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

Mr. B

Recusant

I'm going to give this another try. I'm am a little better educated and slightly more clear headed at the moment. Our conversation started out with me asking a couple of questions in response to a comment you made and posting a video which touched upon a point of confusion for me.

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=14892.msg346192#msg346192

I balked at your next comment because I wasn't consciously conflating immigration from Mexico with refugees from abroad. However, after some reflection, I admitted that yes, I did conflate the two issues and explained (perhaps poorly) why even after I recognized that I was conflating them that I still choose to do so.

You are 100% correct in your assessment that the comments in the video do not match up to the claim made in the title of the video. Turns out, I didn't know much at all about immigration, refugee vetting or deportation practices a couple of weeks ago. However, I do still insist that refugees and immigrants shouldn't be treated very differently from each other. I still conflate the two separate issues because they still have one thing in common. People wanting to come to America from other countries.

For me, the concern is not so much that I feel or believe that one group posses a greater or lesser "threat" than the other. It's not about "our" safety from my perspective. This conversation got slightly derailed due to my lack of attention and for that I apologize. My learning style and thought process is, and always has been, sloppy and haphazard.

The article you originally posted (https://lawfareblog.com/its-not-foreigners-who-are-plotting-here-what-data-really-show), which I responded to, was an argument from safety. It pointed out the stats that refugees weren't a statistical threat. It argued that Trump's policies would make us less safer. So, I asked the question, "...what WILL make us safer?"

That question hasn't been answered from any left leaning persons anywhere as far as I can tell. It's a different discussion than merely the horrible things Trump has done or promises to do. I want to understand why vetting refugees or immigrants is tyrannical. So far, the argument seems to be, "Obama's vetting process is good enough goddammit." Again, that doesn't explain to me how or why Trump's vetting proposals will actually make us less safe. Which is confounding, I understand, because I'm not primarily concerned with the "safety" aspect of the discussion as much as I am about equal treatment. Should someone who has lived and worked her for 20 years be given a pass over someone fleeing a war torn nation? Should someone fleeing a war torn nation be given special access over someone who illegally crossed the southern border last week?

If vetting people from different countries makes us less safe, what will make us more safe? That is the question that I need an answer to. Not because I live in fear of other people but because the argument that Trump's style of vetting with endanger us all.

I need some clarification on that because that is a pretty bold claim in search of evidence.





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

Recusant

I appreciate the effort and time you obviously put into that post, Mr. B.

Trump has talked about "extreme vetting," but what does that mean? The policies laid out in his blocked executive order seem like they'll add to the bureaucracy, but I question whether making the process even more complicated and difficult will actually prevent a determined terrorist better than what's currently in place.

I certainly haven't said that "vetting people from different countries makes us less safe," and none of the sources I cited said that either, so I don't know where you're getting it from. As above, I also am not claiming that "Trump's style of vetting with endanger us all." Rather, I think the broad brush approach taken in the travel ban will serve alienate people in the affected countries. In addition, his rhetoric conveys an anti-Muslim stance that organizations like ISIS can point to and say, "See, the United States is our enemy."
"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 March 02, 2017, 12:35:42 AM
Trump has talked about "extreme vetting," but what does that mean? The policies laid out in his blocked executive order seem like they'll add to the bureaucracy, but I question whether making the process even more complicated and difficult will actually prevent a determined terrorist better than what's currently in place.

That is a fair question. I do not object to that kind of questioning. I am rarely a fan of more bureaucratic overreach without a clear understanding of why it's absolutely necessary. Trump hasn't explained clearly why he thinks HIS new and improved vetting process is necessary....other than some "bad dudes" are trying to get in.

Quote from: RecusantI certainly haven't said that "vetting people from different countries makes us less safe," and none of the sources I cited said that either, so I don't know where you're getting it from.

I got it from one of the articles you posted.

QuoteA little more than a week ago, Benjamin Wittes posted a piece about the malevolence and incompetence of Trump's Executive Order on visas and refugees—an order that, in his words, is both wildly over-inclusive and wildly under-inclusive. If we take the ban and its stated purpose at face value (which Ben argued we should not), at best, the ban is ineffective and fails "to protect Americans." At worst, as many experts have suggested over the past few weeks, the Executive Order is completely counterproductive. As ten bipartisan former national security officials—four of whom were briefed regularly on all credible terrorist threat streams against the U.S. as recently as a week before the EO—said in a legal brief on Monday:

    "We view the order as one that ultimately undermines the national security of the United States, rather than making us safer...It could   do long-term damage to our national security and foreign policy interests, endangering U.S. troops in the field and disrupting counterterrorism and national security partnerships."

Ben's piece touched a nerve. It has received nearly half a million pageviews, according to Google Analytics, and was featured this week on This American Life.
https://lawfareblog.com/its-not-foreigners-who-are-plotting-here-what-data-really-show

Which you summarized...

Quote from: Recusant on February 10, 2017, 12:00:44 AM
...essentially what the article says is that the travel ban will not make the US any safer.

Which was the initial thing I was responding to before I read the article.

Quote from: RecusantAs above, I also am not claiming that "Trump's style of vetting with endanger us all." Rather, I think the broad brush approach taken in the travel ban will serve alienate people in the affected countries. In addition, his rhetoric conveys an anti-Muslim stance that organizations like ISIS can point to and say, "See, the United States is our enemy."

I do not agree with the principle behind that argument.

If my neighbor puts up a fence to keep my kids out of his yard, I'm not going to gather up all my friends to storm his castle.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Recusant

Quote from: Mr. B on March 02, 2017, 01:39:41 AM
Quote from: RecusantI certainly haven't said that "vetting people from different countries makes us less safe," and none of the sources I cited said that either, so I don't know where you're getting it from.

I got it from one of the articles you posted.

QuoteA little more than a week ago, Benjamin Wittes posted a piece about the malevolence and incompetence of Trump's Executive Order on visas and refugees—an order that, in his words, is both wildly over-inclusive and wildly under-inclusive. If we take the ban and its stated purpose at face value (which Ben argued we should not), at best, the ban is ineffective and fails "to protect Americans." At worst, as many experts have suggested over the past few weeks, the Executive Order is completely counterproductive. As ten bipartisan former national security officials—four of whom were briefed regularly on all credible terrorist threat streams against the U.S. as recently as a week before the EO—said in a legal brief on Monday:

    "We view the order as one that ultimately undermines the national security of the United States, rather than making us safer...It could   do long-term damage to our national security and foreign policy interests, endangering U.S. troops in the field and disrupting counterterrorism and national security partnerships."

Ben's piece touched a nerve. It has received nearly half a million pageviews, according to Google Analytics, and was featured this week on This American Life.
https://lawfareblog.com/its-not-foreigners-who-are-plotting-here-what-data-really-show

Which you summarized...

Quote from: Recusant on February 10, 2017, 12:00:44 AM
...essentially what the article says is that the travel ban will not make the US any safer.

The travel ban as a whole is what the article cited as undermining national security. It did not specify that the "extreme vetting" was the primary problem, and neither have I.

Quote from: Mr. B on March 02, 2017, 01:39:41 AM
Quote from: RecusantAs above, I also am not claiming that "Trump's style of vetting with endanger us all." Rather, I think the broad brush approach taken in the travel ban will serve alienate people in the affected countries. In addition, his rhetoric conveys an anti-Muslim stance that organizations like ISIS can point to and say, "See, the United States is our enemy."

I do not agree with the principle behind that argument.

If my neighbor puts up a fence to keep my kids out of his yard, I'm not going to gather up all my friends to storm his castle.

People that know a lot more than you or I about these issues see a problem, as the quote above shows. You are not an Islamist zealot with a penchant for violence, neither are you a young Muslim man who is susceptible to being recruited by Islamist zealots who cite the actions of the United States as evidence that the US "hates" him and his family, friends, and nation. Your view of this topic, while worth discussing, is not what the national security professionals are considering.
"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


Davin

Quote from: Mr. B on March 04, 2017, 01:19:48 AM
One of my favorite bands of all time is R.E.M. I would count them in my top five. Lately, with all the flap about Jeff Sessions and Trump and the Trump campaign vs. Russians. I am reminded of this classic (to me at least)...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJ-goz4q1qo

Seems, the Democratic Party is exhuming McCarthy. And here I was under the impression that they were the rational adults in the room.

Please, don't get me wrong. I am attacking them from the left because I was so close to becoming a True BelieverTM in the DNC.

I am disappoint because I was fairly excited about finally being able to identify with a party brand but then Trump got elected and now this hypocritical bullshit.

Now, back to square one.

I'm damn near declaring anarchy.
Why do you have to put political bullshit (along with a clear false equivalence between McCarthyism and what is going on now), in a Music thread?

Politics is a well known touchy subject, and that is not the thread for touchy subjects. There is a whole Politics forum for you put this in where you can get a useful discussion out of it. Like someone could point out how dragging hundreds of people through the mud for something that shouldn't have been considered bad in the first place, is far different than trying to find out if the President colluded with a foreign government.

So I'm putting this response here, because I think this is where it belongs.

Can we try refrain from using hyperbolic terminology? Unless it's a joke or we're making fun of people who tend to over use hyperbolic terminology. Can we try to compare things accurately? Because shit like this doesn't help to get at the truth it helps to conceal truth.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Arturo

My Dad listens to a conservative radio station when driving. That and he goes to a restaurant for breakfast with Fox News playing on every TV. Why does he put up with this? I have no idea.

However, I've been working with him on the weekends and what popped up yesterday was that Trump is accusing Obama of wire tapping his phones during the election campaign. He wants Congress to investigate his unsubstantiated claim. He has no premise for this conclusion. By that definition, it's not even an argument. It's just a random claim from off the top of his head so he wants Congress to confirm his paranoia.
It's Okay To Say You're Welcome
     Just let people be themselves.
     Arturo The1  リ壱

Davin

He wins either way. I highly doubt there was a wire tap. But if they investigate and find nothing, well his core supporters will just think there was a cover up. But if they do find something, then he wins biggly. It's not an irrational choice for him, he risks almost nothing and has a lot to gain if it works.

I hope that all of his crazy bullshit turns out to be false. The more his baseless claims get shown to be false, the less support he will get until all he has left is the crazy fringe. If he were smart, he'd filter in some true things to try to keep hold of the support for longer.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Dave

Quote from: Davin on March 06, 2017, 05:55:00 PM
He wins either way. I highly doubt there was a wire tap. But if they investigate and find nothing, well his core supporters will just think there was a cover up. But if they do find something, then he wins biggly. It's not an irrational choice for him, he risks almost nothing and has a lot to gain if it works.

I hope that all of his crazy bullshit turns out to be false. The more his baseless claims get shown to be false, the less support he will get until all he has left is the crazy fringe. If he were smart, he'd filter in some true things to try to keep hold of the support for longer.
True, his core supporters are stupid enough to stick with his shit no matter how bad it stinks. But there will always be the fringe element, those who waiver a little and can toggle pro or anti. With his 4 week approval rating low compared to the last three prezzes it will be interesting to see what his 8 week one is.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Mr. B

#113
Quote from: Davin on March 06, 2017, 02:14:31 PM
Quote from: Mr. B on March 04, 2017, 01:19:48 AM
One of my favorite bands of all time is R.E.M. I would count them in my top five. Lately, with all the flap about Jeff Sessions and Trump and the Trump campaign vs. Russians. I am reminded of this classic (to me at least)...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJ-goz4q1qo

Seems, the Democratic Party is exhuming McCarthy. And here I was under the impression that they were the rational adults in the room.

Please, don't get me wrong. I am attacking them from the left because I was so close to becoming a True BelieverTM in the DNC.

I am disappoint because I was fairly excited about finally being able to identify with a party brand but then Trump got elected and now this hypocritical bullshit.

Now, back to square one.

I'm damn near declaring anarchy.
Why do you have to put political bullshit (along with a clear false equivalence between McCarthyism and what is going on now), in a Music thread?

Politics is a well known touchy subject, and that is not the thread for touchy subjects. There is a whole Politics forum for you put this in where you can get a useful discussion out of it. Like someone could point out how dragging hundreds of people through the mud for something that shouldn't have been considered bad in the first place, is far different than trying to find out if the President colluded with a foreign government.

So I'm putting this response here, because I think this is where it belongs.

Can we try refrain from using hyperbolic terminology? Unless it's a joke or we're making fun of people who tend to over use hyperbolic terminology. Can we try to compare things accurately? Because shit like this doesn't help to get at the truth it helps to conceal truth.

I'll try. But nothing is ever exactly the same. That's why we have analogies. Or close approximations. But, I'm not going to apologize for saying what I said where I said it because I am beholden to my stream of consciousness. I am neither Popeye nor God but just like them, I am who I am. You can accept me or not. I'm sorry if you do not feel like my comment belonged there. I just wanted to explain why I was listening to that particular song.

McCarthyism was a political witch hunt that focused on individual people's affiliation with communist Russia.

Why do you think that is not happening now?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Icarus

McCarthyism was not about people who had affiliations with communism. It was about people who were accused, mostly falsely, of being affiliated with communism. Joe McCarthy accused even Jesus of being a commie sympathizer.

Davin

Quote from: Mr. B on March 07, 2017, 03:25:29 AM
Quote from: Davin on March 06, 2017, 02:14:31 PM
Quote from: Mr. B on March 04, 2017, 01:19:48 AM
One of my favorite bands of all time is R.E.M. I would count them in my top five. Lately, with all the flap about Jeff Sessions and Trump and the Trump campaign vs. Russians. I am reminded of this classic (to me at least)...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJ-goz4q1qo

Seems, the Democratic Party is exhuming McCarthy. And here I was under the impression that they were the rational adults in the room.

Please, don't get me wrong. I am attacking them from the left because I was so close to becoming a True BelieverTM in the DNC.

I am disappoint because I was fairly excited about finally being able to identify with a party brand but then Trump got elected and now this hypocritical bullshit.

Now, back to square one.

I'm damn near declaring anarchy.
Why do you have to put political bullshit (along with a clear false equivalence between McCarthyism and what is going on now), in a Music thread?

Politics is a well known touchy subject, and that is not the thread for touchy subjects. There is a whole Politics forum for you put this in where you can get a useful discussion out of it. Like someone could point out how dragging hundreds of people through the mud for something that shouldn't have been considered bad in the first place, is far different than trying to find out if the President colluded with a foreign government.

So I'm putting this response here, because I think this is where it belongs.

Can we try refrain from using hyperbolic terminology? Unless it's a joke or we're making fun of people who tend to over use hyperbolic terminology. Can we try to compare things accurately? Because shit like this doesn't help to get at the truth it helps to conceal truth.

I'll try. But nothing is ever exactly the same. That's why we have analogies. Or close approximations. But, I'm not going to apologize for saying what I said where I said it because I am beholden to my stream of consciousness. I am neither Popeye nor God but just like them, I am who I am. You can accept me or not. I'm sorry if you do not feel like my comment belonged there. I just wanted to explain why I was listening to that particular song.
Are you saying that you are not in control of your own actions?

Quote from: Mr. BMcCarthyism was a political witch hunt that focused on individual people's affiliation with communist Russia.

Why do you think that is not happening now?
That's a misleading description of what happened. McCarthyism was a witch hunt, they were concerned in part with Soviet Russia but only because Russia was a communistic state at the time. They were against communism itself and that included many countries that were communistic. Not specific to just Russia, communism as a whole. McCarthy essentially tried to make it illegal in the US to belong to a communist political party. Which is very much against the US Constitution. No such violations of constitutional rights are occurring with the Trump/Russia stuff.

Is that Russia used to be communist, and McCarthy tried to track down and punish all commies, the only similarity you have? Because no one is accusing Trump or his crew of being a communist. They are not dragging them into hearings and trials for their communism. And those were the biggest things about McCarthyism: punishing people for being or even just checking out communism and trying to eliminate communism.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Tom62

Quote from: Icarus on March 07, 2017, 06:27:41 AM
McCarthyism was not about people who had affiliations with communism. It was about people who were accused, mostly falsely, of being affiliated with communism. Joe McCarthy accused even Jesus of being a commie sympathizer.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but Jesus was indeed a commie sympathizer.
The universe never did make sense; I suspect it was built on government contract.
Robert A. Heinlein

Recusant

McCarthyism:

QuoteThe term is also now used more generally to describe reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries.

[Emphasis mine. - R]

Trump's use of the term in his unsubstantiated rage-tweets recklessly accusing the former president of political skulduggery and calling him "bad" and "sick" in a blatantly demagogic call to arms aimed at his supporters is a bizarrely ironic instance of psychological projection.
"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: Davin on March 07, 2017, 01:57:44 PM
Is that Russia used to be communist, and McCarthy tried to track down and punish all commies, the only similarity you have?

Almost. What's happening now and what happened then is the same in that it's "guilt by association". It's not about communism now. Now it's about how the Russians (that old stalwart enemy of ours) allegedly sabotaged the 2016 elections in Trumps favor against Clinton. The dust hasn't settled from the leaks yet and we don't know conclusively that "the Russians" had anything to do with it. We also have testimony from Julian Assange that he didn't get the DNC emails from anyone in Russian. Take that for what it's worth, the moral of the story is we haven't positively identified exactly who it was that hacked into the DNC email server and released private emails.  So, in the current reality, where Hillary was supposed to win and Trump never stood a chance, we find the Democratic Party desperately trying to tie Trump, and anyone associated with him, to the new geopolitical boogyman of the 21st century. The investigations are on going and just because no one has been brought up on charges yet, that doesn't mean someone won't be. And if the investigations reveal that anyone associated with Trump or even Trump himself made side bets or promises and colluded with the Russians to deep six Hillary's campaign through subterfuge then they should be brought to justice for interfering in an election. But the media is pointing it's high powered finger of prosecution by public trial, while the investigations are still ongoing, at anyone in the Trump administration that ever even so much as looked at a Russian.

QuoteBecause no one is accusing Trump or his crew of being a communist.

True, but that's not the point. You don't have to be communist to be the enemy. Hell, if the Trump surrogates were talking to China would this be an issue? No, because China wasn't blamed for hacking the election.

QuoteThey are not dragging them into hearings and trials for their communism.

They are being dragged into hearings and being investigated for talking to people from Russia during an election. What is the standard we want to set here?



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

Davin

Quote from: Mr. B on March 07, 2017, 07:43:12 PM
Quote from: Davin on March 07, 2017, 01:57:44 PM
Is that Russia used to be communist, and McCarthy tried to track down and punish all commies, the only similarity you have?

Almost. What's happening now and what happened then is the same in that it's "guilt by association". It's not about communism now. Now it's about how the Russians (that old stalwart enemy of ours) allegedly sabotaged the 2016 elections in Trumps favor against Clinton. The dust hasn't settled from the leaks yet and we don't know conclusively that "the Russians" had anything to do with it. We also have testimony from Julian Assange that he didn't get the DNC emails from anyone in Russian. Take that for what it's worth, the moral of the story is we haven't positively identified exactly who it was that hacked into the DNC email server and released private emails.  So, in the current reality, where Hillary was supposed to win and Trump never stood a chance, we find the Democratic Party desperately trying to tie Trump, and anyone associated with him, to the new geopolitical boogyman of the 21st century. The investigations are on going and just because no one has been brought up on charges yet, that doesn't mean someone won't be. And if the investigations reveal that anyone associated with Trump or even Trump himself made side bets or promises and colluded with the Russians to deep six Hillary's campaign through subterfuge then they should be brought to justice for interfering in an election. But the media is pointing it's high powered finger of prosecution by public trial, while the investigations are still ongoing, at anyone in the Trump admiration that ever even so much as looked at a Russian.
Some people already admitted to making deals.

Remember Flynn? How he resigned after lying to the Vice President?

Remember that Manafort talked to and was paid by the Russians?

Russia confirmed it communicated with Trump's campaign during the election.

All the US intelligence communities agree that Russia helped Trump during the election.

There is a bunch more of known and confirmed ties to Russia. This idea that there is nothing is misleading, or the result of lack of knowledge at best.

Quote from: Mr. B
QuoteBecause no one is accusing Trump or his crew of being a communist.

True, but that's not the point. You don't have to be communist to be the enemy. Hell, if the Trump surrogates were talking to China would this be an issue? No, because China wasn't blamed for hacking the election.
If Trump were colluding with any foreign government it would be just as serious an issue. That it happens to appear to be Russia is not the issue.

Quote from: Mr. B
QuoteThey are not dragging them into hearings and trials for their communism.

They are being dragged into hearings and being investigated for talking to people from Russia during an election. What is the standard we want to set here?
They are being dragged in for lying under oath, not for talking to Russia during an election. If Jeff Sessions just said he talked to the Russian ambassador, it wouldn't be a big deal at all and certainly nothing illegal about it. But under oath he said that he had not spoken with Russian officials during the campaign. He offered that lie up without being asked if he personally had talked with Russians during the campaign. I'm fine with setting the standard to bringing them back in for questioning when they lie under oath. Is that not a good standard?
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.