Tempra Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 25 minutes ago, Mexal said: So the EO that Trump signed tonight prioritizes Christians over Muslims while also banning refugees. Add in multiple videos of Trump saying they should have taken the oil in Iraq and this definitely won't be used to recruit more people to ISIS. Absolutely no chance of that... Yes, because 14+ years of Iraq War critics claiming America only went to war to steal Iraq's oil hasn't already maxed out the utility of that for recruiting purposes. :eyeroll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 13 minutes ago, Tempra said: Yes, because 14+ years of Iraq War critics claiming America only went to war to steal Iraq's oil hasn't already maxed out the utility of that for recruiting purposes. :eyeroll: There's a difference between the "usual suspects" political opponents of the Republicans saying that and it being vociferously denied by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush et al, and the President directly coming out and saying, "Yo mofos, it was totally about the oil and we screwed up by not getting it all", which is what Trump has now done. Trump has been outmanoeuvred and outwitted by ISIS very easily at the precise moment when they are on the back foot and on the verge of total collapse. It's quite embarrassing for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 24 minutes ago, Tempra said: Yes, because 14+ years of Iraq War critics claiming America only went to war to steal Iraq's oil hasn't already maxed out the utility of that for recruiting purposes. :eyeroll: We didn't take their oil. The President of the USA saying that on video, that can get mapped into every propaganda recruiting message is not the same thing as random Iraq critics and you know it. You know, it's ok to criticize him. You don't have to defend every action he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 Lovely. We're turning into Armageddon Insurance for America's super-rich: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/30/doomsday-prep-for-the-super-rich New Zealand already has a housing bubble that is forcing many Aucklanders to live in cars. This is not helping matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempra Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 43 minutes ago, Mexal said: We didn't take their oil. The President of the USA saying that on video, that can get mapped into every propaganda recruiting message is not the same thing as random Iraq critics and you know it. You know, it's ok to criticize him. You don't have to defend every action he does. I think you're being a bit naive if you think that comment will materially aid in terror recruitment. Look, there is already widespread belief that America invaded Iraq to steal its oil. The fact that we didn't (thanks for the acknowledgment, that is all too rare) hasn't changed that perception among our critics. Trump's comment won't be the last straw that turns a law-abiding Muslim into a radical terrorist. Don't confuse my disruption of the echo chamber with unconditional support of Trump. This board doesn't need another hysterical member of "The Resistance." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 6 minutes ago, Tempra said: Look, there is already widespread belief that America invaded Iraq to steal its oil. The fact that we didn't (thanks for the acknowledgment, that is all too rare) Actually, invading Iraq to steal oil would at least have been a rational motivation. Invading as part of a petty vendetta and a half-arsed idea of FREEDOM(TM), couched in lies about weapons of mass destruction, is a good deal less rational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkynJay Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 Please. We invaded Iraq because Cheney knew damn well who would get the cash to help rebuild after the invasion (Hello Big H). Get your conspiracy theories right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempra Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 Just now, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said: Actually, invading Iraq to steal oil would at least have been a rational motivation. Invading as part of a petty vendetta and a half-arsed idea of FREEDOM(TM), couched in lies about weapons of mass destruction, is a good deal less rational. Be careful. You sound like you agree with Trump, who we all know is Hitler, which makes you a Nazi sympathizer. According to most people who post in this thread, punching you in the face would now be a morally acceptable act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 34 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said: Lovely. We're turning into Armageddon Insurance for America's super-rich: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/30/doomsday-prep-for-the-super-rich New Zealand already has a housing bubble that is forcing many Aucklanders to live in cars. This is not helping matters. These people seriously need to see the Angry Flower Atlas Shrugged comic page, although, from reading the article, it seems that some people have already pointed the basic idea out to them. 4 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said: Actually, invading Iraq to steal oil would at least have been a rational motivation. Invading as part of a petty vendetta and a half-arsed idea of FREEDOM(TM), couched in lies about weapons of mass destruction, is a good deal less rational. It wasn't about stealing from Iraq, it was about US corporations stealing from the US government. The US spent several trillion on Iraq... but the Iraqis got maybe a few hundred billion (if that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samantha Stark Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 7 minutes ago, Tempra said: Be careful. You sound like you agree with Trump, who we all know is Hitler, which makes you a Nazi sympathizer. According to most people who post in this thread, punching you in the face would now be a morally acceptable act. Trump is literally Hitler. But he sucks at being the new Hitler so far. Where are the blitzkriegs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempra Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 Just now, Samantha Stark said: Trump is literally Hitler. But he sucks at being the new Hitler so far. Where are the blitzkriegs? Trump uses executive orders instead of Panzers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 He's only on day seven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 18 minutes ago, Altherion said: It wasn't about stealing from Iraq, it was about US corporations stealing from the US government. The US spent several trillion on Iraq... but the Iraqis got maybe a few hundred billion (if that). Well, a lot of them got dead, but that's just splitting hairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 Refugee thing already hurting people left and right. Here's a great story about how a set of refugees that was due in on Tuesday is now SOL. Quote The family -- two parents and four children ages 6 through 15 -- were scheduled to fly from a refugee camp in Turkey on Monday and arrive in Cleveland Tuesday afternoon, according to Danielle Drake, community relations manager for the local branch of the US Together refugee resettlement agency. However, those plans had to be scrapped after Trump signed an executive order limiting refugee immigration. Thank goodness Trump is saving people from living in Cleveland. Also, the ban is worded so that even if you do have a green card or visa for a trip to the US, if you are from the named countries and happen to be outside of the US, well, you can't get back in for at least 90 days. This could affect up to 500,000 students and green card holders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toth Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 8 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said: This post suggests that a little knowledge might be as bad as none. You can certainly draw some similarities between Trump and Hitler, but there are legions of differences too. I'm not sure what sense it makes to say someone could be the next Hitler if they are not even Austrian/German, running for office in Germany and facing a similar historical/geostrategic situation. Why not fear Trump will be the next Louis XIV or Napoleon Bonaparte (although I guess there was actually another one of those). Or, is the 'Trump could be the next Hitler' just a way of saying that Trump could be the next demagogue to bring down a democratic system and replace it with a tyranny (there are plenty of other examples of this)? Why asking when you already know the answer? It would be insanity to claim that history would ever repeat under the exact same circumstances. But you can't deny that we live in a time where populism is on the rise and the trust in the flexibility of democracies is on an all-time low. The factors are the same. And Trump is in a very good position to erode the American democracy, even though unlike Hitler I am less scared of him as of his advisors. Comparing him to Louis or Napoleon would be laughable for this exact reason. Those two monarchs were extremely cunning, Trump most certainly is not. I would actually rather compare Putin to Napoleon, though I do that mostly in regards to having an ambitious and scarily competent workoholic in charge. And as I said, in the best case they are just a bunch of corrupt leeches. The most powerful con-artists imaginable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Ent Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 Back to restricted immigration. If this NY Times op-ed is to be believed (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigration-ban-is-illegal.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0) then a restriction of immigration based on nationality violates The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. If this analysis is correct, the American government can’t follow Trump’s executive order to curtail immigration from a number specified countries (so as to curtail muslim immigration). Now what? The first thing then would be to take steps to repeal the 1965 act, and I am not sufficiently well informed about US matters to understand the requirements for that, nor the timeframe. An alternative is, as @Kalbear and I mentioned a few pages back, to continue the US focus on skills-based restriction. Since the countries in question grossly underperform, this would maintain the de facto US ban on economically (and, one hopes, culturally) useless migration. The problem with this is that it only works partially—radicalisation in Europe often happens one generation after immigration, and many islamists are perfectly well-educated engineers. The extreme position would then be to completely stop immigration for a while. This would have a notable economic effect, and also a very negative effect on higher education. But the question is how this negative effect compares to the expected value of curtailing muslim immigration. I would assume that some European countries can provide useful models for analysing such a trade-off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamMe90 Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 11 minutes ago, Happy Ent said: Back to restricted immigration. If this NY Times op-ed is to be believed (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/opinion/trumps-immigration-ban-is-illegal.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0) then a restriction of immigration based on nationality violates The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. If this analysis is correct, the American government can’t follow Trump’s executive order to curtail immigration from a number specified countries (so as to curtail muslim immigration). Now what? The first thing then would be to take steps to repeal the 1965 act, and I am not sufficiently well informed about US matters to understand the requirements for that, nor the timeframe. An alternative is, as @Kalbear and I mentioned a few pages back, to continue the US focus on skills-based restriction. Since the countries in question grossly underperform, this would maintain the de facto US ban on economically (and, one hopes, culturally) useless migration. The problem with this is that it only works partially—radicalisation in Europe often happens one generation after immigration, and many islamists are perfectly well-educated engineers. The extreme position would then be to completely stop immigration for a while. This would have a notable economic effect, and also a very negative effect on higher education. But the question is how this negative effect compares to the expected value of curtailing muslim immigration. I would assume that some European countries can provide useful models for analysing such a trade-off. What "expected value" is that? Muslim immigration into America is not a huge, ubiquitous, problematic phenomenon for the US right now. So, as for a comparison of value: shutting down immigration completely and suffering the effects you've noted to solve a problem that doesn't currently exist. I would say that's a bad trade off; at least, I don't see why it's any better than just keeping the already strict immigration protocols that the US currently enforces in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 9 hours ago, Swordfish said: I don't even know what you mean by this. He's already president. He doesn't even really need his rank and file supporters anymore, but i think your optimism that they will at some point stop supporting him is deeply flawed, just as it was during the primaries. How many times during the campaign did we hear Trump supporters saying that he didn't really mean this, or wouldn't actually do that? Now he's in power, that at least changes. People can no longer tell themselves that Trump's rhetoric is just rhetoric when he's signing executive orders to put it into effect. So there's one significant difference. Another is that Trump is no longer running against anyone. He can still denigrate his opponents, of course, but his usual party trick of giving them childish nicknames and deriding them on Twitter daily will be less effective, particularly as the opposition he faces is so diffuse. None of this means that Trump can be forced out or stymied, necessarily, but it's not outlandish to suggest that being in office is a different challenge for Trump, one for which he'll need new tactics. I'm guessing President Trump will set new records for low approval ratings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Ent Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 1 hour ago, IamMe90 said: Muslim immigration into America is not a huge, ubiquitous, problematic phenomenon for the US right now. Exactly. It is for Europe, which is why this aspect of Trump’s policies, and the renegotiation of the frame of the Overton window in the wake of this presidency, is particularly interesting from a European perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
protar Posted January 28, 2017 Share Posted January 28, 2017 14 hours ago, Swordfish said: She may have the right of it. I don't think that Trump has any particularly deep seated moral imperatives in any of his policies, he seems to mostly want to have his ring kissed, but I suspect that once you've kissed it, he can be influenced. it may be significantly more effective to deal with him that way than to confront him directly. That's why it may have also been a mistake for democratic members of congress to skip the inauguration. i don't think this is the time to put principal ahead of pragmatism. But of course that's pure speculation on my part. I disagree. Trump is not a president who should ever be normalised. You treat his ilk as though what they're doing and saying is okay and you give them legitimacy. Obviously I understand the delicacy of her situation - the relationship between the US and the UK is one of the most important relationships between two countries in the world. She can hardly trash the special relationship that's lasted centuries because of one president's four years. But now is the time for other world leaders to be firm and strong. She had a perfect opportunity in that press conference to make clear the areas where she opposed trump and she didn't take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.