News:

Nitpicky? Hell yes.

Main Menu

Deeper into the Trump Abyss.

Started by Dave, January 30, 2017, 07:22:23 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Davin

Quote from: Gloucester on February 15, 2017, 04:23:00 PM
Yes, those who chose him and now, perhaps, realised they made the wrong choice are going to "defend" themselves by keeping their head low, until, maybe, his policies affect them sufficiently seriously and adversely that they figure everyone else is so angry their original choice will be forgotten.

"I got it wrong" does not come readily to some.
That is my hope. But to achieve it, I think we need to get very familiar with the facts and to educate with empathy. Even though many are still dancing as the place burns up around them, we're still in the same boat, so we're still affected. Well, I guess others in other countries aren't in the same boat, but they still get a bit affected.

"I got it wrong" I think is something that takes practice and diligence. It doesn't come easy to very many people and I think it's a sign of a great mind.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Dave

Quote"I got it wrong" I think is something that takes practice and diligence. It doesn't come easy to very many people and I think it's a sign of a great mind.

Betcha Trump can't sincerely conceive of the idea.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Dave

This is a bit out of date re Flynn but is another opinion of the state of damnation that is Trump's governing style.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/12/us/politics/national-security-council-turmoil.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=1


Hey. I have just decided to declare a copyright on  "The State of Damnation"!
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Dave

First Flynn resigns because he lied, then the next choice turns the job down. Now Trump wants to appoint one of his mates to "review" those pesky security agencies.

Just hope the spooks have more integrity and professionalism than the president.

But, of course, it's all fine and dandy in the Shite House. Nothing wrong there, folks.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Recusant

He was rather pleased with himself last year when he got on the cover of TIME magazine for the first time. I expect he's less enthusiastic about their more recent cover.


Image Credit: Tim O'Brien/TIME
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Mr. B

Quote from: Recusant on February 11, 2017, 05:14:48 AM
Quote from: Mr. B on February 11, 2017, 02:00:16 AM
Quote from: Recusant on February 10, 2017, 03:20:16 AM

1. Did you read the article?

No, I just read your summation. I probably should have read the article before commenting but I was pressed for time. I simply trusted your summary and responded to it with a couple of questions.

OK. There are two separate issues here that you seem to be conflating.

Sorry it took so long to get back to you on this.

Truth is, and it took me awhile to really think about it, I am conflating the two issues because I do not see them as separate issues. From where I sit, I don't understand why anyone would separate issues of national security into two artificially different political problems. Under Obama we had several high level security advisors warning us that ISIS planned to smuggle in it's members among refugees including through the Mexico border.

http://www.hannity.com/onair/the-sean-hannity-show-55176/heres-the-list-of-highranking-us-14822366/

I realize that some people might not give Hannity the benefit of any doubt but they did site their sources so if it can be demonstrated to me that these top level people under Obama did not actually say what Hannity and his sources claim they said then my current thinking about the subject may change.

Ultimately, I believe in the rule of law. Currently, there are laws which govern how to come into the United States of America. Many years ago it was declared that the immigration system was broken. I haven't seen anything yet which explains when, how or who broke it. However, from my understanding, the two solutions offered are either to ignore our laws and erase the borders to let everybody in and grant them full citizenship privileges or baton down the hatches and enforce the laws that are already on the books.

I don't know what the solution is. All I know is that if I sneak into France without documentation...they won't just take my word for it that I'm a decent fellow. They might offer me a couple thousand bucks to go back home though.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-immigration-refugees-migrants-ofii-didier-leschi-a7439421.html

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Davin

#81
Quote from: Mr. B on February 23, 2017, 06:25:46 PM
Truth is, and it took me awhile to really think about it, I am conflating the two issues because I do not see them as separate issues. From where I sit, I don't understand why anyone would separate issues of national security into two artificially different political problems. Under Obama we had several high level security advisors warning us that ISIS planned to smuggle in it's members among refugees including through the Mexico border.

http://www.hannity.com/onair/the-sean-hannity-show-55176/heres-the-list-of-highranking-us-14822366/
I'm just passing through, but I read that Hannity article and I find that the usage of the language is very misleading. Other than the disreputable sources like Breitbart, the quotes are not warnings. They are conceding that it is possible and that they should probably keep an eye on it, but no one high up warned that ISIS was actually planning any of that.

That's why I don't like Hannity and many other shitty "news" sources, they use misleading language and out of context misquoting to warp reality to create whatever narrative they want.

Quote from: Mr. B
Ultimately, I believe in the rule of law. Currently, there are laws which govern how to come into the United States of America.
I'm willing to bet that most of us are. Yet 100% of all Americans have broken one law or another. With all the laws obscure and out in the open, we all have broken the law, most likely several times a week. It is a rare person nowadays that goes the speed limit. In a city where I used to live, it was illegal for a minor to masturbate, I broke that law many times... But I still consider myself to believe in the rule of law. But what concerns me more than whether minors are masturbating against the law, is whether there is actual unreasonable harm being done. That I think is more important than just following the letter of all the laws.

Quote from: Mr. BMany years ago it was declared that the immigration system was broken. I haven't seen anything yet which explains when, how or who broke it. However, from my understanding, the two solutions offered are either to ignore our laws and erase the borders to let everybody in and grant them full citizenship privileges or baton down the hatches and enforce the laws that are already on the books.
Most immigration violations come from people who entered the country legally, and for one reason or another, failed to get their visa extended or just didn't even try. The only way we could take a significant leap into enforcing those violations, would require the "papers please" kind of bullshit that the Nazi's were doing in Germany. Something that goes against our constitutional rights.

I also think you're misrepresenting one of the two sides. People are not saying they want to just open up the borders to everyone, that is misleading information being spread by dishonest people like Hannity. They are more in the middle of your two extremes, they want to increase security on immigration, as well as making the process easier and faster for those who should be allowed in. Sure, there is also talk about amnesty or amnesty light, but that is another topic that gets complicated, but overall, it's not unsafe and costs less.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Magdalena

Quote from: Davin on February 23, 2017, 08:04:43 PM
...Most immigration violations come from people who entered the country illegally, and for one reason or another, failed to get their visa extended or just didn't even try...
:secrets1: I think you meant to say, 'legally'.

"I've had several "spiritual" or numinous experiences over the years, but never felt that they were the product of anything but the workings of my own mind in reaction to the universe." ~Recusant

Davin

Quote from: Magdalena on February 23, 2017, 08:29:55 PM
Quote from: Davin on February 23, 2017, 08:04:43 PM
...Most immigration violations come from people who entered the country illegally, and for one reason or another, failed to get their visa extended or just didn't even try...
:secrets1: I think you meant to say, 'legally'.
Yes I did. Thank you.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Magdalena

Quote from: Davin on February 23, 2017, 08:30:49 PM
Quote from: Magdalena on February 23, 2017, 08:29:55 PM
Quote from: Davin on February 23, 2017, 08:04:43 PM
...Most immigration violations come from people who entered the country illegally, and for one reason or another, failed to get their visa extended or just didn't even try...
:secrets1: I think you meant to say, 'legally'.
Yes I did. Thank you.
You're welcome.
I know what you're talking about.

"I've had several "spiritual" or numinous experiences over the years, but never felt that they were the product of anything but the workings of my own mind in reaction to the universe." ~Recusant

Recusant

Quote from: Mr. B on February 23, 2017, 06:25:46 PMTruth is, and it took me awhile to really think about it, I am conflating the two issues because I do not see them as separate issues. From where I sit, I don't understand why anyone would separate issues of national security into two artificially different political problems. Under Obama we had several high level security advisors warning us that ISIS planned to smuggle in it's members among refugees including through the Mexico border.

http://www.hannity.com/onair/the-sean-hannity-show-55176/heres-the-list-of-highranking-us-14822366/

If you cannot differentiate between immigrants crossing the southern border without going through the established legal channels and refugees coming from trouble spots overseas after being vetted, then there's not much point to continuing the discussion.

The Hannity article addresses the refugee issue. There is nothing in it about the southern border.
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Dave

The more I listen to and read the news the more I get the impression that the various secretaries and directors under Trump are saying, "Don't listen to the president, this is how it is and will be."

The Sec of State seems to be saying, in Mexico, "We have to talk about this like grown-up countries."  The DefSec sats, "We are committed to NATO providing the rest of you cough-up the cash." Slightly different from Trump's view of the alliance.

National security seems to be more Trump v The Spooks rather than the US v Russia/Daesh.

Can such a divided administration really survive for long, or will there be a string of sackinations until Trump gets a full set of matched sychophants?

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

No one

The deeper into the abyss you dwell, the deeper the abyss dwells within you.

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Gloucester on February 23, 2017, 09:14:14 PM
Can such a divided administration really survive for long, or will there be a string of sackinations until Trump gets a full set of matched sychophants?

This has been on my mind as well. Maybe instead of focusing on building walls between himself and other people, he should look to the house he's living in.  ::)

Trump looks, acts, walks, talks like a raging narcissist, so worshiping sycophants are just the type of thing it seems he'd go for.

All he's consistently done thus far is alienate people. It began early with his own party, now the media, the intelligence community, not to mention entire sections of the US and world population and (military veterans if I recall, blacks, latinos/hispanics, muslims...). His twitter backlashes were funny, now they're just sad...and a little scary.   

It's going to be an interesting 4 (or 8?) years. :popcorn:
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Mr. B

Quote from: Recusant on February 23, 2017, 08:55:23 PM
Quote from: Mr. B on February 23, 2017, 06:25:46 PMTruth is, and it took me awhile to really think about it, I am conflating the two issues because I do not see them as separate issues. From where I sit, I don't understand why anyone would separate issues of national security into two artificially different political problems. Under Obama we had several high level security advisors warning us that ISIS planned to smuggle in it's members among refugees including through the Mexico border.

http://www.hannity.com/onair/the-sean-hannity-show-55176/heres-the-list-of-highranking-us-14822366/

If you cannot differentiate between immigrants crossing the southern border without going through the established legal channels and refugees coming from trouble spots overseas after being vetted, then there's not much point to continuing the discussion.

The Hannity article addresses the refugee issue. There is nothing in it about the southern border.

I have often felt that it is improper for people who have knowledge and understanding to withhold their information from the ill informed. It's like the old saying, "If you don't know, I'm not going to tell you."

How does anyone learn anything if knowledge and information aren't shared?

I promise to stop using false dichotomies to try and illustrate my way of thinking if you help me understand yours.

From a security standpoint, why should refugees be treated differently than immigrants?

Quote from: Davin on February 23, 2017, 08:04:43 PM
Quote from: Mr. B on February 23, 2017, 06:25:46 PM
Truth is, and it took me awhile to really think about it, I am conflating the two issues because I do not see them as separate issues. From where I sit, I don't understand why anyone would separate issues of national security into two artificially different political problems. Under Obama we had several high level security advisors warning us that ISIS planned to smuggle in it's members among refugees including through the Mexico border.

http://www.hannity.com/onair/the-sean-hannity-show-55176/heres-the-list-of-highranking-us-14822366/
I'm just passing through, but I read that Hannity article and I find that the usage of the language is very misleading. Other than the disreputable sources like Breitbart, the quotes are not warnings. They are conceding that it is possible and that they should probably keep an eye on it, but no one high up warned that ISIS was actually planning any of that.

That's why I don't like Hannity and many other shitty "news" sources, they use misleading language and out of context misquoting to warp reality to create whatever narrative they want.

I don't much care for Hannity either but I sometimes listen to his show on the way home from work. He is a shill but concerning the topic at hand, are the quotes from the people mentioned accurate? In other words, it's not as important to me how Sean spins his narrative I just want to know if those people said what he, and others, claim they said?

Quote from: Mr. B
Quote from: DavinMany years ago it was declared that the immigration system was broken. I haven't seen anything yet which explains when, how or who broke it. However, from my understanding, the two solutions offered are either to ignore our laws and erase the borders to let everybody in and grant them full citizenship privileges or baton down the hatches and enforce the laws that are already on the books.
Most immigration violations come from people who entered the country legally, and for one reason or another, failed to get their visa extended or just didn't even try. The only way we could take a significant leap into enforcing those violations, would require the "papers please" kind of bullshit that the Nazi's were doing in Germany. Something that goes against our constitutional rights.

I'm not suggesting border enforcement or immigration enforcement go door to door looking for people but it is a fact that if you get pulled over by police, the second thing they ask for is your license, registration and insurance. In that typical situation, what are they expected to do if the person driving isn't here legally and doesn't have the proper papers?

Quote from: DavinI also think you're misrepresenting one of the two sides. People are not saying they want to just open up the borders to everyone, that is misleading information being spread by dishonest people like Hannity. They are more in the middle of your two extremes, they want to increase security on immigration, as well as making the process easier and faster for those who should be allowed in. Sure, there is also talk about amnesty or amnesty light, but that is another topic that gets complicated, but overall, it's not unsafe and costs less.

I apologize for presenting two extremes. I was being hasty. One of the problems I have heard over the years was that there aren't enough judges available to review immigration requests and deportation cases. The legal system is inundated and understaffed in that area. 
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall