd?

Yeah, he has a pretty long history of being racist.  He did seem to try to turn things around a bit at the end of his career, but overall he probably never should have been elected to the position he held.

I'm a bit confused though, what does that have to do with Trumps blatant racism?
Of course "blatant" is in the eye of the beholder.

And discussions like this might take only a few minutes if done in person, but with an effective communication rate of <1 character per second it takes much longer in an internet forum. ;)

Many of the examples for "Trump is racist" are decades old, so the question about Byrd was toward understanding whether you believe "once a racist, always a racist."  A similar question could be asked about, say, Hillary Clinton vis-à-vis homophobia and her past opposition to same-sex marriage.

What Trump did with redlining 40 years ago means much less to me than actions he does or doesn't take as President now.  Redlining based on race seems clear racism.  Things he has said as President, or what wackos support him, not so much.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8259
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3442 on: August 09, 2018, 01:29:34 PM »
eta changing ref, since that article only went to 2106 and was very incomplete
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump
Yup.  "According to an October 2017 Politico/Morning Consult poll, 45% of American voters view Trump as racist and 40% do not."

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11307
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3443 on: August 09, 2018, 01:32:25 PM »
Trump is a real racist because of the real racist things he has said and done.  Endorsing a black candidate by tweet doesn't erase his history, or make it all right (as you seem to be arguing it should).
Just checking: do you think the same about Robert Byrd?

Yeah, he has a pretty long history of being racist.  He did seem to try to turn things around a bit at the end of his career, but overall he probably never should have been elected to the position he held.

I'm a bit confused though, what does that have to do with Trumps blatant racism?
Of course "blatant" is in the eye of the beholder.

And discussions like this might take only a few minutes if done in person, but with an effective communication rate of <1 character per second it takes much longer in an internet forum. ;)

Many of the examples for "Trump is racist" are decades old, so the question about Byrd was toward understanding whether you believe "once a racist, always a racist."  A similar question could be asked about, say, Hillary Clinton vis-à-vis homophobia and her past opposition to same-sex marriage.

What Trump did with redlining 40 years ago means much less to me than actions he does or doesn't take as President now.  Redlining based on race seems clear racism.  Things he has said as President, or what wackos support him, not so much.

I agree that people can change over time.  You appear to believe multiple, overt racist acts should be ignored when discussing character.  That's bizarre, and I suspect not the same way that you would behave regarding many other things.  If you were hiring a nanny for your kids, would you be comfortable hiring a guy who had raped six toddlers twenty years ago?  It was a long time ago, therefore we shouldn't consider his past actions right?  Granted, he was busted with child porn a few weeks ago . . . but raping kids?  Not so much.  Must be fine then.

Trump literally said that a Judge was not fit to do his job because of his race.  While running for president.  How much more blatantly racist does he need to be?
« Last Edit: August 09, 2018, 01:39:11 PM by GuitarStv »

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8259
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3444 on: August 09, 2018, 01:35:29 PM »
In light of all that, it seemed like a weird defense to claim that it's not a Muslim ban.
If it neither looks like a duck, swims like a duck, nor quacks like a duck, then it probably isn't a duck.  Nothing weird about that. ;)

In other words, whatever Trump might say on the campaign trail (and he's known to tell a whopper or two), his executive order is legal.  I don't know that it is highly effective at stopping terrorist incursions, but that's a different issue.

Actually it is not a different issue. The ban was adopted under the guise of national security....
If we can't agree on whether something is or is not a "religion-based entry criterion" is or is not the same thing as whether something is "effective at improving national security" then we probably won't find much common ground.... ;)

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8259
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3445 on: August 09, 2018, 01:39:10 PM »
Trump literally said that a Judge was not fit to do his job because of his race.  While running for president.  How much more blatantly racist does he need to be?
Did you note what I already said about the judge?  Some people can't take yes for an answer. :)


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11307
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3446 on: August 09, 2018, 01:41:25 PM »
Trump literally said that a Judge was not fit to do his job because of his race.  While running for president.  How much more blatantly racist does he need to be?
Did you note what I already said about the judge?  Some people can't take yes for an answer. :)

I'm confused then.  You agree that he has said racist things, recently.  How are you arguing that Trump isn't racist?

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1498
  • Location: MA
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3447 on: August 09, 2018, 01:47:51 PM »
Quote
Many of the examples for "Trump is racist" are decades old

Birtherism - which he was the most vocal proponent of.
“Very fine people on both sides”
Judge Curiel
Mexicans are rapists
Muslim Ban

Read my post above.  Even if he holds no hate in his heart for people of a different race, he clearly uses racism to motivate people.  Does the distinction really matter?


partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2097
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3448 on: August 09, 2018, 01:49:59 PM »
I mean, when you have someone like Trump and people arguing whether or not he is racist, what exactly does he have to say, for you to consider him racist? I think it is interesting how often he uses words akin to being dirty, or disgusting, infestations etc with other races or groups of people in his disfavor, which is what Nazis did with Jewish people. I'm really wondering what, if the other 2 dozen examples, including egging on and/or condoning his supporters beating up Blacks or Hispanics not good enough?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/22/black-activist-punched-at-donald-trump-rally-in-birmingham/?utm_term=.0d873fc64190

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/21/trump-says-fans-are-very-passionate-after-hearing-one-of-them-allegedly-assaulted-hispanic-man/?utm_term=.5ee7aa2a1b34

« Last Edit: August 09, 2018, 03:16:22 PM by partgypsy »

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1558
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3449 on: August 09, 2018, 02:28:34 PM »
In light of all that, it seemed like a weird defense to claim that it's not a Muslim ban.
If it neither looks like a duck, swims like a duck, nor quacks like a duck, then it probably isn't a duck.  Nothing weird about that. ;)

In other words, whatever Trump might say on the campaign trail (and he's known to tell a whopper or two), his executive order is legal.  I don't know that it is highly effective at stopping terrorist incursions, but that's a different issue.

Actually it is not a different issue. The ban was adopted under the guise of national security....
If we can't agree on whether something is or is not a "religion-based entry criterion" is or is not the same thing as whether something is "effective at improving national security" then we probably won't find much common ground.... ;)

If you don't understand why it isn't a different issue, then I agree, we won't find much common ground.

If it were highly effective at stopping terrorist incursion then the whole "it's not a Muslim ban" argument might hold a little water. But since those countries are not known for committing terrorist acts on US soil, it sure seems more like a watered down Muslim ban. You really think the 50 or so non diplomat folks travelling from NK to the US each year pose a serious threat? Nope! But it makes the ban look more like a non-Muslim ban to those trying to justify it.

« Last Edit: August 09, 2018, 02:38:48 PM by MasterStache »