The Donald Trump Thread

Roberta brought this up a few pages back...but to be honest I don't think is really a fair argument as the probability doesn't consider - as David points out - how many people could ultimately be killed if a terrorist is bold enough - or really just lucky enough. Each attack inspires bolder attempts. Additionally, even if the probability of being killed by a drunk driver was low I would still expect the law to regulate the problem - same with terrorism as there is no need to compound the probability of death.

That said, I think Trump's clumsy attempts to deal with the problem aren't going to solve much of anything and will likely make things worse.

I think your response here suggests a lot of people don't understand the point me and the other poster who made the same point are making with these comparisons.

I'm not saying that terrorism isn't something to be vigilant about and to take steps to try to prevent from happening. I'm saying the amount of attention it gets, how afraid people are of it, and how much is done in relation to it, is objectively massively over the top. The table posted is to illustrate that even something like a bath has actually killed more people then terrorism.

And if it's really about saving lives, why hasn't America severely restricted gun ownership to try to bring down the amount of domestic shootings? Or why don't you regulate your food industry better to try to bring down obesity level deaths? And don't get me started and deaths caused by air pollution!

We have to as a species, at least try to stop letting fear and tribal prejudices run the way we do things (not saying this specifically applies to you).
 
Yes we live in a democracy, but we should fight like hell against a newly elected president for doing exactly what he promised!"

I agree that there is a hell of a lot of self satisfied wringing of hands and shaking of heads, mostly from the 'losing' side. "How can we allow such an evil to flourish?" seems to be the message. 'Evil flourishes when good men do nothing.' That is the message all over Facebook.

I fear that if we were somehow able to see all the facts about all of us laid out before us, we might be embarrassed. We are outraged when a few thousand people are prevented from travelling to or from one country. The whole western world is in uproar. But there is not a peep from anyone when a truck bomb kills tens or hundreds in Iraq. What does this mean? The uk is quite prepared to turn a blind eye to loads of things, including torture, when it suits us. Yet it is the second coming of Hitler when Trump says and does things that we don't think is civilised behaviour?

I keep saying that I'm no fan of Trump, it is true, I'm not. But again I'm looking at our overall behaviour on the planet, or certain bits of it, and I'm not seeing much love. More ego, having to 'be right', blatant hypocrisy, selfishness etc.

I think some quiet self reflection is needed, that's all.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that 9/11 happened roughly as in the official account. If those people had not been permitted to come to the US, 9/11 would not have happened, meaning that in all probability the second war on Iraq would not have happened, and years of bloodshed in the Middle East would have been avoided.

Well, as Saudi isn't on his banned list, this is an empty argument imo. Trump and the others have learned nothing, his actions will only stir the flames.
 
Last edited:
I agree that there is a hell of a lot of self satisfied wringing of hands and shaking of heads, mostly from the 'losing' side. "How can we allow such an evil to flourish?" seems to be the message. 'Evil flourishes when good men do nothing.' That is the message all over Facebook.

I fear that if we were somehow able to see all the facts about all of us laid out before us, we might be embarrassed. We are outraged when a few thousand people are prevented from travelling to or from one country. The whole western world is in uproar. But their is not a peep from anyone when a truck bomb kills tens or hundreds in Iraq. What does this mean? The uk is quite prepared to turn a blind eye to loads of things, including torture, when it suits us. Yet it is the second coming of Hitler when Trump says and does things that we don't think is civilised behaviour?

I keep saying that I'm no fan of Trump, it is true, I'm not. But again I'm looking at our overall behaviour on the planet, or certain bits of it, and I'm not seeing much love. More ego, having to 'be right', blatant hypocrisy, selfishness etc.

I think some quiet self reflection is needed, that's all.



Well, as Saudi isn't on his banned list, this is an empty argument imo. Trump and the others have learned nothing, his actions will only stir the flames.

I know plenty of people that express anger, and protest about other things that have happened abroad, the march against the Iraq war in the UK comes to mind. The 'left' usually does bang on about torture, wars abroad etc - but is criticised from all quarters for doing so. I agree that some 'liberals' (Clinton supporters) are complaining but are silent about other things though.

Also the ban on travel may seem like not a big deal to you, but to the people it affects, it can be life changing. Our very own greatest long distance runner, Mo Farah (a refugee) now can't enter America, things have gone mad in ways people haven't seen in a while.
 
I know plenty of people that express anger, and protest about other things that have happened abroad, the march against the Iraq war in the UK comes to mind. The 'left' usually does bang on about torture, wars abroad etc - but is criticised from all quarters for doing so. I agree that some 'liberals' (Clinton supporters) are complaining but are silent about other things though.

Oh yes, there is no shortage of anger. What I'm saying is anger is not the way. In my opinion it is anger for angers sake that we're seeing. If we could remove all that anger I think the world would be a very different place. What I am seeing, is an anger that's tribal in nature.

Also the ban on travel may seem like not a big deal to you, but to the people it affects, it can be life changing. Our very own greatest long distance runner, Mo Farah (a refugee) now can't enter America, things have gone mad in ways people haven't seen in a while.

Of course it does, but are a few people so affected really worth the unbelievable uproar? People are killed by the hundreds every minute. 'Things have gone mad....' NO - people have gone mad. That's what I'm saying!

Exactly my point! We are more interested in Mo Farah than in what really matters!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Red
Well there are suggestions that the ban should extend to some/all of those countries.

Well, he won't because he had numerous business ties to Turkey and Saudi Arabia - Trump has hotels in Turkey, and Erdogan knows he can impede on DT interests. For instance, following the attempted coup last year, the Turkish president requested Fethullah Gülen be extradited for his purported role in the events. Obama refused, his officials requested evidence. Trump however seems more favourable to extraditing Gulen, if he doesn't Erdogan can take action against his interests, causing Donald to possibly lose millions. Trump is basically malleable by a foreign government

http://europe.newsweek.com/donald-trump-foreign-business-deals-jeopardize-us-531140



America will be a lot greater if it can really stop creating trouble all over the globe. Remember that Obama was in power when the US started arming terrorists (a.k.a moderate fighters) in Syria - his administration is probably responsible for the entire catastrophe.

The only person responsible for the catastrophe in Syria is Assad. Who, rather than step aside like in Tunisia and Egypt, decided to cling onto power by cracking down on the populace. The reason why Obama didn't want to launch strikes against Assad was because shock horror, he didn't want to bog the US into another long term conflict in the Middle East.

When WW2 broke out, the UK detained all Germans that happened to be in our country for the duration of the war.

I'm not sure that's necessarily a precedent we should be setting frankly.

Part of the problem here, is that people don't recognise that we aren't in a completely peacetime situation. Remember that most of these people are not refugees - they are people who chose to immigrate, and some of them hate us enough to run trucks through families watching fireworks. Even if you would be willing to contemplate this happen to those you love, don't forget that a few incidents like that could ignite civil strife on a horrible scale.

David

I'm not against vetting, hell, the US process takes two years. But giving into fear and making the situation worse, which is what this ban is doing is not the solution.
 
Oh yes, there is no shortage of anger. What I'm saying is anger is not the way. In my opinion it is anger for angers sake that we're seeing. If we could remove all that anger I think the world would be a very different place. What I am seeing, is an anger that's tribal in nature.



Of course it does, but are a few people so affected really worth the unbelievable uproar? People are killed by the hundreds every minute. 'Things have gone mad....' NO - people have gone mad. That's what I'm saying!

Exactly my point! We are more interested in Mo Farah than in what really matters!

The world would be better without anger, but also without actions that cause anger.

People haven't gone mad, they're standing up for others, this is a good thing. Like I said - something not affecting you doesn't mean it's not a big deal. It's a big deal to others.

I'll also add it's possible to care about what Trumps doing and other things too, I manage it ;).
 
The world would be better without anger, but also without actions that cause anger.

The only thing that causes anger is ego. I'm sure this is true, but not sure how we're meant to handle it. Would the Buddha have become angry, would Jesus? I'm asking these questions without being able to answer them.

How can 'things' go mad, but not people? The only thing going mad are people!;)

You're not acknowledging my point. My point is that we prioritise things, why is this getting such a high priority ? Really, why!
 
I agree that there is a hell of a lot of self satisfied wringing of hands and shaking of heads, mostly from the 'losing' side. "How can we allow such an evil to flourish?" seems to be the message. 'Evil flourishes when good men do nothing.' That is the message all over Facebook.

I fear that if we were somehow able to see all the facts about all of us laid out before us, we might be embarrassed. We are outraged when a few thousand people are prevented from travelling to or from one country. The whole western world is in uproar. But there is not a peep from anyone when a truck bomb kills tens or hundreds in Iraq. What does this mean? The uk is quite prepared to turn a blind eye to loads of things, including torture, when it suits us. Yet it is the second coming of Hitler when Trump says and does things that we don't think is civilised behaviour?

I keep saying that I'm no fan of Trump, it is true, I'm not. But again I'm looking at our overall behaviour on the planet, or certain bits of it, and I'm not seeing much love. More ego, having to 'be right', blatant hypocrisy, selfishness etc.

I think some quiet self reflection is needed, that's all.
Yes, I agree with that.

We need to move to some sort of policy that is far more consistent. Among politicians, the inconsistency stems partly from decades of ducking and weaving around lobbyists of all sorts - money men, arms salesmen, representatives of an assortment of religious groups, just occasionally representatives of the people who elected them - all pushing for their own ends. The thing about DT is that he seems to come from outside that mess except that he is responding to the people who elected him!
Well, as Saudi isn't on his banned list, this is an empty argument imo. Trump and the others have learned nothing, his actions will only stir the flames.
Well as with any argument, there is a choice between brevity and writing at such great length that nobody reads it!

I know Saudi Arabia is not on that list, but obviously it should be. That will cause another uproar, but I have seen suggestions that the President is moving in that direction. One of the most absurd features of recent policy was that Saudi Arabia was treated as an ally, even though it has a really terrible human right record - particularly towards women and gays. Why are none of those marches directed towards the Saudi embassy? As you say Steve, the hypocrisy is amazing!

David
 
Well surely you have to ask yourself who it was who voted for Donald Trump in sufficient numbers to win him the presidency (yes I know there is a quibble about the EC etc). This is what I think a lot of people in the media and others seem to totally discount. They seem to be saying,

"Yes we live in a democracy, but we should fight like hell against a newly elected president for doing exactly what he promised!"

This seems very close to saying that there is a class of Americans whose views should not count.

The reason why I view Fox News a lot at the moment, is that they seem to understand that democracy actually means something - it means giving an elected president a decent crack of the whip, unless he/she suddenly switches to a totally different set of policies after being elected. Fox news offers some interesting perspectives - for example, here is one Muslim woman's view about the ban.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5301925722001/?#sp=show-clips

Let's assume for the sake of argument that 9/11 happened roughly as in the official account. If those people had not been permitted to come to the US, 9/11 would not have happened, meaning that in all probability the second war on Iraq would not have happened, and years of bloodshed in the Middle East would have been avoided. Carelessly letting people into a country, knowing that some intend extreme harm, can ultimately trigger awful consequences. I think ordinary Americans got that and voted the way they did.

David

This has nothing to do with the quoted part of the post you replied to?

Also the idea that people need to give a PotUS a shot to enact policies they opposed before s/he was elected in the name of democracy...it makes no sense to me? I say that whether it's people protesting Obamacare before it was enacted as well as people protesting now. I'm kinda floored that anyone would think elections demand servitude from the populace?

The idea that Trump represents ordinary Americans, whatever that means, is questionable given his low approval rating and his loss of the popular vote by approx. 3 million. Additionally many people would've been happy to vote for any Republican, and it seems even according to what I read of exit polls those people would've preferred any other Republican.

In any case, carelessly denying entry to people in an arguably unconstitutional fashion also could trigger awful consequences.
 
I think your response here suggests a lot of people don't understand the point me and the other poster who made the same point are making with these comparisons.

I'm not saying that terrorism isn't something to be vigilant about and to take steps to try to prevent from happening. I'm saying the amount of attention it gets, how afraid people are of it, and how much is done in relation to it, is objectively massively over the top. The table posted is to illustrate that even something like a bath has actually killed more people then terrorism.

And if it's really about saving lives, why hasn't America severely restricted gun ownership to try to bring down the amount of domestic shootings? Or why don't you regulate your food industry better to try to bring down obesity level deaths? And don't get me started and deaths caused by air pollution!

We have to as a species, at least try to stop letting fear and tribal prejudices run the way we do things (not saying this specifically applies to you).

X being bad doesn't make Y better, especially when there's context for why people resist gun restrictions. (Food industry one does seem down to lobbyists AFAIK.)

As David said and I referred to, probability calculations don't take into account the danger of a mass attack succeeding.

You're also assuming people have "tribal prejudices" when it seems to me they're just worried about people blowing them up or running them over with trucks.

Surely there's something in between "Islam is inherently evil" and "Fear of Islam is prejudice"? None of the ancient faiths come to us without cultural baggage (see Hinduism and gang-rape in India). If religions were video games and a good chunk of terrorist acts were done by players of a particular game, we should be able to dig into why and take some precautions to prevent future attacks.
 
About those protests

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-29/color-revolution-under-way-america

A Russian joke goes like this: “Question: why can there be no color revolution in the United States? Answer: because there are no US Embassies in the United States.

US intelligence agencies are now investigating their own boss! ... This is all absolutely crazy because this is evidence that the US intelligence community as gone rogue and is now taking its orders from the Neocons and their deep state and not from the President and that these agencies are now acting against the interests of the new President.

In the meantime, the Soros crowd has already chosen a color: pink. We now are witnessing the “pussyhat revolution” as explained on this website. And if you think that this is just a small fringe of lunatic feminists, you would be quite wrong. For the truly lunatic feminists the “subtle” hint about their “pussyhat revolution” is too subtle, so they prefer making their statement less ambiguous as the image on the right shows.
Vagina_lady-300x225.jpg

Watch how MCNBS’s talking head blissfully reporting this event:
Listen carefully to what Moore says at 2:00. He says that they will “celebrate the fact that Obama is still the President of the United States” and the presstitute replies to him, “yes he is” not once, but twice.

What are they talking about?! The *fact* that Obama is still the President?!

How is it that Homeland Security and the FBI are not investigating MCNBC and Moore for rebellion and sedition?

Make no mistake, such protest are no more spontaneous than the ones in the Ukraine. Somebody is paying for all this, somebody is organizing it all. And they are using their full bag of tricks.

My purpose in listing all the examples above is to suggest the following: far from having accepted defeat, the Neocons and the US deep state have decided, as they always do, to double-down and they are now embarking on a full-scale “color revolution” which will only end with the impeachment, overthrowal or death of Donald Trump.

One of the most amazing features of this color revolution against Trump is the fact that those behind it don’t give a damn about the damage that their war against Trump does to the institution of the President of the United States and, really, to the United States as a whole. That damage is, indeed, immense and the bottom line is this: President Trump is in immense danger of being overthrown and his only hope for survival is to strike back hard and fast.

Thought the clip very interesting and foreboding where Michael Moore and the Presstitute both agree that Obama is STILL the true president. Maybe that's why Obama decided to move back to D.C. when he previously had planned to retire to Hawaii... Needs to be close to the action to reclaim power when the coup goes down?
 
Right Scoop: Reince Priebus has NO REGRETS over omitting Jews from Holocaust Remembrance statement

"El Rinso says he has no regrets about whitewashing Jews from the holocaust while talking to Chuck Todd this morning."

Still believing those fake poll numbers, Sci?

Here's another fake poll that suits my needs so I'm going to cite it:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_jan30

He hit 59% approve last week.

Heh, touche - though I would google "Trump approval rating" and even just eyeball the aggregate.

But sure, what'll ultimately matter is the 2020 election.
 
Right Scoop: Reince Priebus has NO REGRETS over omitting Jews from Holocaust Remembrance statement

"El Rinso says he has no regrets about whitewashing Jews from the holocaust while talking to Chuck Todd this morning."



Heh, touche - though I would google "Trump approval rating" and even just eyeball the aggregate.

But sure, what'll ultimately matter is the 2020 election.

This is more fake news... Priebus didn't say he has "no regrets about whitewashing 'Jews'" out of the holocaust memorial. Did you watch the clip? He clarifies that the holocaust primarily affected the Jewish people, that it was a horrible thing that happened to them and that no offense was meant to Jewish people by the words chosen. He reiterated the fact that Trump has Jewish family members. The asshole interviewing him is trying to feed the "Trump is literally Hitler" B.S. narrative by trying to pin some crime against Jews on Trump. If Priebus expresses "regret" then that makes Trump look bad because then they can spin that to say, "even Priebus disapproves of his boss and sought to distance himself from Trumps Hitlerian conduct." Don't you see how this game works?
 
It was an opinion piece... I'll give you that.

But what do you say about Michael Moore and the MSNBC Cuck cooing about the fact that Obama is STILL the president?

Doesn't matter to me? I think it's Moore showboating as usual. I've watched some of his documentaries - some of it is interesting but often Moore's grand-standing ends up ruining his own attempts to reach out to people.
 
About those protests

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-29/color-revolution-under-way-america













Thought the clip very interesting and foreboding where Michael Moore and the Presstitute both agree that Obama is STILL the true president. Maybe that's why Obama decided to move back to D.C. when he previously had planned to retire to Hawaii... Needs to be close to the action to reclaim power when the coup goes down?
You may need to check when that interview first aired? Obama was still president then. Zerohedge is pathetic.
 
I'm not saying that terrorism isn't something to be vigilant about and to take steps to try to prevent from happening. I'm saying the amount of attention it gets, how afraid people are of it, and how much is done in relation to it, is objectively massively over the top. The table posted is to illustrate that even something like a bath has actually killed more people then terrorism.
As you constructed the statement in bold, this is your view. Clearly, there is a large population of Americans that do not share it. They seem to be truly concerned with the potential for further terrorist attacks on domestic soil.

Its also not mutually exclusive. Its plausible and likely probable that many of these same Americans with a disproportionate concern regarding terrorism (your view) are also concerned with lethal violence between citizens.

This theme of intellectual and moral superiority from the "left" is completely counter-productive. I'm not accusing you of this at all. I am reacting to what I'm seeing via social media and other media outlets. The earlier post in this thread on the "4 easy steps" was apt in this regard.
 
Back
Top