The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
RedSky said:
I'd say that's probably correct and if you broke the poll down you'd see it being another example of a generation war.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure id go to the extent of war but there'd certainly be a marked difference. I do wonder whether it's just wanting an easier life the closer you are to death so you become more closed off, selfish and drop liberal ideals that would only anger you internally.

Still disgusting in my view but there has to be some reason.
 
Smores said:
I'm not sure id go to the extent of war but there'd certainly be a marked difference. I do wonder whether it's just wanting an easier life the closer you are to death so you become more closed off, selfish and drop liberal ideals that would only anger you internally.

Still disgusting in my view but there has to be some reason.
Click to expand...

I think it's more to do with the internet being a tool to help people interact with people from different cultures and therefore ease any concerns you may have internally. Look at this forum as a classic example of being able to discuss with people from all across the globe on a manner of subjects. If you've grown up chatting to people of different religions, cultures then it doesn't take much to realise that they're no different to ones self.
 
Crossie said:
Putin's puppet in full swing ...

Click to expand...


The Trump administration's position on Germany is unreasonable. They certainly benefit greatly from a low euro, but can hardly be accused of currency manipulation. As long as Southern European countries remain in the euro, its value will be depressed. With their economies.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
It's basically Trump voters backing the man they voted for. The results of that survey just confirm that it's an insanely divisive policy which makes the vast majority of people feel no safer as a result of its implemention.
Click to expand...

You're probably right with your first sentence. With respect to the rest of your post, would you say that all divisive policies are bad? Or are there good policies that can be divisive?
 
McUnited said:
You're probably right with your first sentence. With respect to the rest of your post, would you say that all divisive policies are bad? Or are there good policies that can be divisive?
Click to expand...
Universal healthcare would be really divisive in the states, but I'd reckon they'd be better off for it.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
It's basically Trump voters backing the man they voted for. The results of that survey just confirm that it's an insanely divisive policy which makes the vast majority of people feel no safer as a result of its implemention.
Click to expand...

The media and liberal activists worked hard to make it as divisive as possible.

A temporary suspension of immigration from seven countries isn't particularly harsh. It should be remembered that no one has an automatic right to travel to the US. These people aren't being denied anything to which they're entitled.

The ban on Syrian refugees is more brutal, but limited in its impact, given the small numbers accepted in the first place.
 
Will Absolute said:
The Trump administration's position on Germany is unreasonable. They certainly benefit greatly from a low euro, but can hardly be accused of currency manipulation. As long as Southern European countries remain in the euro, its value will be depressed. With their economies.
Click to expand...
He's going to screw around and jeopardize a lot of his voters jobs in SC if he pisses BMW off... Not to mention other German firms like Bosch, Behr, BASF, and Henkel that have major plants in the upstate.
 
Will Absolute said:
The media and liberal activists worked hard to make it as divisive as possible.

A temporary suspension of immigration from seven countries isn't particularly harsh. It should be remembered that no one has an automatic right to travel to the US. These people aren't being denied anything to which they're entitled.

The ban on Syrian refugees is more brutal, but limited in its impact, given the small numbers accepted in the first place.
Click to expand...

There's a reasonable argument to be made for looking into whether restrictions on movement might make America a safer place. And implementing any such policy in a thoughtful and transparent manner would have been much less divisive and chaotic. Even though it would always split opinions.

Your insistence on blaming the liberal media and activists for the current shambles instead of the appalling haste and lack of forethought with which it was implemented is typical of your personal blind-spot in all of these threads.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
There's a reasonable argument to be made for looking into whether restrictions on movement might make America a safer place. And implementing any such policy in a thoughtful and transparent manner would have been much less divisive and chaotic. Even though it would always split opinions.

Your insistence on blaming the liberal media and activists for the current shambles instead of the appalling haste and lack of forethought with which it was implemented is typical of your personal blind-spot in all of these threads.
Click to expand...

The alternative would have been to give the world notice of when the ban was taking place, which would have weakened the intention of the ban, which was to make the country safer. Whether or not you agree it makes the country safer is another issue.
 
Will Absolute said:
The media and liberal activists worked hard to make it as divisive as possible.

A temporary suspension of immigration from seven countries isn't particularly harsh. It should be remembered that no one has an automatic right to travel to the US. These people aren't being denied anything to which they're entitled.

The ban on Syrian refugees is more brutal, but limited in its impact, given the small numbers accepted in the first place.
Click to expand...

They're still working hard! The frenzy is astonishing.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
The more divisive the policy the more carefully it should be implemented. This has been a cluster-feck from day one.
Click to expand...

Agreed with the reporter CNN had on New Day yesterday when he said Bannon (who crafted the ban) would be happy with the chaos and mess the policy caused.

What he was essentially saying is that this was intentional.
 
roseguy64 said:
Actually consulting with the people who have to implement the ban would have been a good start.
Click to expand...

That sounds reasonable, although an argument against that would be the possibility of leaks removing the surprise factor.
 
This whole thing is like a bizarre Black Mirror episode guest starring Leslie Nielsen and Michael Cera.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
There's a reasonable argument to be made for looking into whether restrictions on movement might make America a safer place. And implementing any such policy in a thoughtful and transparent manner would have been much less divisive and chaotic. Even though it would always split opinions.

Your insistence on blaming the liberal media and activists for the current shambles instead of the appalling haste and lack of forethought with which it was implemented is typical of your personal blind-spot in all of these threads.
Click to expand...

You say that but I believe the latest research by a group of Princeton cosmologists will make even you change your mind.

As I've long suspected, a liberal caused the Big Bang.
 
Will Absolute said:
The Trump administration's position on Germany is unreasonable. They certainly benefit greatly from a low euro, but can hardly be accused of currency manipulation. As long as Southern European countries remain in the euro, its value will be depressed. With their economies.
Click to expand...
There's a much more inconvenient truth Trump likes to ignore: There are US companies that are not competitive because of their products. And that the US lacks skilled workforce.

Two German mid-size company heads were independently interviewed the other day, both have also a production site in the US. Both say that even if they wanted to (which they don't), they can't move more into the US, because they wouldn't find people with the necessary skills, that they struggle to find them even now.
Both don't give up on the US market (yet) but both appeared determined to not invest anything into their US branches, whatever tariffs Trump might impose, but elsewhere, either Germany or whereever they find people with the skills they need. Both also pointed out that history shows that protectionism hinders innovation and competitiveness.
 
Tarrou said:
The Donald is up

Click to expand...

He's a liar and a hypocrite. More 'people with bad intentions' from Saudi Arabia committed terrorist attacks against Americans than from any other country but for some innocent reason are not banned.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
:lol: "has support from nearly one in two"

The same survey has 2 out of 3 people feeling no safer as a result of this ban.
Click to expand...

The ban has support from nearly one in two Americans while nearly one in two Americans do not support the ban.
 


I've been wondering if Stewart could be the Real Denald ...?
 
McUnited said:
That sounds reasonable, although an argument against that would be the possibility of leaks removing the surprise factor.
Click to expand...

The "surprise factor" is part of the problem ffs. As well as consulting the people implementing the ban, the very least a competent president would do is make sure the fecking thing isn't illegal. So, you know, he wouldn't have to sack the Attorney General for pointing out he's acted un-constitutionally, after the fact.
 
McUnited said:
What would have been a more careful implementation, in your view?
Click to expand...

Actually banning countries who have had people commit terrorist activity in the United States would be a start. If Trump is 'serious' about this, he should've banned people coming in from any country whatsoever with the most remote risk of sending someone over who would commit terrorist activity. Of course, such an idea would be ridiculous which is why he's chosen a select few.
 
Crossie said:
There's a much more inconvenient truth Trump likes to ignore: There are US companies that are not competitive because of their products. And that the US lacks skilled workforce.

Two German mid-size company heads were independently interviewed the other day, both have also a production site in the US. Both say that even if they wanted to (which they don't), they can't move more into the US, because they wouldn't find people with the necessary skills, that they struggle to find them even now.
Both don't give up on the US market (yet) but both appeared determined to not invest anything into their US branches, whatever tariffs Trump might impose, but elsewhere, either Germany or whereever they find people with the skills they need. Both also pointed out that history shows that protectionism hinders innovation and competitiveness.
Click to expand...

Protectionism is a dangerous road to go down. I always thought it was the dodgiest (in the sense of most difficult to implement) of Trump's election promises, even if the one with the most popular appeal.

He can build his wall, repeal Obamacare, spend a trillion on infrastructure ... and it'll be fiercely controversial, but imposing big tariffs on imported goods is a nuclear bomb.
 
Will Absolute said:
Protectionism is a dangerous road to go down. I always thought it was the dodgiest (in the sense of most difficult to implement) of Trump's election promises, even if the one with the most popular appeal.

He can build his wall, repeal Obamacare, spend a trillion on infrastructure ... and it'll be fiercely controversial, but imposing big tariffs on imported goods is a nuclear bomb.
Click to expand...

Also something that stands against so called Republican conservatism. Cowards and hypocrites if they follow him on it.
 
McUnited said:
That sounds reasonable, although an argument against that would be the possibility of leaks removing the surprise factor.
Click to expand...
What are they going to do? Try to catch the red-eye to New York from Tehran before it goes into effect?

The secretary of Homeland Security found out about it on TV FFS...
 
Cheesy said:
Actually banning countries who have had people commit terrorist activity in the United States would be a start. If Trump is 'serious' about this, he should've banned people coming in from any country whatsoever with the most remote risk of sending someone over who would commit terrorist activity. Of course, such an idea would be ridiculous which is why he's chosen a select few.
Click to expand...

That's all fine and dandy but if you ban the correct countries, you kind of kill the surprise effect.
 
McUnited said:
The alternative would have been to give the world notice of when the ban was taking place, which would have weakened the intention of the ban, which was to make the country safer. Whether or not you agree it makes the country safer is another issue.
Click to expand...

You buy the idea that there's a bunch of terrorists out there in wait, US visas already in hand but biding their time to come? Then all of a sudden the ban is pre-announced and they all board planes withing a week. And the FBI + CIA + NSA have no clue whatsoever, and these guys (presumably dozens) are completely off their radars?

Here I think is a failure of the public story told of 9/11. The group of hijackers didn't manage to avoid US intelligence as a whole, while abroad. Because they were communicating and traveling back and forth, CIA was actually monitoring 2 of them since a "summit" in Indonesia. CIA knew they bought tickets to come to the US, but at this point they just failed to inform the FBI (there are multiple theories as to why). The 20th of the group was also actually detained at immigration here in the US, with Atta I believe waiting just outside the terminal to pick him up. But no one in intel followed up seriously on that.

My point being that I don't think US public grasps that their intelligence doesn't suck tremendously. They sure fecked up back then, and some guys over at the CIA specifically are mostly to blame. But the notion that closing the borders entirely is the way to go, or that its US State Dept or CBP who are going to foil these attacks when they profile at the consulate or at immigration, is completely misinformed, in my opinion. Think of this lastly: if CIA picked up on a couple of Syrians planning to travel to the US, and suspected they were part of a larger group, they might pass this to the FBI and decide in fact that they would rather allow the pair to travel to the US, monitor them here and try and discover if the cell has other elements they'd initially missed. Not possible anymore under a ban scenario. Its just too blunt an instrument.
 
Cheesy said:
Actually banning countries who have had people commit terrorist activity in the United States would be a start. If Trump is 'serious' about this, he should've banned people coming in from any country whatsoever with the most remote risk of sending someone over who would commit terrorist activity. Of course, such an idea would be ridiculous which is why he's chosen a select few.
Click to expand...
It's like I said...it's not that the list/ban is 'wrong', 'immoral', 'bigoted' - those are all issues people can argue for and against...but, that it's INCOMPLETE.

You can't have a list of potential terror hot spots and not have

- Saudi Arabia
- Pakistan
- Egypt
- Afghanistan

instead, he said - these places (with the exception of KSA) might have 'extreme vetting'.

Which means this was nothing but a stunt - a show. It HASN'T made us any safer.

It's a sham.

Oh and the turn around time for a Syrian refugee application - 18 months! Syrian Refugees weren't going to simply fly in by the thousands. People be it in the real world or on this forum that are arguing for this are one of two things

Imbeciles - which one can forgive, you can't help it if you're stupid.

or

Closeted bigots - cowards who can't man up and say what they really wanna say...instead are pussyfooting around the issue.

I like the imbeciles more - they can be shown the light.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.