America - The Official Thread

[Biggles]

Eh there is a good number that speak on it, due to a medical perspective and not religious in factor. Those are doctors and nurses and some in science. The Religious angle gets blown up because just like any issue in the U.S., blow up the crazy aspect of it rather than all. I don't disagree it doesn't have a good portion of advocates holding their crosses to the sky, but let's be a bit more fair.

I did clearly say "most pro-lifers". And I wouldn't call the religious angle "crazy" by any means. The religious angle seems perfectly reasonable, although countered by a perfectly reasonable point of view on the other side.

I'm not clear on what the "medical perspective" would be?

The thing about the abortion issue is that it's obviously been a huge political motivator for a big chunk of the US population for decades. I often wonder how differently the balance of US politics would have been if abortion were not part of the equation.

 

[Dotini]

@LMSCorvetteGT2
Carl Jung wrote that archetypes were real. Bigfoot, aliens and UFO are archetypal entities, or events. The same thing could be said of faery, ghosts, and Djinn. So they all may be real enough to scare the **** out of you in certain times and places, yet not reproducible on demand in the field or lab.

 

[xyloscissor]

Jenna Bush posted this speech from her father which was made 6 days after 9/11:

And then we went to war, a few of them and we created a void for ISIS to stroll in. If you posted that speech because of Trump and his immigration EO I think some more time needs to pass and see how he handles foreign relations.

I'm sure you know what the order says but I'll add this link for others who might not know.
http://www.npr.org/2017/01/31/512439121/trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-annotated

 

[justin credible]

Hi gents and ladies I haven't been on for a while,work family etc...........
I live in the UK and we have to rely on the papers and tv (not reliable at best) to hear what's going on over in the US.

We are led to believe your man Trump has stopped passport holders from 7 countries from flying through US airspace.
I have seen the list of countries and the reason I am asking this question is over here we are led to believe Trump took advice (don't know where from) that people from these countries are a possible risk to the US.

Now I can't grasp that if this is the case in the last 5 years people responsible for murders to Americans on American soil from the 7 countries on the list is zero. Damned if I can find the site where I read these numbers ,I will look again and post them when found. The highest rate of murders to Americans on American soil is people from Saudi Arabia yet they are not on the list??????? So can some one please explain what is going on with this 7 country ban as it just looks like 7 countries banned all muslim. And if so isn't this playing straight in to the terrorist recruitment peoples hands?

And what is going on with this billions of dollars cost wall?
Thanks

 

[Danoff]

And then we went to war, a few of them and we created a void for ISIS to stroll in. If you posted that speech because of Trump and his immigration EO I think some more time needs to pass and see how he handles foreign relations.

I posted that speech because I wanted to point out how far republicans have fallen in their rhetoric since then.

 

[huskeR32]

I think some more time needs to pass and see how he handles foreign relations.

I think we've already gotten a good first look at how he'll handle foreign relations, between the Muslim ban and the broken attempt to talk to Mexico regarding the wall.

Toss in the ill-adivsed decision to speak with the president of Taiwan, and it's becoming fairly clear that, best-case scenario, he's fairly incompetent when it comes to diplomacy.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Now I can't grasp that if this is the case in the last 5 years people responsible for murders to Americans on American soil from the 7 countries on the list is zero.

BS. The San Bernardino and the Orlando shooters have direct ties of ISIS. 14 were dead in San Bernardino and 49 were dead in Orlando for a total of 63 Americans killed on American soil that ISIS is directly responsible for. This doesn't count the "lone-wolf" garden attacks that were inspired by ISIS, nor does it count the three attacks in France, the Boston marathon bombing and the one attack in Germany.

At least while Bush jr. was in office the number of Americans killed in terror attacks in American soil was 0 and it was kept that way because the large chunk of the fighting was on their soil.

 

[Robin]

Hi gents and ladies I haven't been on for a while,work family etc...........
I live in the UK and we have to rely on the papers and tv (not reliable at best) to hear what's going on over in the US.

Do you watch Channel 4 News at 7pm? Best news coverage IMO (ITV coming a close second) and they have been covering all the US developments pretty thoroughly.

 

[huskeR32]

BS. The San Bernardino and the Orlando shooters have direct ties of ISIS.

I'll grant the San Bernardino part there. While statements from ISIS at the time were a bit vague on whether they had direct ties with the shooters, I'd reckon it's more likely than not they did.

But with Mateen, in Orlando, there was never any conclusive evidence that he had an actual connection. At various times, he pledged allegiance to ISIS, Hezbollah, and Al-Quaeda, which looks a lot more like some guy just tossing around exaggerated claims. The only thing tying him to any of three were his self-contradictory claims. Calling that a "direct tie" is a bit of a stretch.

And at any rate, he was born in the US. @justin credible was pointing out that the killers weren't from the seven banned countries, and in the case of Mateen, he's correct.

 

[Joey D]

I think we've already gotten a good first look at how he'll handle foreign relations, between the Muslim ban and the broken attempt to talk to Mexico regarding the wall.

Toss in the ill-adivsed decision to speak with the president of Taiwan, and it's becoming fairly clear that, best-case scenario, he's fairly incompetent when it comes to diplomacy.

It's not a Muslim ban, I really wish the media would drop that already. It's an immigration ban, but it's not based on religion since people from Saudi Arabia (for whatever reason) can still come and go as they please.

I do agree though Trump's attitude towards Mexico has been less than stellar though and it's pretty worrying to see how he's treating out neighbors, especially ones that have some pretty gnarly cartels that could do some damage to border states if they wanted too. Also if he screws up my supply of Corona and limes to go in said Corona, I'm not going to be happy.

I also still don't see why the US shouldn't recognize Taiwan, they clearly aren't China no matter how much China thinks they are. I support an independent Taiwan and I think it's about time the US did too. Treating China with kid gloves seems strange to me anyways, especially when they launch cyber attacks against the US, manipulate currency, support North Korea, and have zero understanding of copyright laws. Plus I don't think China is stupid enough to actually start a war with the US, especially now since Trump and Putin are bros 4 lyfe and I'd bet Russia would end up helping the US.

But for how Trump is going to deal with foreign relations, the answer is probably poorly. He has no experience in that area and given the amount of bad advice he's been given by his advisers I can't see him actually having a decent record with anyone other than a handful of countries. I don't think Clinton would have been any better though, she had shown she had no idea how to deal with foreign conflicts during her time as SoS. None of this would be an issue if the US quit sticking its nose where it didn't belong, but since we still feel the need to be the world's police, we really did need someone strong with foreign relations.

The best thing Trump could do now is try to make America more isolationist, reduce trade regulations, and let corporations figure out what's best for them in terms of where and how they do business. Since that's not going to happen, it'll be a rough few years when it comes to dealing with other nations.

====

In other Trump news, I'm a little concerned over his call to use the nuclear option when it comes to the new Supreme Court justice. While I don't agree with filibusters, nulling out one side of the aisle isn't representative government. But Congress, the real issue in the US, wants to play political games instead of doing what their purpose is and that's to represent the people.

Oh and I do hope Betsy DeVos isn't confirmed and she had to go back to Grand Rapids and continue to preach her zealous religious beliefs to the people there...mostly because I no longer live there and don't care.

 

[Scaff]

At least while Bush jr. was in office the number of Americans killed in terror attacks in American soil was 0 and it was kept that way because the large chunk of the fighting was on their soil.

Um, no.

You might want to think about that one a bit more.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I did clearly say "most pro-lifers". And I wouldn't call the religious angle "crazy" by any means. The religious angle seems perfectly reasonable, although countered by a perfectly reasonable point of view on the other side.

I'm not clear on what the "medical perspective" would be?

The thing about the abortion issue is that it's obviously been a huge political motivator for a big chunk of the US population for decades. I often wonder how differently the balance of US politics would have been if abortion were not part of the equation.

I know what you clearly said, but most even seems arguable. I'd say the most well covered for better or worse is the religious side. And not the religious side doesn't seem perfectly reasonable, because their defense is a cop out based around a man made document that is from a higher being. And not to make this the religious thread that's why I see it a bit crazy. Now being religious is fine but using it to pass physical laws or impede them is a problem.

Also the medical perspective in the argument has always been at what point of the term is it considered life or just a thought of life. Which plays well into when abortion should be allowed, and some say shouldn't at all unless in extreme cases where the mother is at risk or was impregnated against their will.

 

[xyloscissor]

I remember hearing that a lot when we were in Afghanistan, fight them over there. Some people would go so far to even say bringing the imported fighters in was not a bad thing either because that way we can get em all at once. Scary stuff.

Here are a few links from Trump as he explains his plans mostly about ISIS but also immigration and foreign affairs. He has some hardline stances that's for sure and he should realize he's no longer on the campaign trail imo.

General overview.
Policy speech.
On ISIS.

I can't figure out where he's going to start with some of what he is proposing but I guess we'll find out soon enough.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

.

At least while Bush jr. was in office the number of Americans killed in terror attacks in American soil was 0 and it was kept that way because the large chunk of the fighting was on their soil.

No this isn't true, at all. I some how find it hard to forget the Anthrax attacks after 9/11, but for some reason others do anyways here is a list for both Bush and Obama enjoy.


http://ijr.com/2016/07/650786-terror-attacks-bush-vs-obama-administration-so-far-presidency-list/

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Trump not impressed with Malcolm Talkbull:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...ared-worst-call-with-malcolm-turnbull/8234904

 

[Biggles]

I know what you clearly said, but most even seems arguable. I'd say the most well covered for better or worse is the religious side. And not the religious side doesn't seem perfectly reasonable, because their defense is a cop out based around a man made document that is from a higher being. And not to make this the religious thread that's why I see it a bit crazy. Now being religious is fine but using it to pass physical laws or impede them is a problem.

Also the medical perspective in the argument has always been at what point of the term is it considered life or just a thought of life. Which plays well into when abortion should be allowed, and some say shouldn't at all unless in extreme cases where the mother is at risk or was impregnated against their will.

Yikes! That's got to be one of the most confusingly contradictory posts, not to mention inflammatory, that I have ever read on here!

Most "seems arguable" - but you actually agree with most. You don't have to disagree just for the sake of it, you know?

I'm not a religious man myself, but calling the religious beliefs of others "a cop out based around a man made document that is from a higher being", seems a little ... presumptious ... as it effectively dismisses out of hand the point of view of the vast majority of people on the planet.

And the medical perspective - "at what point of the term is it considered life" - well, that is pretty much the essence of the religious, & the ethical/moral argument around abortion also. There isn't an ironclad answer to the question & it's unlikely there will ever be one.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Yikes! That's got to be one of the most confusingly contradictory posts, not to mention inflammatory, that I have ever read on here!

Most "seems arguable" - but you actually agree with most. You don't have to disagree just for the sake of it, you know?

No where is it saying that, I find it strange that you honestly think people disagree with you just to disagree with you. It speaks volumes that you can't accept for instance that Danoff simply agrees with a parallel concept of thought he has with you against a fringe member on this forum. Instead you have to note (even if jokingly cause it's not the first time) that it's strange or bad when the two of you are in agreement.

So in short I'm well aware, I disagree purely on the sentiment that just because the media shows a side majority wise doesn't make it so. Just like how I showed a member they were wrong in thinking that just because Fox says Bush didn't have terrorist attacks post 9/11, doesn't make it true.

I'm not a religious man myself, but calling the religious beliefs of others "a cop out based around a man made document that is from a higher being", seems a little ... presumptious ... as it effectively dismisses out of hand the point of view of the vast majority of people on the planet.

Well considering the tangible embodiment of a god like figure hasn't ever been produced in any sort of way...lays easy ground work for why I don't believe in personal gods. Now I'm agnostic and I think a greater being existing could be possible, but I also have my reservations on that actually being so. Also me rejecting the vast majority of people doesn't make the vast majority any more wrong or perhaps inclined to be on an emotional justification for having a belief.

And the medical perspective - "at what point of the term is it considered life" - well, that is pretty much the essence of the religious, & the ethical/moral argument around abortion also. There isn't an ironclad answer to the question & it's unlikely there will ever be one.

No, if it is for them sure, but there is a large aspect that does this without religion ever coming into the picture. It's done based on the idea of what is a survivable term labor, or for some when the fetus is developed to a point that it feels pain, has actual organs of a human and so on. They actually write medical ethics books on this. I know this because my wife is in the field of study and I myself find the topic quite interesting because it's done in a scientific health manner and not from a religious one. So sorry, but I don't accept the weakly formed bridges of how they have to go hand in hand. They can and are in fact separate entities on many occasions.

 

[ryzno]

Wow. Protests in Cali cause of the editor of Breitbart scheduled speech.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Hi gents and ladies I haven't been on for a while,work family etc...........
I live in the UK and we have to rely on the papers and tv (not reliable at best) to hear what's going on over in the US.

We are led to believe your man Trump has stopped passport holders from 7 countries from flying through US airspace.
I have seen the list of countries and the reason I am asking this question is over here we are led to believe Trump took advice (don't know where from) that people from these countries are a possible risk to the US.

Now I can't grasp that if this is the case in the last 5 years people responsible for murders to Americans on American soil from the 7 countries on the list is zero. Damned if I can find the site where I read these numbers ,I will look again and post them when found. The highest rate of murders to Americans on American soil is people from Saudi Arabia yet they are not on the list??????? So can some one please explain what is going on with this 7 country ban as it just looks like 7 countries banned all muslim. And if so isn't this playing straight in to the terrorist recruitment peoples hands?

And what is going on with this billions of dollars cost wall?
Thanks

The 7 country ban is just that. It does not say Muslim anywhere in the EO from Trump. On top of that, in spite of what was widely reported, the 7 countries are not named specifically in the EO, only Syria is. Why is that? Because the countries in question are referred to like so:

I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order

What is that above in reference to?:

President Trump's order appeared to have roots in the "Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015," the passage of which was reported in late 2015 and early 2016 as a response to shootings and terrorist attacks in San Bernardino and Paris in November 2015. Although President Obama did in fact sign the bill into law in December 2015, it was attached as a rider on the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016, an omnibus spending bill.

In other words, travel restrictions were already in place on the countries in question and they had already been identified as areas of concern in terms of national security and possible sources of terrorism by the Obama administration. Trump took it several steps further obviously, but it's not like he pulled the countries out of thin air, there's clear precedent and legislation in place already targeting those countries for restricted travel to the U.S.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I don't think even Trump can stop that, it looks that way with his hard line but he'd be making a huge mistake if he didn't realize we are compassionate people.

He's certainly trying to get out of it, accusing us of "wanting to export the next Boston bombers", which is one part baseless accusation, and one part childish temper tantrum.

The issue with the asylum seekers is that our government can't take them without losing all of their political capital. Our policy on illegal asylum seekers is controversial at best: they are detained indefinitely in offshore facilities until their claims can be processed. The process takes years to complete, and until then, the asylum seekers exist in legal limbo, effectively in prison without charge. The whole thing is set up to deter people from arriving illegally by making the prospect of indefinite detention seem so bad that asylum seekers would rather stay in their own countries. The detention centres don't have access to adequate medical facilities, detainees don't have access to legal representation and are subject to violent reprisals from the local population, and more than one UN official has called the policy torture.

When Turnbull's party got elected, they did so on the promise of stopping asylum seekers from entering the country illegally. They put this controversial policy in place, and staked their credibility on it. But Papua New Guinea has recently declared the deal with Australia unconstitutional and ordered the Manus Island facility closed, and Nauru has been beset by problems that mean their detention centre will likely close soon, too. Our government won't take the detainees because of the policy of refusing to let them settle in Australia, and attempts at making deals with Malaysia and Cambodia has been met with universal condemnation. Resettling them in the United States was seen as the humane, compassionate alternative.

Personally, I have no issue with them being resettled in Australia. The whole policy was a shameful, despicable piece of political showmanship, and the sooner we are rid of the current government, the better.

 

[xyloscissor]

He's certainly trying to get out of it, accusing us of "wanting to export the next Boston bombers", which is one part baseless accusation, and one part childish temper tantrum.

We don't really know what was said in that conversation or the tone that was used so I don't think much of it other than they are conversing. If your guy claims he was given assurances and a strong relationship exists do you simply discard that?

Resettling them in the United States was seen as the humane, compassionate alternative.

I think it still is, the numbers might be lowered and the process might be more strict and take more time. No one wants mass immigration, the fact we are willing to help you says a lot. One thing that Trump will be steadfast on is money, he's made this perfectly clear regarding NATO. I don't know the ins and outs of the deal you made with Obama but if it includes the U.S. footing the bill, you can probably forget that part.

 

[Com Fox]

Wow. Protests in Cali cause of the editor of Breitbart scheduled speech.

The fact that there is protestors isn't surprising.

What is shocking is how restless these protesters are becoming, a women Trump supporter got pepper sprayed even after saying there are peaceful protesters being tainted by the violent ones.

 

[xyloscissor]

The fact that there is protestors isn't surprising.

What is shocking is how restless these protesters are becoming, a women Trump supporter got pepper sprayed even after saying there are peaceful protesters being tainted by the violent ones.

I think we are seeing professional protesters at work, I'd hate to think the students are that bad. Seeing as this is the second time they guy has been chased off a campus and also seeing the news firm mentioned on this site I have to conclude he's a sensationalist rocking the boat.

It's more effective to let him speak and ignore him, if the kids want to protest his speech they should organize and boycott imo. Let him speak to an empty room. Starting fires is not going to win any points and ignoring freedom of speech when it suits you is even worse. One thing is for sure, college is a place for higher education and in order to learn you have to be open to all views not just the one's you like.

 

[Com Fox]

I think we are seeing professional protesters at work, I'd hate to think the students are that bad. Seeing as this is the second time they guy has been chased off a campus and also seeing the news firm mentioned on this site I have to conclude he's a sensationalist rocking the boat.

It's more effective to let him speak and ignore him, if the kids want to protest his speech they should organize and boycott imo. Let him speak to an empty room. Starting fires is not going to win any points and ignoring freedom of speech when it suits you is even worse. One thing is for sure, college is a place for higher education and in order to learn you have to be open to all views not just the one's you like.

I wouldn't call him a sensationalist. While he does enjoy riling people up a lot, he doesn't attempt to tarnish any truth or facts because of it. I think the evidence he uses just writes itself on how people are riled up.

 

[McLaren]

I think we are seeing professional protesters at work, I'd hate to think the students are that bad. Seeing as this is the second time they guy has been chased off a campus and also seeing the news firm mentioned on this site I have to conclude he's a sensationalist rocking the boat.

It's more effective to let him speak and ignore him, if the kids want to protest his speech they should organize and boycott imo. Let him speak to an empty room. Starting fires is not going to win any points and ignoring freedom of speech when it suits you is even worse. One thing is for sure, college is a place for higher education and in order to learn you have to be open to all views not just the one's you like.

I can't believe nobody seems to have realized that Milo is someone who speaks his mind, no matter how rude, brash, or politically incorrect he may come across. And because he's wired as such, doing this kind of stuff only gives him more material to work his speeches around.

"Feminism is no longer good. SJWs campaign uselessly. Liberals don't like facts"
*opposing folks get upset*
"See everyone. They don't like free speech & don't tolerate what you like."

It's not that straight forward, but the point is he lives for this kind of reaction from the Left. He's like a comedian on stage just waiting for a heckler to boost the act.

 

[xyloscissor]

I can't believe nobody seems to have realized that Milo is someone who speaks his mind, no matter how rude, brash, or politically incorrect he may come across. And because he's wired as such, doing this kind of stuff only gives him more material to work his speeches around.

I've never had a reason to pay attention to him, I've only just realized who he is today. I still have no reason to care lol.

From what I have seen he doesn't bother me in any way, I hear some of those views all the time just from friends, maybe they listen to him. I think he is right in saying the left is against free speech.

There are others like him on many sides of the isle in talk radio, I don't care much for that anymore either but I used to listen to it while driving around in my work truck.

 

[Scaff]

The 7 country ban is just that. It does not say Muslim anywhere in the EO from Trump. On top of that, in spite of what was widely reported, the 7 countries are not named specifically in the EO, only Syria is. Why is that? Because the countries in question are referred to like so:

What is that above in reference to?:


In other words, travel restrictions were already in place on the countries in question and they had already been identified as areas of concern in terms of national security and possible sources of terrorism by the Obama administration. Trump took it several steps further obviously, but it's not like he pulled the countries out of thin air, there's clear precedent and legislation in place already targeting those countries for restricted travel to the U.S.

The Obama administration didn't add that amendment to the bill.

I've never had a reason to pay attention to him, I've only just realized who he is today. I still have no reason to care lol.

From what I have seen he doesn't bother me in any way, I hear some of those views all the time just from friends, maybe they listen to him. I think he is right in saying the left is against free speech.

There are others like him on many sides of the isle in talk radio, I don't care much for that anymore either but I used to listen to it while driving around in my work truck.

I think elements on both the right and left are against free speech.

I've been reported here at GTP because I post from a left of centre view, the report saying I should stop posting anything political.

Seem's that elements of the right have just as much an issue, some people love confirmation bias and want to live in an echo chamber.

If you don't believe me head over to the Daily Stormer and give posting a view that's critical of the far right or neo-nazis a go. You will see you free speech shut down pretty quickly.

 

[xyloscissor]

The Obama administration didn't add that amendment to the bill.

But he signed it.

It's true that all walks of life can be against free speech, if it has to come down to wacko websites and internet worries I'm not going to consider it tbh.

Having this guy ran out of two schools in a month though? And think about who this last one is, all about liberal free speech and yet here we are.

 

[Scaff]

But he signed it.

It's true that all walks of life can be against free speech, if it has to come down to wacko websites and internet worries I'm not going to consider it tbh.

Having this guy ran out of two schools in a month though? And think about who this last one is, all about liberal free speech and yet here we are.

Congress voted it in, he had little choice in this case. This had far more to do with partisan politics than anything else.

That however is not the point, it's misleading to state that the last administration added these countries to a list of restricted travel, the author of the amendment did that, who was not a part of the administration.

In regard to the daft Milo (the homophobic gay man who likes to pretend to be an honest journalist, but is no more than an aggitator who will hijack any line he can), unless the locations in place cancelled his appearance then a counter protest to his presence is not limiting free speech, it's simply another form of free speech (ironically even if some of them are saying he should not be allowed to speak).

 

[xyloscissor]

Congress voted it in, he has no choice but to sign it.

Did he veto it? I honestly cannot remember.

It does seem to me this Milo guy is what I already said he was. I think you are missing the point I was making about UC, of all the places to have that happen, crusaders of free speech. Peaceful protest is free speech, throwing rocks and lighting fires is not speech at all, it's childish criminal behavior.