Donald & Hillary

[BzaInSpace]

there is an arguement... if the man down the road believes in the bible then how does that affect you?
.

Maybe because the man down the road is not one of those repellant fearmongers in control of the largest military arsenal ever?

Anybody espousing that "Biblically correct" age of the Earth insanity is probably fairly mentally unwell actually - to defy all logic, reason and scientific fact indicates either massive delusional thought or - perhaps more worryingly - a total applied sense of ignorance. Either way such an individual has no business over the lives of so many.


This is a stupid argument anyway - Trump's a fucking odious buffoon of a man.

The only concise and grammatically-correct comment I've read by him so far is a transcription, y'know when he easily swerved into rape mode and "pussy grabbing" chat for the "lolz"

Given that's nowhere near the worst he's capable of it certainly gives cause for concern...

[semisynthetic]

["semisynthetic"]

I have no hatred. My hatred lies in the American system and how the presidency is elected. It's flawed and not geared towards a peoples majority.

M

I expect that people of differing beliefs and backgrounds to also have disagreements on certain points; but there are very sound reasonings that support the methodology for deciding the Presidency of the United States; but here, and on the previous page, I read from those who live in the UK, a close ally and source of many friends for me on this SITE alone; but to call a decent person "insane" because they follow a Tenet of certain religions regarding how they view the age of the Earth, and to "hate" the system as outlined in a Beautifully and Brilliantly constructed document like our Constitution by those whose long-lived practice of Church and Ruler reverting back to the "Divine Right of Kings" does strike me as Ironic at the very least.

Just an observation.

I have no reason to "hate" all of these centuries of UK History or dislike a Queen I have respect for; besides, it is a different type of Country here in the USA; the size and diversity I dare say are not necessarily well understood by many who were born here! Most certainly this is best seen when their thoughts are driven primarily by Ideology, where "thought" often ends.

To be blunt, I would expect many of those now WITHIN the UK to be more upset by their own Historical outcomes than I can even Imagine! But this is mere conjecture on my part.[/quote]



The above was written simply as a tongue-in-cheek response to certain Ironies that were apparently "lost in translation", or ignored because that was not on the reader's mind. That was it. All it was. Most of what I've read since, is a sad sort of malaise continuum; and I am sorry to see that. Truly. When I saw everything omitted, save for a man's religion zeroed in on, it brings the "tongue-in-cheek" piece into even greater focus, but the attempted humor is more of a clarified philosophical indictment than simply kidding around with a History I found to be strangely overlooked, since it was the center of what I wrote. Not a very happy crowd. How unfortunate. A grunt and a club are hardly a cogent argument, and that is what I have been reading for the most part; "isms", "ysts" and a drumbeat of "think as I do or you are wrong". Merry olde England? Not at all. Perhaps a constant rant against America takes your mind off of the UKs troubles; I rarely ever see anyone there discuss the problems of their OWN country. It seems very odd to me, or maybe not so odd after all. Either way, it is an unfortunate state of events to contend with.

[runcible]

If that was humour I didn't get it at all.

And it's not honing in on one person's 'religion', it is the fact that he denies scientific evidence that shows the age of the planet is a great deal more than he believes, and that this belief further suggests that he is simply unfit to hold the responsibility he has been presented with because anyone with the same beliefs are - in mine and many others opinion - flaky to say the least.

Why take a pop at the UK when the thread under discussion is the US Presidential election? It's not relevant. The UK has a load of its own problems. You even started a discussion on the most recent one here:
http://spiritualized.band/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=13032

Somehow you have interpreted recent discussion as being anti-USA while believing the UK has nothing of any consequence to feel uncomfortable about. Nonsense - the feeling is anti-Trump and his cronies, not anti-USA. In the UK the Brexit situation here rumbles along with the inevitable result being kicked around like a soggy football - it's pretty dull news. What has happened in the USA affects us all and I don't know anyone who is happy with it. And every day, with each new lie the Trump team unfurl, the resentment grows. For some reason you are unable to accept that.

[MODLAB]

Anyway, gag orders, sending in the feds to 'fix' Chicago and one presidential executive order after another to 'Make America Great Again'. Am I missing something? This sounds like the beginning of a police state where the people have no voice.

M

[The Dr]

i was reading in response to comway sales of 1984 are through the roof!

north korea are stepping up their arms production- now that obama is not here there is no fear factor (yes i know trump used his visit to the CIA to mention how they might be going back to iraq for the oil)


and in terms of facts- brexit and trump were voted for by a majority (in their own systems) nso surely the facts are these are things that people think will be good?

how ironic that germany is the last bastion of strong democracy

the trump admistration are horrible people (regardless of their personal beliefs (have you seen the press secretry? the other day he seemed that he was about to invite a journalist to fistycuffs) and if one watches the hearings one can see that they are ill equiped and unprepared to govern- i get the feeling the administration is one big insecurity complex. next the trump admistration will start going after people for holding relgious beliefs that they do not agree with...

the obama admistration was one of the, if not the, most open us government ever, now the governement deals in lies and bullying. aparently trump has put a gag order on the EPA and is going to start breaking up america's beautoful landscapres and sacred grounds for oil exploration

things are starting to get truly terrfying

[The Dr]

plus.. if someone thinks the earth is only a few thousand years old, it means they are someone who rejects OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary. it means their other policies could also reject facts, evidence, etc. we are already seeing this trait strongly in this administration!

facts should be the baseline we all work from. we've got enough scientific methodology now where there are some solid, immutable facts we should all be able to agree on. interpretation of the facts.. yes, that's largely up for grabs.

some of the greatest scientific breakthroughs historically have come from people who subscribe to literal translations of holy scriptures


ps i think the policies have little to do with facts- acceptance or rejection thereof

[semisynthetic]

If that was humour I didn't get it at all.

Why take a pop at the UK when the thread under discussion is the US Presidential election? It's not relevant. The UK has a load of its own problems. You even started a discussion on the most recent one here:
http://spiritualized.band/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=13032

I can certainly see that you clearly did not "get it at all".

The Brexit Thread, a single thread you cited is a very different tone of discussion than in this Thread. I was truly and genuinely interested in how the people on this SITE from the UK in particular, thought of it, and why; I asked questions and wanted to learn more about the details of the "hows and whys" of that vote; and I waited until the vote was over to ask and "listen". It was enlightening and generally, but not always, civil and polite. An exchange of views and thoughts that I did enjoy and learned a few things I would not have heard on the BBC.

Maybe I notice the sort of "Anti-American" sentiment more than you do because it does become tiresome. To cite a single Thread wherein there was a look into the UK is very different than when so often the crosshairs are on the USA for some reason, in some way, and the USA is too often considered as if though it is the problem in these Posts, with little introspection into the mirror by so many in the UK.

Maybe I am intolerant of too little tolerance expressed about my country so often. Trump did not win the Presidency by his single vote alone; Hillary Clinton did much worse than expected than the country (and the world) was so often told, and did worse in every single group she was expected to. That means that a great many people, who, for an incredible number of reasons, voted for Trump; women, minorities, democrats and so on. To disparage so many people simply because you think differently, well, is not exactly very generous of thought. You do not trash only Trump, but roughly half of the USA that voted. A number of people have at least attempted to understand or realize why, for if Clinton was simply unacceptable to even to many democrats, it helps to makes it clearer just why Trump won the election.

I am fortunate to live in a state which is rich in Natural Resources; and because it is a rural area, (primarily), many buy fresh beef - and keep a quarter to a half of a beef in a locker, and have other fresh meats available year round; fresh vegetables are available, and a number people of different religions work in canning their own crops for sale. Propane here is relatively cheap at $1.45/ gallon, and gasoline, depending upon what grade you choose, is around $2 a gallon.

Only in the last 3 years or so did this area feel the economic crunch like so many other states had, everyone who can work, does, as a general rule. But the idiocy of technocrats that landed like locusts caused great problems that need not have happened. Small banks are hurt by a "Dodd-Frank" bill, that does essentially the opposite of what it was supposed to and was sold as. There are too many things to list or list again that caused problems for the citizenry, and it is not a surprise that the vast center of the USA did not want a "3rd Obama Term", a phrase used by Clinton in assorted ways during the campaign.

The democratic leadership seem clueless as to why they lost, thinking it was the messaging, rather than reassessing "why".
There are numerous reasons for this unfortunate, corrosive divisiveness. But I remain optimistic, even if the same old "blame America First" arguments in whatever form do, from time to time become once again, tiresome.

[runcible]

You are completely wrong about my feelings towards the USA, but then you choose to largely ignore the key points I have made in this exchange or interpret them in your own way. I know many great people from the USA and have a few very close American friends. I haven't been there in over 20 years but if I get the right opportunity I'd jump at the chance to return.

You seem to think anyone who didn't vote Trump should just roll over and say 'he won fair and square so I will shut up for 4 years'. Can't disagree more. There need to be more protests not less, just as a lot of people are making their feelings clear in the UK about Brexit. Ian Hislop nailed it perfectly when he said 'Even if you lose the vote you are entitled to go on making the argument'. Correct. That is how it works for most people.

[BzaInSpace]

A grunt and a club are hardly a cogent argument, and that is what I have been reading for the most part; "isms", "ysts" and a drumbeat of "think as I do or you are wrong". Merry olde England? Not at all...

You have to realize how patronizing this sounds. I've read nothing of the sort on these pages - dashes of bleak humour amongst intelligent and heartfelt messages abound. Certainly nothing like the brutal shitstorm of comments on any msm newspages or elsewhere...

As always, this forum is a refuge for the sane and the witty.

As for the UK stuff, I've never held back from ripping into anything I disagree with - it's all timely and on the mind at that time so it's only proper the US shenanigans invite decent current comment.

There is absolutely NO ANTI-US FEELING here at all - like Mark (and probably every other poster) I have many friends in the States. Neither is anyone disagreeing that the DNC's special choice was any better on an election ballot - some of us are just saddened at the way the whole damn thing is panning out.

[semisynthetic]

by BzaInSpace » Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:45 pm
Obviously you can think what you like, but this isn't the fucking Stormfront forum you know.
In fact, I have no idea what the point of this thread is other than to incur a bit of '2 Minute Hate'.

There's quite enough hate in the world as it is. Back to your 50c records please.

A member writes a sentence or two you disliked seeing, so naturally you met it head on by being both "witty and Noble".
If there is, as you write "enough hate in the world", why add to it? What happened to everyone having their opinion to openly share? Why be demeaning simply because you disagree?

Don't you know how condescending this is? Patronizing and unnecessary.

And you set yourself up as the Noble Wit? I do love Irony.

I remember seeing this post and was really taken aback by how directly cruel you were to a Member with such a headon sort of attack because you did not like their opinion. It did not involve you in any way, but I see once again it depends upon whose Ox is being gored. A sort of Correct Selective Thinking.
Very different than someone who just "didn't get it".

[semisynthetic]

You are completely wrong about my feelings towards the USA, but then you choose to largely ignore the key points I have made in this exchange or interpret them in your own way. I know many great people from the USA and have a few very close American friends. I haven't been there in over 20 years but if I get the right opportunity I'd jump at the chance to return.

You seem to think anyone who didn't vote Trump should just roll over and say 'he won fair and square so I will shut up for 4 years'. Can't disagree more. There need to be more protests not less, just as a lot of people are making their feelings clear in the UK about Brexit. Ian Hislop nailed it perfectly when he said 'Even if you lose the vote you are entitled to go on making the argument'. Correct. That is how it works for most people.

Inventing quotes I never made, or invoking your ideas about what you believe I would say or think is absurd. Blast away all you wish. People who lose the vote certainly have as much to say as the winner. I never did think otherwise. Enjoy yourself.

[runcible]

- omitted -
semi.

Possibly your finest post yet. Mainly for the brevity...

[semisynthetic]

It would have been better to avail yourself of more of the Nobility I read of. I was going to be extrakind to the apparently
fragile, and look what happens. You simply cannot help yourself, it has occurred before. What a pity. I extend a sort of "olive branch", and you slap it away by writing something contrary instead of kind, in kind. Not what I expected after all the of these high ideals - so called, well, now I will know it is clearly a farce. Disappointing, not surprising - THAT is the sad part.

[semisynthetic]

It makes little difference in what is written about the new President. Naturally, I want any US President to succeed. But, if he does well, and time will tell, he will, strangely, still be hated by many for any successes.

If he does poorly over time instead, he will be hated as a failure. I hope for the sake of the USA, he does well; but, again, only time will tell. The naysayers, with such a lose/lose philosophy remove themselves from any argument of real substance, except to serve as a source of negativity for not just one man, but something greater than they genuinely are likely to understand. It is difficult to be seriously involved in something good when your reason for being is as a negative force.

There is a sinister sort of nature for essentially HOPING that a US President will fail whether you like him or her personally or not. They have accepted a job; I hope this one succeeds in areas that helps the country and our citizenry for all our sakes. I know the unpleasantness of the unhappy hordes will continue, and I accept that as just another piece of the reality. It is strange to me; I cannot imagine that I would HOPE that the UK PM would fail, whoever they were.

[rapideye]

Damn right he will be hated and so he should be. His opinions, stated intentions and actions from the election and, to date, from his inauguration, show exactly why he should be hated. Making excuses for the Guy only opens you, and the millions/billions who think the same, to contempt in my opinion. And it is only my opinion. You can call it anti-US feeling if you want but, I am certain, that if this involved any other country the feelings would be the same. If for the US to succeed means that people are to be victimised, cheated, hounded, shouted down, oppressed, lied to and possibly even killed then any anti-US Government feeling will continue. If you voted for that Government then IMO you are tainted along with them.

Here in the UK, there is far from any malaise on the our current situation and Brexit. The recent supreme Court ruling confirmed that any triggering of the article 50 needs Parliament approval. I'm not so naïve to think that Brexit won't happen and that Parliament won't vote to trigger but at least the public has that indirect say through their MP voting. This is how it should be. At least there is the chance that the full implications of Brexit are debated rather than just accepting a non-binding vote where both parties lied through their teeth. There is no doubt that the electorate were lied to substantially enough to possibly have affected the vote. Therefore, it is only prudent that a second referendum is held when there is a fuller picture of the consequences and gains from Brexit.

There has been a lot of talk about our PM meeting Trump (careful he don't try to cop a feel!) and how trade talks are top of the list. Well, excuse me for not being excited about the outcome of talks with the new administration who has made it clear that the US come first and who like to run free with alternative facts. I can't see any good coming out of these talks for the UK citizens but hey I might be wrong. Maybe your Corporates won't want to turn our NHS into a system like yours, maybe you won't want to reduce our food standards regulations to parity with yours. Maybe we are being fearful when our working regulations are at risk of degradation. I am a sceptic though and I think that our PM is desperate to negotiate a deal to show the EU that we can do without them. I also think that Trump would like this deal to help give some credibility. It will most likely happen and I think we'll lose out. It may be that it will take some time to understand fully how much we do lose - for example, the filtering of Thatcher's policies have taken a good 20-30 years to show their full impact.

I agree with Runcible that we should voice our objections and protest now more than ever. We're not cry babies, you know. Democracy allows for opinions to be voiced, right? It's somewhere in your beautifully bound constitution. When we see someone doing wrong right in front of our faces, in full view and without any care of the consequences then it is our right to speak up. Also, one other point (this is a more lengthy post than I intended) direct to Semi - your complaint around the editing of posts are ever so slightly hypocritical. I've seen you completely delete a whole post that I found pretty one-sided and offensive (I was Mustard in a previous life, am a bit of a technophobe and ballsed up my login) I might have been the only one who seen it as when I posted a reply no one else commented on it. Debate is good though, right?

[spzretent]

I find it embarrassing that after all Trump's lies, xenophobic rants, cozying up to the alt.right, misogynistic things caught on tape, refusal to show his tax returns that so many still thought he was a better option. That says a lot about this country. How all this was overlooked. I was in the UK when the Access Hollywood tape came out and I was certain that was the final nail. I even said that to my hosts. Nope.
Yes, we need change in Washington. It could have waited another 4 years and not been voted in like this.
Donald Trump is a racist, misogynistic,lying bully. He may as well keep going with "the wall". Build it around the entire country.
That is the effect it is having worldwide.
It has also motivated those who do not agree with him as was evidenced by the marches, all over the world, Saturday. Long may they continue and have an effect in the 2018 mid term elections.

[rapideye]

Spzretent - according to what has just been reported on BBC news, Congress are earmarking $12-15 billion for this wall.

[angelsighs]

some of the greatest scientific breakthroughs historically have come from people who subscribe to literal translations of holy scriptures


ps i think the policies have little to do with facts- acceptance or rejection thereof

This may have been true in the early days of science- when people were curious and starting to find out about the natural world and what makes it tick etc. but i don't think there's necessarily a connection- everybody was religious back then anyways!

a lot of scientific discoveries were controversial or even had to be published after the author's death because they challenged traditional beliefs so much..

as we've learnt much more about the world, religious belief gets harder and harder to consistently believe. the discovery that we are not the centre of the universe, evolution, the age of the earth. these are all things which undermine some of its very foundations. this leads to the "oh its only a metaphor/analogy" defense which makes me laugh.. how convenient and leaves us with a 'God of the gaps' that just explains the bits we haven't discovered yet..

apologies for the detour... I do think it's an interesting subject in itself
I think most of us can agree that this administration have an extremely loose grasp of facts and that is rather scary. One hope for me was that the rest of the administration might be more 'centre' type Republicans who would hopefully curb Trump's wilder ideas. however he's populated it with nutjobs just as crazy as him, with some very scary ideologies. I actually think Trump may to some extent be apolitical about many issues (I remember reading somewhere that abortion actually isn't a big one for him)- he's just a businessman where the only aim really is making as much money as possible. He just wants to be popular amongst the other powerful people he mixes with. He's got this weird thing where he's just saying what he thinks certain people want to hear, then worries about the details later.

I've never known a person so repulsive in so many different ways. It's like the school bully is suddenly running the school.

I really hope he does something really stupid and gets impeached. question is, would this make his supporters see the light, or just add to his supposed 'outsider' status?? as others have said, it's mind boggling he even got into the White House after all the things he's said.

how's about this for a new law- any candidate with any pending court cases for sexual harassment or fraud, are not allowed to run for office??

[spzretent]

Spzretent - according to what has just been reported on BBC news, Congress are earmarking $12-15 billion for this wall.

This wall has a cost of between 2 and 6 million per mile. There are 2000 miles along the Mexican border. I will use the lowest figure of 2 million. Unless my math is wrong that is 4 Trillion dollars. There are far more important things that money could be spent on in this country instead of feeding Trump's ego. I am one of those who will most likely lose health care if he has his way.
Things are really shitty here right now and probably will get a whole lot worse.

[rapideye]

It's ok Spzretent I've been juggling the numbers and I think I've found a solution.

Apparently because of the natural barrier of the Rio Grande the wall only needs to be 1000 miles. Yes, exactly, a weight off your mind, right?

So, by your figures, that is a cost of $2,000,000,000,000. Yes, all looking quite manageable now isn't it? Trump was right, you see, because his Uncle taught at MIT that means he is a smart cookie.

It gets better...population of 300,000,000, who each pay for their share, works out at $6,666 each. Voila! One big fucking wall for a mere pittance. What's that? You don't like the number? Looks like the devil number? No, no it's the number of the Trump. He's out-Trumped the devil. Ok, ok, it's all about presentation...can't let the media have their fun with the number ...the c*nts...

Reduce the population by the illegals that Trump is going to throw out...say 11,000,000. This means that you will all have to pay $6,920. Yep, a little more but worth it, huh? We can't have any illegals having any claim on any part on US soil...

The Muslims have started to object so lets take them out, in fact, lets deport them too...only about 3,300,000. Really!? I thought the place was crawling with these Satan-hating....Ok, nevermind, out they go. You now pay $7,000. Lovey nice round number.

Man, I knew this was going to get complicated...bloody red Democrats are refusing to pay their share. Don't worry, we'll pay their share for now but I promise we'll make them pay it back...100%...paid back. Period. Now, how many is there? 63,000,000? Man, she was popular than Trump. How could that have happened? Anyway, according to my calcs all you'll have to pay is $8,980. You see, it's a snip! One big long wall to stop those scroungers coming in and cleaning your toilets for shitty wages.

Feel free to double-check my calculations. They may be slightly out as the IRS have confiscated my calculator and doing all those divisions on 10 fucking fat fingers and 11 fat fucking toes is not easy...what you didn't know about that extra toe? ET! Yep, that's right! forget about Back To The Future, they named the film after me...sent that little fucker back home too!

Oh, one last thing. To honour those brave Americans who have contributed to the wall, you all get to have your name imprinted on a brick. Great eh? No, just one brick you greedy fuckers...the rest will have Trumps name on it. 100%. Period.

[spzretent]

Ok. I feel better.

[rapideye]

Don't worry, Theresa's, over and she is one desperate Lady at the moment. Maybe Trump should include the cost of the wall in the trade agreement? Easy. Happy to help.

[spzretent]

Leave it to Mexico. I buy way too much from the UK.
Or as former Mexican President Vincente Fox put it best in the first line of this video:

[rapideye]

Yes! I heard he said that. Just beautiful. If only he'd given the finger at the camera at the same time. Sometimes words just aren't enough...

Just seen the reporting of May's first day in the US. Just embarrassing. I used to work with someone who had her as a Boss. Needless to say he has no good words for her. She savaged his department, left them without the staff to do the job they were set up for and then she blamed her next in line for the inevitable failings. She sacked him and then lost an unfair dismissal case he brought against her. She's a real star. When the referendum campaign was underway, we both questioned why she was so quiet about it. We both thought that it was pure positioning so to be able to pick the PM job when everything went pear-shaped. I hate being right.

[ro]

rapideye,
that effing wall is pricey, but your post is priceless.
thank you, I sure needed a laugh!
as spzretent said, it's pretty grim around here lately.

[MODLAB]

Priceless.

[The Dr]

if we all chip in couldn't we build 4 walls and a ceiling around trump? then he would have no concerns about immigrants coming into his box and if we lined the walls with mirrors he would be contented. easy solution to an easy problem

[The Dr]

Just seen the reporting of May's first day in the US. Just embarrassing. I used to work with someone who had her as a Boss. Needless to say he has no good words for her. She savaged his department, left them without the staff to do the job they were set up for and then she blamed her next in line for the inevitable failings. She sacked him and then lost an unfair dismissal case he brought against her. She's a real star. When the referendum campaign was underway, we both questioned why she was so quiet about it. We both thought that it was pure positioning so to be able to pick the PM job when everything went pear-shaped. I hate being right.

it's heartwarming these days to see a politician sticking by their lack of principles!

[olan]

I am absolutely disgusted by the latest orders closing the borders to many. Absolutely disgraceful but will no doubt appeal to the bigots, hicks and 'Make America Great Again' nutters.

[The Dr]

4/5th of the cases of terrorism that have been prosecuted in America since 9/11 feature American born defendants...and not one of the four countries that were involved in 9/11 are on the ban lists...

I see iran has blocked American citizens from traveling to iran! touche!

[simonkeeping]

Trump has business interests in Saudi, Turkey and Egypt so that's why those countries aren't on the list.
This past week has been terrifying - one outrageous decision after another. I was listening to Frank Gaffney on the radio on yesterday which less me speechless. The racism was just horrific, I don't know anymore, How is this mess ever be solved.

Once Trump gets 'his' guy (and it will be a guy) as head of the supreme court he can do what he likes.

[Stuart X.Hunter]

Some thoughts on the revised visa policy;

My son (13) decided to move football team this month. His new team have a prior planned 5 day trip to Barcelona in April. He was asked if he'd like to go. His mum and I discussed and whilst we can view the coaches (temporary guardians on trip) disclosure forms and make attempts to know other parents (some of who are going on the trip) and teammates; we felt it was premature to allow him to go unaccompanied by either of us because we don't really know the other adults present on the trip who would be effectively caring/keeping watch on our soon. Our son agreed with us and even said perhaps if he'd known everyone 6months he and we would be more accepting of the trip.

I run medium to large scale construction sites. Frequently I have to use subcontract labour and services. I'm extremely specific in what I ask for and define my expectations. I receive and confirm references as well as undertake face to face meetings and interviews. I'm clear that if I employ such that it jeopardises any part of the works then the works suffer. Those who I employ are generally attuned to understand the benefits to them of this explorative process as it permits them to plan and implement to the best of there ability.

Is the short term ban (or suspension) of people's who are nationals of or have visited recently countries that are associated with terrorism not an example of a receiving country trying to get it right?

Maybe on my next project I'll just use the yellow pages and upfront employ AAA Concrete Pumpers or when my youngest asks if he can spend the weekend with the new boy from school and his family I pack him off on a Friday with his favourite teddy and a Hi-5.

[mkb]

Is the short term ban (or suspension) of people's who are nationals of or have visited recently countries that are associated with terrorism not an example of a receiving country trying to get it right?

I'd say that this is based on a false premise though - that refugees currently arrive at the door of the US and are waved through with no checks or regard for where they go and what they do. The US has rigorous procedures in place already for processing refugees (which I believe takes up to two years to complete) - the fact that no refugee from the banned list of countries has killed anyone in the US in decades would suggest this screening to be fairly effective.

To suggest improvements may be reasonable - to impose a ban based on religion I would suggest is not reasonable, and may well be counterproductive (not to mention ethically reprehensible, and probably in breach of the Geneva convention).

There are lots of measures which could be introduced which may be argued could save lives - for example, the US could ban the sale of firearms to males under the age of 40, and someone could logically argue it to be sensible. People opposed to that could reasonably argue that it's unfair to target and demonise one demographic in that way - ultimately it comes down to weighing risk against issues of decency and fairness and dignity.

The actions of Trump's government demonises individuals based on their ethnicity and religion, in the name of countering a threat that statistics and facts don't support the existence of.

[Hedspace]

angy people click, indeed!

[simonkeeping]

Is the short term ban (or suspension) of people's who are nationals of or have visited recently countries that are associated with terrorism not an example of a receiving country trying to get it right?

Maybe on my next project I'll just use the yellow pages and upfront employ AAA Concrete Pumpers or when my youngest asks if he can spend the weekend with the new boy from school and his family I pack him off on a Friday with his favourite teddy and a Hi-5.

Sorry I don't really understand your point here.

Surely if it's about stopping people from countries 'associated with terrorism' - France, Belgium, Germany, Australia, Thailand, Africa, Israel, Russia, Canada etc etc should be on that list? But, it's not. No nationals from any country on the banned list have carried out terrorist acts in the US since 9/11. More people have been killed by toddlers with guns - 23 last year.

[BzaInSpace]

I run medium to large scale construction sites. Frequently I have to use subcontract labour and services. I'm extremely specific in what I ask for and define my expectations. I receive and confirm references as well as undertake face to face meetings and interviews. I'm clear that if I employ such that it jeopardises any part of the works then the works suffer. Those who I employ are generally attuned to understand the benefits to them of this explorative process as it permits them to plan and implement to the best of there ability...

Yeah - I imagine that patter goes down a treat with the lads on the sites.... ha!

Maybe on my next project I'll just use the yellow pages and upfront employ AAA Concrete Pumpers or when my youngest asks if he can spend the weekend with the new boy from school and his family I pack him off on a Friday with his favourite teddy and a Hi-5.

Shades of Blue Jam.

Saudi Arabia not being on Trump's banned list says it all really.

[BzaInSpace]

by BzaInSpace » Thu Jan 08, 2015 7:45 pm
Obviously you can think what you like, but this isn't the fucking Stormfront forum you know.
In fact, I have no idea what the point of this thread is other than to incur a bit of '2 Minute Hate'.

There's quite enough hate in the world as it is. Back to your 50c records please.

A member writes a sentence or two you disliked seeing, so naturally you met it head on by being both "witty and Noble".
If there is, as you write "enough hate in the world", why add to it? What happened to everyone having their opinion to openly share? Why be demeaning simply because you disagree?

Don't you know how condescending this is? Patronizing and unnecessary.

And you set yourself up as the Noble Wit? I do love Irony.

I remember seeing this post and was really taken aback by how directly cruel you were to a Member with such a headon sort of attack because you did not like their opinion. It did not involve you in any way, but I see once again it depends upon whose Ox is being gored. A sort of Correct Selective Thinking.
Very different than someone who just "didn't get it".

What the hell? You quoted something I wrote over two years ago to prove... what exactly?

I think you're missing the point - by miles. Due of course to your own Correct Selective Ninja Editing (no less than 4 times!) you've removed the context of that admittedly strongly worded post - it was in response to an outrageously islamophobic comment. Irony indeed, being mentioned on Trump thread.

Alternative Facts?

I suggest you re-read my original comment which resulted in this furiously OTT reply - for a Champion of Freedom of Speech you seem to have a real intolerance for anyone who disagrees with your own point of view.

[Stuart X.Hunter]

Sorry I don't really understand your point here.

Surely if it's about stopping people from countries 'associated with terrorism' - France, Belgium, Germany, Australia, Thailand, Africa, Israel, Russia, Canada etc etc should be on that list? But, it's not. No nationals from any country on the banned list have carried out terrorist acts in the US since 9/11. More people have been killed by toddlers with guns - 23 last year.

However many of those who have carried out attacks have visited these countries (Yemen, Syria, Somalia) prior to attacking. There's also the argument that they've been influenced or radicalised by nationals of those countries.
Agree with your point that it is about stopping acts of terrorism but Islamic fundamentalism or radical Islam I'm afraid is born and bred from those countries who are temporarily suspended. We should know as we encouraged there prevalence for our ends in the not so distant past.

I accept that America has many other issues however on this occasion the opportunity for the current administration to do something swiftly to stop bad things happening existed as a result of the previous administration.

Wether what has been done by this executive order is truthful or deceptive, right or wrong...philosophically speaking to me it appears a sensible approach that is available now and not after eons of debate.

Bit of basic site based Risk Assesment for you Bza

Someone mentioned that America already has in place rigorous checks but is it enough.
Of course we can't man-mark entrants and generally most people are good and play by the rules.
However, despite the likelihood of danger being low the severity of danger doesn't reduce.
The only way it reduces is by not doing it.

Much like Big Frank; he has to cut some kerb stones with a disc cutting saw.
Frank had a row with his missus that morning
Frank should be wearing cut 5 resistant gloves but he's left them in his locker. Bitch
Frank should be wearing the high impact goggles usually strapped to the cut off saw but they've been removed. Bitch
Whilst Frank curses his morning as he starts the saw he doesn't notice the guard is set incorrectly for his task.
Frank starts cutting the kerb, debris from the cut goes into Franks eye past the light eye protection he's wearing and in doing so he tries to claw at it. Unfortunately in doing so the saw contacts Franks cut 1 resistant gloved hand.
Poor old Framkie four fingers. Bitch

Frank wasn't a bad person; his decisions that morning were simply affected.
Shame about his wee mate Joe though who was nearby and first to aid him
Nobody has heard or seen from wee Joe since...

[runcible]

Agree with your point that it is about stopping acts of terrorism but Islamic fundamentalism or radical Islam I'm afraid is born and bred from those countries who are temporarily suspended. We should know as we encouraged there prevalence for our ends in the not so distant past.

No mention of Saudi Arabia escaping the suspension? Innocent I guess...

[Hedspace]

Big Data is hungry!



"Trump had “realized that the version of reality that politics presented was no longer believable . . . And in the face of that, you could play with reality.” He described Trump as “a hate-bot. You go, ‘I’m angry,’ and he goes, ‘I’m angry too!’ And nothing changes. But the system likes it: Angry people click more.”

In Lethem’s telling, Curtis sees Trump as a creature of what the Internet has become, or is becoming. “What will happen to the Internet in the future?” Curtis asks. “Will it become a bit like a John Carpenter movie? You go there, amidst the ruins, and it’s weird, and you can be nasty—just have fun and be bad, like a child. From about ’96 to about 2005 people built these lovely websites, they put up masses and masses of fantastic information. They’ve left them sitting there, but it’s like a city that everyone’s gone from. And what’s come in instead is a weird world where you don’t know what’s real—just people shouting at each other. It’s good fun, but it’s not real.”

This is the world Trump is reflecting and channeling. It is a virtual world, but it could have terrifying real world consequences.

Hyper-normalization. A verdy interesting doc if you haven't already ventured.

[spzretent]

This has all become very scary. This reminds me of the George W administration in that the real asshole was Cheney.
Here you have a racist in Steve Bannon clearly pulling Trump's strings. I am sure he saw someone in Donald Trump who was too stupid or who had way too short an attention span to do this on his own. There was his opening.
In two weeks he has insulted several allies- hanging up on the Australian Prime Minister or threatening to send troops into Mexico to their President, imposed a Muslim ban, appointed all those he said he wanted to "drain the swamp of" and carried out a military attack decided over dinner and what proved to be a big mistake.
He also has the liars going on political talk show after talk show telling bold face lies or in Trumpworld "alternative facts".
He gives the State Of The Union speech Feb. 28th. Many of us are hoping President Pence gives that speech. While scary at least he knows how to navigate politics.
There should be a congressional investigation into Trump's ties to Russia forcing him to release his tax returns. My guess is many dots could be connected after seeing them. How he has thumbed his nose at this so far with very little push back just blows my mind.
Everything he is doing seems to be in his own financial interest.

[Stuart X.Hunter]

No mention of Saudi Arabia escaping the suspension? Innocent I guess...

Of course there is...you just cherry picked from it.
I didn't feel the need to spell out Wahab-do-you-call-it-ism.
Equally with the thinking aloud phrase "...truthful or deceptive..." there is room for counter debate.

I'm not nailing my flag to the pole saying what is done is 100% right, honest and just.
Nor am I saying it's diabolical, treacherous and a savage invasion of human rights and values.
I'm saying that it appears sensible.
Like breathing space.

[TheWarmth]

Here's some good news:

On Thursday the GOP-controlled House voted to overturn an Obama administration rule designed to keep firearms out of the hands of some people deemed mentally ill.

The action was the latest move by congressional Republicans to undo several of President Obama's regulations on issues such as gun control and the environment through an arcane law called the Congressional Review Act.

According to NPR's Susan Davis, the measure being blocked from implementation would have required the Social Security Administration to send records of some beneficiaries with severe mental disabilities to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System. About 75,000 people found mentally incapable of managing their financial affairs would have been affected.

The National Rifle Association had pushed for the repeal, and Republicans argued it infringed upon Second Amendment rights by denying due process.

Supporters of the rule argued it was designed to stop mentally ill persons from getting firearms.

"The House charged ahead with an extreme, hastily written, one-sided measure that would make the American people less safe," Rep. Elizabeth Esty, D-Conn., said, according to The Hill. Esty represents Newtown, Conn., where a mentally ill man shot and killed 20 6- and 7-year-olds and six adults.

However, Republicans argued that the rule was unfair to some would-be gun owners.

"This is a slap in the face for those in the disabled community because it paints all those who suffer from mental disorders with the same broad brush," said Republican House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, as reported by USA Today. "It assumes that simply because an individual suffers from a mental condition, that individual is unfit to exercise his or her Second Amendment rights."

The American Civil Liberties Union actually sided with Republicans in urging the repeal of the rule, writing in a letter to members of Congress that, "We oppose this rule because it advances and reinforces the harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, a vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent."

The measure now goes to the Senate, where it needs only a simple majority to pass.

NPR's Nathan Rott reports that the Senate also passed a resolution to undo the Obama administration's Stream Protection Rule, also largely along party lines, by using the review act. The goal of the rule was to minimize coal mine pollutants in waterways and would have required coal companies to monitor water quality in nearby streams during mining operations. Republicans argued the law was too burdensome and would kill jobs in the coal industry.

[runcible]

No mention of Saudi Arabia escaping the suspension? Innocent I guess...

Of course there is...you just cherry picked from it.
I didn't feel the need to spell out Wahab-do-you-call-it-ism.
Equally with the thinking aloud phrase "...truthful or deceptive..." there is room for counter debate..

I am also finding your posts difficult to understand. Saudi Arabia isn't on the suspension list. You didn't mention it but said Islamic fundamentalism or radical Islam I'm afraid is born and bred from those countries who are temporarily suspended. Yet a good chunk of the funding behind IS is Saudi-based. But no suspension for Saudi Arabia.

[flokie]

^I find it confusing too.
I don't see how any of it can be defended. Strong vetting was already in place, and clearly effective.
Tbh I am confused about the antagonism towards Iran - in fact that was one of my main worries if Hillary had been elected, the Middle East doesn't need any escalation and widening of conflict does it . Coming from Trump/Bannon with their ties to Russia it's a bit more unexpected.
And if this were about keeping Americans safe, why has Trump not mentioned the terrorist attack in Quebec yet, why has he relaxed background checks for gun sales, and why has he decided that the counter-terrorist program should purely focus on Islamism and turn a blind eye to white nationalism? ( http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-t ... SKBN15G5VO )

Of obvious concern too is all his repeals of environmental legislation.
The relaxation of banking regulations because his rich pals find it hard to borrow.
And how does his repeal of legislation requiring mining and oil companies to disclose payments made to foreign governments help fight corruption?
And there's probably more but that's what's filtered through to me this side of the pond.

Then there's the obvious misinformation/alternative facts - sorry I meant straight out lies bullshit.
The reframing of public debate.
What is super worrying both in the US and the UK is to see elected representatives who clearly don't grasp what "democracy" means, or if they do, are happy to pervert the meaning.
"We won STFU that's democracy!!!" Well no, it's anything but. Democracy means the opposition gets a voice. And a healthy democracy relies on an informed electorate.

Now it's neo-liberal economics that got us into this mess. But seeing 'liberal' as an insult really gets me too. I'll also agree the right-wing spectrum means next to nothing nowadays - as mainstream parties and mainstream media all embraced neo-liberal economics, and until Brexit we had a right-wing government here that was very socially liberal.
UKIP have somehow managed to combine social conservatism with neo-liberal economics as their electorate is too thick to understand the contradiction ( seeing immigration as a purely social issue when really it combines both social and economic issues). At least in France FN are more consistent as they're consistently anti-liberal.(On that topic, wtf is wrong with the BBC, who seem to be bigging up Le Pen as much as they did Farage.).

Anyway rant over for now. I've been flu-ish for a week and it's possible time off work left me spending too much time on Twitter...

[Hedspace]

intermission

[flokie]

intermission

[mkb]

I'm not nailing my flag to the pole saying what is done is 100% right, honest and just.
Nor am I saying it's diabolical, treacherous and a savage invasion of human rights and values.
I'm saying that it appears sensible.
Like breathing space.

I'm of the opinion that this action could only appear sensible if completely divorced from everything the new administration has said and done, both since coming to power and beforehand (and even then, I wouldn't agree that it does appear sensible, but I'd understand the viewpoint a little more).

I mean, let's fast-forward to the end of this temporary suspension. What's the scenario? Are the US government going to have conducted some checks on refugees that are more thorough than the existing vetting process or something? I genuinely don't understand.

[rapideye]

So apparently the constitution has got in the way and Trump isn't going to get away with it so easy. Only one thing for it...repeal the constitution and create a new country...Trumpland. You've probably heard that in North Korea they can only have certain styles of haircuts? Well the only choice in Trumpland will be the 'combover'. Fear setting in yet? Imagine your children with 'combovers'. That should do it.

[jack white]

I feel that Trumps rhetoric & language is misguided & irresponsible at the very least.

Also, that our politics, & world order, are a very sad reflection of our humanity or lackthereof.


But, furthermore, it's an interesting time to be living through. I'd love to be a history student 40/50/60 years from now looking back on this time. Reminds me of the classic Hank Williams song I'll Never Get Out of This World Alive. Also lends credence to the notion we're just living in a simulation/hologram..

[runcible]

But, furthermore, it's an interesting time to be living through. I'd love to be a history student 40/50/60 years from now looking back on this time. Reminds me of the classic Hank Williams song I'll Never Get Out of This World Alive.

I have thought about this too and I completely agree. The political happenings immediately after the EU vote were so compelling as each day brought new back-stabbing and crazy career politics on a scale I can't ever remember. It is continuing with the chaos of Trump. In times to come this era will be looked back on with fascinated horror (unless the Hank Williams song is genuinely prophetic!).

[simonkeeping]

However many of those who have carried out attacks have visited these countries (Yemen, Syria, Somalia) prior to attacking. There's also the argument that they've been influenced or radicalised by nationals of those countries.
Agree with your point that it is about stopping acts of terrorism but Islamic fundamentalism or radical Islam I'm afraid is born and bred from those countries who are temporarily suspended. We should know as we encouraged there prevalence for our ends in the not so distant past.

I accept that America has many other issues however on this occasion the opportunity for the current administration to do something swiftly to stop bad things happening existed as a result of the previous administration.

Someone mentioned that America already has in place rigorous checks but is it enough.
Of course we can't man-mark entrants and generally most people are good and play by the rules.
However, despite the likelihood of danger being low the severity of danger doesn't reduce.
The only way it reduces is by not doing it.
.

I'd say yes - the rigorous checks are probably enough given that no person/persons from any country on the banned list has carried out a terror attack on US soil in 16 years. The most recent terror attacks were carried out by US nationals, there is also a question (especially in the Miami incident) of mental health playing a part.

Closing borders and alienating a group of people due to their beliefs and the where they happen to live is not the answer. IS/Daesh whole ethos is about east and West not being able to live to together, not being incompatible. All this does is carry out those beliefs, it also creates second class citizens of any person in those countries - which then surely makes radicalisation easier if you're made to feel that the US have singled you and your country out but you've done nothing wrong.

And, as we've seen in the UK (since Brexit) it empowers racists to act on their beliefs (one mosque has already been burnt down in Texas) as they feel it is about keeping people out of 'their' country who they think are different and therefore pose a threat to them and their way of life.

[Hedspace]

I'd say yes - the rigorous checks are probably enough given that no person/persons from any country on the banned list has carried out a terror attack on US soil in 16 years. The most recent terror attacks were carried out by US nationals, there is also a question (especially in the Miami incident) of mental health playing a part.

You’re 55 Times More Likely to be Killed by a Police Officer than a Terrorist
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/ ... orist.html


jah bless

[semisynthetic]

There have been reports on CSpan and a few media sites that showed investigation into "who did what when", a troublesome gathering of data on the very points argued most over the temporary ban of 7 countries. After looking for "the latest report(s) on..., I saw this; 2 hours old when I saved it. My phone will not easily transfer such reports anymore; so I left out the cartoons and usual "visuals". The Senate Reports showed a number of points of interest.

Did The Judges Lie: New Report Finds 72 Terrorists Came From Countries Covered By Trump Ban

by Tyler Durden
Feb 11, 2017 8:59 PM
Twitter
Facebook
Reddit
The federal judge who halted President Donald Trump's travel ban was wrong in stating that no one from the seven countries targeted in Trump's order has been arrested for extremism in the United States since the 2001 terrorist attacks. In fact, as a new report finds, 72 individuals from the seven 'mostly Muslim countries' covered by President Trump's "extreme vetting" executive order have been convicted of terrorism since 9/11.



As AP first reported, during a hearing in Seattle last week, Judge Robartasked a Justice Department lawyer how many arrests of foreign nationals from the countries have occurred since 9/11. When the lawyer said she didn't know, Robart answered his own question: 

"Let me tell, you, the answer to that is none, as best I can tell. You're here arguing on behalf of someone that says we have to protect the United States from these individuals coming from these countries and there's no support for that."
And now, having denied President Trump's appeal, claiming his policy "would cause irreparable injury," would cause irreparable injury, it seems the entire premise of the seven "mostly muslim" nations' mostly-peaceful, non-terrorist ways are in doubt as The Center for Immigration Studies shows that...

A review of information compiled by a Senate committee in 2016 reveals that 72 individuals from the seven countries covered in President Trump's vetting executive order have been convicted in terror cases since the 9/11 attacks.
 
In June 2016 the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, then chaired by new Attorney General Jeff Sessions, released a report on individuals convicted in terror cases since 9/11. Using open sources (because the Obama administration refused to provide government records), the report found that 380 out of 580 people convicted in terror cases since 9/11 were foreign-born. The report is no longer available on the Senate website, but a summary is available here.
 
The Center has obtained a copy of the information compiled by the subcommittee. The information compiled includes names of offenders, dates of conviction, terror group affiliation, federal criminal charges, sentence imposed, state of residence, and immigration history.
 
The Center has extracted information on 72 individuals named in the Senate report whose country of origin is one of the seven terror-associated countries included in the vetting executive order: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The Senate researchers were not able to obtain complete information on each convicted terrorist, so it is possible that more of the convicted terrorists are from these countries.
 
The United States has admitted terrorists from all of the seven dangerous countries:
Somalia: 20
Yemen: 19
Iraq: 19
Syria: 7
Iran: 4
Libya: 2
Sudan: 1
Total: 72
 
According to the report, at least 17 individuals entered as refugees from these terror-prone countries. Three came in on student visas and one arrived on a diplomatic visa.
 
At least 25 of these immigrants eventually became citizens. Ten were lawful permanent residents, and four were illegal aliens.
 
These facts stand in stark contrast to the assertions by the Ninth Circuit judges who have blocked the president's order on the basis that there is no evidence showing a risk to the United States in allowing aliens from these seven terror-associated countries to come in.
Finally, we reminder readers that while Charles Kurzman, a sociology professor at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, says his research shows no Americans have been killed in the U.S. at the hands of people from the seven countries - Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen - since Sept. 11, it's not quite right to say no one from those nations has been arrested or accused in an extremist-related plot while living in the U.S.

23 percent of Muslim Americans involved with extremist plots since Sept. 11 had family backgrounds from the seven countries.
So Judge claims ZERO but in fact the number is 72... Those darn 'alternative facts' are such trouble... or is it racist, sexist, mysoginist, and bogoted when the liberal judiciary is fact-checked?

[mkb]

Do you have a source or link for that article? It doesn't seem to state what people have been convicted of (and I'd be interested to read more) - the fact that the author is someone using the alias "Tyler Durden" doesn't inspire confidence.

[semisynthetic]

Yes, I agree; besides, I do not like his editorializing so common now in "reporting" either. The MAIN point involves those people who committed or planned terrorist acts; below is the Senate List from the original report, their sentences, any known Terrorist Affiliation, and each persons country of origin, et cetera. These reports have been commented about for several days on CSpan, and mention on other media, but the reports from the Senate were ongoing, and not reported in length until February 10-11th.

It took me several attempts to gather this one link, (one) reason my Posts have had numerous "apparent edits"; my olde phone just drops out, and I must start again to correct any omissions or spelling. I have focused on the Data Link only.

A complete list of individuals discussed as terrorists are seen in the list of Senate Data made available, below.

http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/Terr ... iciary.pdf

The 72 specific individuals convicted are found on yet another list compiled within the Link that Sprezent was kind enough to Post.

[spzretent]

The article is from here.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-1 ... -trump-ban

[semisynthetic]

Thank you, Spzretent! I need a new phone.

[MODLAB]

zerohedge is a terrible place to even think about believing things.

[olan]

zerohedge is a terrible place to even think about believing things.

This is a mild understatement. Speaking from a professional viewpoint for the first time ever on this site, the Finance stuff is at best fodder for rumourtrage. The news is highly dubious and the opinion pieces are laughable and regularly appear to support the most risible of conspiracy theories. IIRC the guy who is thought to have founded the site is a hedge fund trader who was disbarred for less than ethical dealings. The Tyler Dugden byline is a composite of a fairly large number of people, most of whom are unknown. 'If you don't know the source you shouldn't cite the results' is a fairly simply rule of thumb that even my undergraduate students follow when doing research. I wouldn't usually recommend believing the press, but I would prefer to use the NY Times, Washington Post or similarly reputable US journals, or The Guardian, Telegraph or FT in the UK. At least the political bias is overt and long-standing.

I was most amused to read that the Daily Mail is regarded as being so unreliable in terms of factual reporting that even Wikipedia refuses to use it as a resource currently. Speaking of Wikipedia, here is what they say about zerohedge:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge I wouldn't believe anything I read on Wikipedia without checking the facts and claims. This is straightforward to do. Zerohedge is a very, very unreliable base from which to mount any sort of credible argument.

[MODLAB]

zerohedge is a terrible place to even think about believing things.

This is a mild understatement. Speaking from a professional viewpoint for the first time ever on this site, the Finance stuff is at best fodder for rumourtrage. The news is highly dubious and the opinion pieces are laughable and regularly appear to support the most risible of conspiracy theories. IIRC the guy who is thought to have founded the site is a hedge fund trader who was disbarred for less than ethical dealings. The Tyler Dugden byline is a composite of a fairly large number of people, most of whom are unknown. 'If you don't know the source you shouldn't cite the results' is a fairly simply rule of thumb that even my undergraduate students follow when doing research. I wouldn't usually recommend believing the press, but I would prefer to use the NY Times, Washington Post or similarly reputable US journals, or The Guardian, Telegraph or FT in the UK. At least the political bias is overt and long-standing.

I was most amused to read that the Daily Mail is regarded as being so unreliable in terms of factual reporting that even Wikipedia refuses to use it as a resource currently. Speaking of Wikipedia, here is what they say about zerohedge:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge I wouldn't believe anything I read on Wikipedia without checking the facts and claims. This is straightforward to do. Zerohedge is a very, very unreliable base from which to mount any sort of credible argument.

Olan – the amount of bullshit that is going on right now through every social orifice is mind blowing.

Be scared people be very scared.


Best,

M

[semisynthetic]

A few hours after seeing that report, which does contain Data I had heard iterations of numerous times on CSpan, I found the original that this Tyler person took and added the unnecessary editorials to. I had never heard of that site, and I would have no reason to know they were, in other cases, dishonest. I did not like the misspelled words, nor the "added extra", but the graphs were familiar, as were the numbers given.

I do NOT usually rely on the Internet for news; but seeing the numbers were consistent and correct with the Government Reports I had listened to, and can be seen to have originated from the Senate Report using DOJ and other Government sources.

If the data is now available, from the writer of the original report, why not have some thought as to what was compiled, who was on it and what they did? Considering the 9th Circuit is overturned 80% of the time, and "zero" was their argument, the various compilations of names and crimes et cetera, all of which are more reliable than opinion alone.

Would the taxpayers of the UK like to take care of these criminals? The cost in that alone may be worth some discussion of "professional opinions on monetary points", something that I never mentioned, and seems a tangential point (above) regarding this Data. As for me, if I had not repeatedly heard these numbers on CSpan and other reports, I would never have used the Internet Article. As I wrote before, I did not like this editorializing when he had the Data, but the media as a whole, is generally biased in a way I have not seen before. It is not surprising that so many people are not quick to believe much of what is so blatantly biased and often untrue. Unfortunately, the retractions receive far too little attention.

Better to consider that this Data was too "hot", and definitively not of the continuing narrative of the last administration for them to bother publishing what the people of the USA should have known without the time consuming and expensive collating of Data by the Senate. Better to know how many persons committed and were found guilty of. As for myself, this is the extent of my "Social Media", my favorite SITE.

"See no Evil", "Hear no Evil", "Say no Evil"?

Jessica M. Vaughn wrote the original article, using what the Senate Report produced. I ordered the Senate Report to read for myself.

I believe that many of the "believable" Media listed above will not print any truths not on THEIR narratives or political philosophies, regardless of the Truth of the information. Journalism has been devalued by these journalists themselves, and their outlets, and an important and useful 1st Amendment Tool has been hurt by those in the media; they have repeatedly shot themselves in the foot by preferring ideology to any Truths that contradict what they prefer. Too bad for all of us. Perhaps the worst offenders will be weeded out by their lies and ideology or covert (or overt) collusion with one political party over another; they should simply stick to reporting the News. The Editorial Page is the place for opinion in true journalism, and not blurring the lines between news and propaganda, it hurts all sides in the end. That would be at least some good coming from all of this gnashing of teeth.

Have Fun.

[semisynthetic]

Olan is quite right about the validity of sources.

There is a great difference between Academics in say, Physical or Medicinal Chemistry than in what is very loosely considered "Journalism".

Every detail, every equation, every structural analysis must be correct; other researchers are depending on Truthful Reporting in these sciences. It must be checked and rechecked before even being considered for sending the work in to a journal to be published. It may take weeks or years depending on the topic. It is better to be second with good, reproducible work than to be first at any cost.

Modern "journalism" seems obsessed with being first, and worry about accuracy later. That is a flaw that can destroy a scientist's reputation - but sadly, a flaw that can help make the reputation of one who writes. Maybe it is simply easier to trick those obsessed by the "correct" ideology, whatever that is, than to fool a Physicist with a poorly written mathematical Proof that is in error; or attempt to fool a Organo-Metallic Chemist with structures that are patently incorrect or give erroneous and impossible to reproduce yields, or reaction conditions so vague they are not usable. Those few who try are cast out, for presenting such falsehoods knowingly will ultimately destroy that researcher or even an entire field of research.

What keeps a "journalist" of today from omissions or innuendo or stretching the truth by writing a point in a purposefully dishonest manner? A few get fired and then rehired by some paper or media who likes their ideology and methods.

These are points that no grad student or full professor with their senses intact would do with their research or references in an honest and ethical Work or field of endeavor.

[spzretent]

After 4 weeks of this Presidency I wonder out loud how people who voted for Donald Trump can still show up at rallies and vocally support a compulsive liar, a bully, the most narcissistic racist xenophobe ever to hold a high office.
I am not shouting, I am not even angry anymore. I'm am embarrassed as an American.
What is wrong with these people?
Every day it is something else. Keeping your VP out of the loop on important information, a firing/resignation, a tweet, a gestapo like deportation crew, a 77 minute unhinged news conference, a nominee telling them no after the inner circle would not agree to give the guy a direct line to Trump to which he said "thanks, but no thanks". They they tried to get him to reconsider but after watching the 77 minutes of lunacy he just bailed completely. Another tweet. Oh yeah, also a closed door meeting with the head of the FBI to which an investigation into Russia will be at the core. Another tweet. And this was just this week!
This has turned out to be way worse than predicted.

[toomilk]

I just don't think his supporters know. Most of them get their news from Fox News, which doesn't come out and report what is actually going on (or "fake news" as Donald likes to call it). When you compare the headlines of the NYT or even BBC News with Fox News, the latter is clearly biased and will do anything to push his agenda with little or not criticism (and it's not very ambiguous why they're doing it) . When the CNN and the NYT were calling out his lies about his inauguration numbers, Fox News' top headline was that a writer for Saturday Night Live tweeted that Barron Trump would be the "first home school shooter."

Ultimately, I think the truth of the matter is that a lot of people in the US are racist, xenophobic bigots and they like what they are hearing from Trump. It's fucking sad. He is giving the sign to a lot of people that it's ok to be racist. It's ok to be prejudiced. And if someone is questioning you, it's their fault not yours. It's rolling back all the progress this country has made since WWII. I think it's anti-American. These are not my values, not should they be the values of our federal government.

They are on the wrong side of history, but we are all going to have to pay the price for their mistakes.

[simonkeeping]

Ultimately, I think the truth of the matter is that a lot of people in the US are racist, xenophobic bigots and they like what they are hearing from Trump. It's fucking sad. He is giving the sign to a lot of people that it's ok to be racist. It's ok to be prejudiced. And if someone is questioning you, it's their fault not yours. It's rolling back all the progress this country has made since WWII. I think it's anti-American. These are not my values, not should they be the values of our federal government.

Great post Toomik.