America - The Official Thread

[xyloscissor]

You are, actually:



Then again, you claimed you weren't making broad-stroke assumptions about all Liberals only to do it again on that very page. And as @Danoff just pointed out, you're directly contradicting yourself on all of this Constitution talk too.

that is fine, perhaps I'm simply misunderstood. I'm not asking anyone to drink the cool aid, I'm patriotic and Trump is my president. I don't dislike questioning him but I do dislike the auto hate that is not solving anything.

Maybe I made a broad stroke, I thought I addressed that and apologized though, well at least to the best of my ability.

There is no way I am contradicting myself on the constitution though, are you saying that because of the executive order stuff? I thought I explained that as well.

I am a human, we are full of emotion and contradiction by our very nature, I don't deny that, I embrace it. I do my best to be logical but I am not spock. If I need to clarify anything of my many stances all you have to do is ask and I will do my best.

 

[Eh Team]

Yay, draining the swamp. Law enforcement does not get to pick and choose which laws to enforce.

And so begins the presidential version of the apprentice.

 

[Dotini]

Chuck Todd of NBC News admits they treated Hillary with kid gloves, caving in to PC.

https://pjmedia.com/election/2017/01/30/chuck-todd-admits-media-treated-hillary-with-kid-gloves/

NBC’s Chuck Todd confessed that he and others in the mainstream news media played down just how despised Hillary Clinton was in the heartland due to the fear of appearing “sexist.” What’s more, he admitted, the mainstream media failed to “tell the stories of all Americans.”



“Where I think political correctness got in the way of what we all knew as reporters and didn’t fully deliver was how hated the Clintons were in the heartland,” the “Meet the Press” host admitted Thursday to former Bush White House press secretary Ari Fleischer in a interview for the “1947” podcast.

 

[Danoff]

There is no way I am contradicting myself on the constitution though, are you saying that because of the executive order stuff? I thought I explained that as well.

Uh... well what you did was move the goalposts - which is not exactly "explaining" anything. You just changed your argument and pretended that's what you meant when it clearly wasn't. What you said was that trump is enforcing the constitution. When it was pointed out that that's really not the case, you backed off and said you just want the constitution enforced. Goalpost moved. What you should have done was apologize for being incorrect and explain why you think that if Trumps executive orders run afoul of the constitution that they should be stricken down and that if our President repeatedly demonstrates an inability to abide by the constitution that he should be removed from office. That's what someone who just wants to see the constitution enforced would say. It's not what someone who doesn't care about the constitution at all but actually just want to be a member of team red would say.

I am a human, we are full of emotion and contradiction by our very nature, I don't deny that, I embrace it.

Ok... but don't pretend that contradiction is a virtue. Try to avoid it.

 

[xyloscissor]

Uh... well what you did was move the goalposts - which is not exactly "explaining" anything. You just changed your argument and pretended that's what you meant when it clearly wasn't. What you said was that trump is enforcing the constitution. When it was pointed out that that's really not the case, you backed off and said you just want the constitution enforced. Goalpost moved. What you should have done was apologize for being incorrect and explain why you think that if Trumps executive orders run afoul of the constitution that they should be stricken down and that if our President repeatedly demonstrates an inability to abide by the constitution that he should be removed from office. That's what someone who just wants to see the constitution enforced would say. It's not what someone who doesn't care about the constitution at all but actually just want to be a member of team red would say.



Ok... but don't pretend that contradiction is a virtue. Try to avoid it.

You know, it is hard for me to even read that post. Now I am moving goal posts? What I said was Trumps EO's are removing Obama's did I not? Did I not also say I think it is an abuse of power? I really don't know what to say to you, I'm not the type of person who claims to be right just for the sake of it, unlike some others.

You can infer that I am uneducated for instance if you like, not that you are but you could. I don't care, I know what the powers are and how they should be used, in the truest form that is not open for debate to me. Power is abused all the time because people do not take it upon themselves to respect one another, or even themselves.

@Dotini

We spoke about that somewhere, I don't remember if it was this thread or not, oh it must have been the PC thread. Anyway by them doing that they treated others unfairly 👍

 

[Biggles]

Well, it doesn't mean that Hillary gets to move into the White House, but that doesn't mean it means zero. It doesn't mean everything, but it doesn't follow from that that it means nothing. Only if you live in an impossibly black and white world would it mean that. What it means is that Trump doesn't have as much support from the people of the US as, say, Obama did when he was re-elected. There are roughly 3 million more people that voted for Hillary than Trump. She got 66 million votes to his 63 million. Now, imagine for a moment that 1/3 of all trump voters were just protesting Hillary and didn't actually subscribe to anything trump said (I'd guess that's a low estimate). That means that 21 million trump voters don't actually support his agenda. Combine that with the 66 million that voted for Hillary and you get 87 million people who don't like what Trump is doing right now* and 42 million who presumably do.

*I left off third party votes, which is another chunk.

More simply: only about 26% of the electorate actually voted for Trump, 3 million more voters voted for Clinton. That doesn't represent a ringing endorsement from Americans for Trump's agenda. Nevertheless, Trump won the election & has the right to become President. What is troubling is that Trump has become the first "sore winner" of a US presidential election - not content with winning the electoral college, he has mounted an assault on facts in order to bolster his own (apparently fragile) ego.

When Romney was losing the election to Obama in 2012, but was ahead (at that moment) in the overall popular vote, Trump
tweeted:

Now that Trump won the electoral college but lost the popular vote, rather than just shutting up about it he invents the fiction of massive voter fraud.

"In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally."

When challenged by the press to produce evidence he tweets:

" what PROOF do u have DonaldTrump did not suffer from millions of FRAUD votes? Journalist? Do your job! @CNN"

We've entered a new "post fact" world with Trump as President. The Constitution doesn't even enter into it. He seeks to discredit the US electoral process for no reason but to bolster his own self-esteem. Sad.

With Republican majorities in the House & Senate, the "official opposition" to Trump's authoritarian tendencies needs to be, not only Democrats & the Press, but also clear-thinking Republicans, libertarians, Greens & independents. I anticipate a very messy couple of years ...

 

[Danoff]

You know, it is hard for me to even read that post. Now I am moving goal posts? What I said was Trumps EO's are removing Obama's did I not? Did I not also say I think it is an abuse of power?

Yes, you said those things. None of that invalidates what I said. You ALSO said that trump (in reference to EOs) was upholding the constitution. Even the above quote is trying to move goalposts. I'm not even sure you're aware that you're doing it.

You can infer that I am uneducated for instance if you like, not that you are but you could.

I think you're throwing around totally unrelated comments like this one, that have nothing to do with the discussion, just to confuse things.

 

[xyloscissor]

Yes, you said those things. None of that invalidates what I said. You ALSO said that trump (in reference to EOs) was upholding the constitution. Even the above quote is trying to move goalposts. I'm not even sure you're aware that you're doing it.



I think you're throwing around totally unrelated comments like this one, that have nothing to do with the discussion, just to confuse things.

It is all cool with me and I mean no disrespect. I don't see anything good coming from a conversation between the two of us tbh, I don't want to waste people's time seeing us go back and forth over trivial things. I'll move on with much respect.

 

[BobK]

Fall in with the party line or lose your job.

That's also a pretty accurate description of what's going on on our college and university campuses.

 

[xyloscissor]

That's also a pretty accurate description of what's going on on our college and university campuses.

The divide seems deep, it's not helpful to the people who need understanding and knowledge. Instead it is a greedy trumped up nonsense and I hate it.

Maybe it's a good thing in the long run, out the left for who they are and stomp em out Not really but you know...

 

[huskeR32]

What I said was Trumps EO's are removing Obama's did I not?

You did, but that's factually incorrect.

--

Using a platform to express concern is normal, defying your boss however is not a smart move.

Her "platform" as Attorney General requires that she express any concerns she has. Period. Once the question "Will this defy my boss?" enters the picture, the role of the AG is irreparably undermined.

 

[xyloscissor]

You did, but that's factually incorrect.

Is it? I seem to recall him signing some that undid Obama's? surely the health care bit no?

Here is something I just googled and have not even read yet but I am about to.
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-barack-obama-trump-transition-executive-orders-544838

Yup, I just read it, Trump's EO's have nothing to do with overturning Obama's, nothing at all. Do you want to buy a bridge from me?

 

[huskeR32]

Is it? I seem to recall him signing some that undid Obama's? surely the health care bit no?

Such as?

Here is something I just googled and have not even read yet but I am about to.
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-barack-obama-trump-transition-executive-orders-544838

Yup, I just read it, Trump's EO's have nothing to do with overturning Obama's, nothing at all. Do you want to buy a bridge from me?

That article was written before Trump was sworn in, and it speculated on what he might do after assuming office.

Let's take a look at the actual orders, shall we?

#13765 deals with the repeal of the ACA. As the ACA wasn't enacted via executive order, this one doesn't qualify as undoing an Obama-issued EO.

#13766 adds new guidelines around environmental reviews on infrastructure projects. It doesn't repeal or undo anything. So this one also doesn't qualify.

#13767 deals with the Mexican wall. Obama definitely never issued an EO prohibiting a wall. Doesn't qualify.

#13768, like 13766, adds new regulations, and doesn't undo or repeal anything. This time, relating to immigration. Doesn't qualify.

#13769 is, of course, the EO that instated the Muslim ban. As @Danoff already put it:

So Obama is responsible for immigration from

• Iraq.
• Iran.
• Syria.
• Yemen.
• Sudan.
• Somalia.
• Libya.

I had no idea! Is Obama also responsible for providing federal funding to cities that are lax in enforcing immigration laws? Pretty sure those cities were doing pretty much the same thing under Bush Jr. Now I'm wondering exactly what you think is being undone.

You ignored it when he said it, and I suspect you'll ignore it now.

But, I can't see how any of those EOs undo a previous EO issued by Obama (or any other president, for that matter).

 

[xyloscissor]

Oh, who was it again that tried an EO over immigration and had The Supreme Court snuff him out? Who corrected it? Disagreement is fine but facts hold a little more value.

 

[Johnnypenso]

More simply: only about 26% of the electorate actually voted for Trump, 3 million more voters voted for Clinton. That doesn't represent a ringing endorsement from Americans for Trump's agenda. Nevertheless, Trump won the election & has the right to become President. What is troubling is that Trump has become the first "sore winner" of a US presidential election - not content with winning the electoral college, he has mounted an assault on facts in order to bolster his own (apparently fragile) ego.

When Romney was losing the election to Obama in 2012, but was ahead (at that moment) in the overall popular vote, Trump
tweeted:

View attachment 624405

Now that Trump won the electoral college but lost the popular vote, rather than just shutting up about it he invents the fiction of massive voter fraud.

"In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally."

When challenged by the press to produce evidence he tweets:

" what PROOF do u have DonaldTrump did not suffer from millions of FRAUD votes? Journalist? Do your job! @CNN"

We've entered a new "post fact" world with Trump as President. The Constitution doesn't even enter into it. He seeks to discredit the US electoral process for no reason but to bolster his own self-esteem. Sad.

With Republican majorities in the House & Senate, the "official opposition" to Trump's authoritarian tendencies needs to be, not only Democrats & the Press, but also clear-thinking Republicans, libertarians, Greens & independents. I anticipate a very messy couple of years ...

Ah, the old using the population as a whole method of calculating popular support for an election winner strawman position. That's the second time I've seen that in recent days. Using that measure, I doubt any western democratic leader would ever be considered to have a "ringing endorsement", which renders the calculation meaningless.

 

[xyloscissor]

It feels good though

 

[huskeR32]

Oh, who was it again that tried an EO over immigration and had The Supreme Court snuff him out? Who corrected it?

If SCOTUS invalidated an Obama-issued EO, then how on Earth does that constitute Trump undoing it? What was there for him to "correct?"

 

[Biggles]

Ah, the old using the population as a whole method of calculating popular support for an election winner strawman position. That's the second time I've seen that in recent days. Using that measure, I doubt any western democratic leader would ever be considered to have a "ringing endorsement", which renders the calculation meaningless.

Precisely. All western democratic leaders would be well-advised to take that reality into account. Most do. And most don't invent "fraud voting" to try & boost their self-esteem.

 

[ryzno]

Precisely. All western democratic leaders would be well-advised to take that reality into account. Most do. And most don't invent "fraud voting" to try & boost their self-esteem.

Voter fraud is real and you know it.

 

[Danoff]

Ah, the old using the population as a whole method of calculating popular support for an election winner strawman position. That's the second time I've seen that in recent days. Using that measure, I doubt any western democratic leader would ever be considered to have a "ringing endorsement", which renders the calculation meaningless.

It doesn't render the calculation meaningless, it means that the calculation can't be used to for certain purposes. One of the things it can be used for is to determine that a huge percentage of the population does not agree with the things Trump campaigned on, and that his focus should be on the issues that bring everyone together. When he does something controversial, he still needs to find common ground and build on it rather than just throwing a middle finger to the majority of the country.

This is true of republicans and democrats alike.

 

[Biggles]

It doesn't render the calculation meaningless, it means that the calculation can't be used to for certain purposes. One of the things it can be used for is to determine that a huge percentage of the population does not agree with the things Trump campaigned on, and that his focus should be on the issues that bring everyone together. When he does something controversial, he still needs to find common ground and build on it rather than just throwing a middle finger to the majority of the country.

This is true of republicans and democrats alike.

You know there's a real problem when Danoff & I start liking each others posts.

And let's add to the mix the fact that Trump complained that the election was "fixed" before he won it ... & then won the election & complained that it was still fixed because he lost the popular vote. This is a person who cares more about his ego than about the good of the country. He would rather discredit the US electoral system than acknowledge the reality that more people voted for his opponent.

 

[huskeR32]

Voter fraud is real and you know it.

I don't. (At least not on anything like a large enough scale to warrant the "investigation" that's been ordered.)

You have any evidence that might convince someone otherwise?

 

[ryzno]

I don't. (At least not on anything like a large enough scale to warrant the "investigation" that's been ordered.)

You have any evidence that might convince someone otherwise?

What difference does the scale of fraud matter? Fraud is fraud.

 

[huskeR32]

What difference does the scale of fraud matter? Fraud is fraud.

No credible investigation into the question has been able to show more than a handful of cases, and yet Trump goes on TV and starts hollering about 3 million alleged cases. He, of course, hasn't provided any evidence of it whatsoever. Even Paul Ryan, who so far has shown no signs that he intends to do anything other than fall in step with Team Trump, has publicly stated that there is no evidence of it.

For any prominent political figure, let alone the president, to undermine the public trust in the very foundation of our government like this is wildly irresponsible. That's why the scale matters.

 

[Joey D]

I think Trump is getting his 3 million number based off of the estimated 2.75 million voters registered in two states. The problem is he can't prove these people voted twice and he really can't prove that if anyone did vote twice, they only voted for Clinton (which Trump has claimed).

From what I've read there was only 4 documented cases of voter fraud in 2016 and in Michigan, where it was claimed some of the largest fraud occurred, no evidence was found. While 4 cases is not something that's good, it's no where near the problem Trump is making it out to be.

I do think with absentee ballots, people do vote twice and I think dead people vote as well. But I think that number is so small in the grand scheme that it doesn't really change the end results. Figuring it how to stop it though should be looked into though.

I'm still a bit puzzled by why Trump is claiming voter fraud. Statically about half of those who apparently committed fraud voted for him assuming we can use the US voting trends as any indication. Also, he won, questioning the results makes people wonder how legitimate some of his votes were too. If there's fraud then there's fraud across the board.

Now if we talk about the primaries, I do think that a fraud investigation needs to occur since there has been evidence from leaked documents that suggest fraudulent behavior from the DNC against Sanders.

 

[Johnnypenso]

It doesn't render the calculation meaningless, it means that the calculation can't be used to for certain purposes. One of the things it can be used for is to determine that a huge percentage of the population does not agree with the things Trump campaigned on, and that his focus should be on the issues that bring everyone together. When he does something controversial, he still needs to find common ground and build on it rather than just throwing a middle finger to the majority of the country.

This is true of republicans and democrats alike.

The certain purposes it can't be used for is determining how popular an elected leader is because lumping in voters with non-voters in a popularity calculation is ludicrous. Our PM just won a clear majority of seats and votes in the last election and he received less than 27% of eligible votes. As I said, I doubt many western democratic leader would ever do well if the total number of eligible voters were used to determine popularity.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

It's like a real-life episode of American Dad. But one of those episodes where Stan Smith is an actual caricatured conservative instead of a humerous metrosexual.

Which begs the question: who in the Trump administration is a talking goldfish? And who is an alien?

 

[Biggles]

The certain purposes it can't be used for is determining how popular an elected leader is because lumping in voters with non-voters in a popularity calculation is ludicrous. Our PM just won a clear majority of seats and votes in the last election and he received less than 27% of eligible votes. As I said, I doubt many western democratic leader would ever do well if the total number of eligible voters were used to determine popularity.

Well, perhaps we could all agree to agree. It's not a question of "how popular an elected leader is", it's a question of how clear is his mandate. In Trump's case, whether you consider the percentage of the vote, or the percentage of the total electorate including those who did not vote, the implication is clear: there's no evidence of clear support for him or his policies. In fact, the vote shows HRC with more popular support. With what remains basically a two party system a decisive shift in the popular vote ought to show up pretty clearly. It certainly didn't show up in this election ... & not all that likely to in the future, the way the country is split.

In Canada, the situation is different. There were 5 major parties in the last election. The Liberals won 39.47% of the vote, but if combined with the other parties of the "left" that represented about 69% of the vote (and the voter turn out at 68.5% of the electorate was significantly higher than in the US election). Perhaps not a decisive win for Trudeau in the popular vote, but after years of Conservative rule it was a pretty decisive indication of a change in the will of the people.

 

[huskeR32]

If SCOTUS invalidated an Obama-issued EO, then how on Earth does that constitute Trump undoing it? What was there for him to "correct?"

Still waiting for an answer on this one, @xyloscissor

 

[Blitz24]

Which begs the question: who in the Trump administration is a talking goldfish? And who is an alien?

Bannon is the goldfish and Spicer is the alien.