Commodore Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 11 minutes ago, Kalbear said: You keep giving the rationale that the vetting process needed reassessment. Why? I'm not qualified to say if it needed reassessing. I just don't think it warrants this level of outrage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Holy fuck. I can't I can't I can't. Quote Several sources spoke with LGBTQ Nation on the condition of anonymity who have told us that the order will allow for discrimination in a number of areas, including employment, social services, business, and adoption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindwalker Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 6 minutes ago, Commodore said: Islamic terrorists aren't motivated by a reaction to anything we do. They believe God has commanded them to kill/conquer/convert everyone on the planet to Islam. How we feel about them is not relevant. Jihadis like KSM or ISIS are happy to explain what motivates them, and it isn't a reaction to drone strikes, or gitmo, or immigration policy, or occupation. Wrong. Destabilizing Western countries by trying to set different groups against each other, particularly non-muslims against muslims, is part of their strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Just now, Commodore said: I'm not qualified to say if it needed reassessing. I just don't think it warrants this level of outrage. I think suspending people's rights would be a pretty big deal to you as a libertarian. Especially on the grounds of completely nothing as far as we know, and certainly not on the grounds that a lot of 'bad dudes' would have applied in a 1-week time period given that the vetting process takes up to 2 years. You tell me - what is the appropriate level of outrage for banning mothers from seeing their children, or children from seeing their mothers? What is the appropriate level of outrage for banning doctors from returning to work? Or for letting people in who are looking to get treatment for illnesses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 3 minutes ago, Kalbear said: I think suspending people's rights would be a pretty big deal to you as a libertarian. Perhaps it's not an issue with the pro-torture, pro-waterboarding version of libertarianism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Queen Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Apparently there was only one shooter at the mosque in Quebec. And, surprise surprise, he's a Trump supporter. This is in French but there is a translate option. http://www.journaldequebec.com/2017/01/29/des-coups-de-feu-dans-un-mosquee-de-sainte-foy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Week Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 9 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said: Holy fuck. I can't I can't I can't. Several sources spoke with LGBTQ Nation on the condition of anonymity who have told us that the order will allow for discrimination in a number of areas, including employment, social services, business, and adoption. What was the point of all those ladies marching? What rights did anyone lose? ... Makes me want to tear my fucking hair out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 12 minutes ago, Kalbear said: I think suspending people's rights would be a pretty big deal to you as a libertarian. Especially on the grounds of completely nothing as far as we know, and certainly not on the grounds that a lot of 'bad dudes' would have applied in a 1-week time period given that the vetting process takes up to 2 years. You tell me - what is the appropriate level of outrage for banning mothers from seeing their children, or children from seeing their mothers? What is the appropriate level of outrage for banning doctors from returning to work? Or for letting people in who are looking to get treatment for illnesses? http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/039/067/5IU2E675NC5YGYV2IZZPXRPRM4Z5CP6Y20110724-22047-12yahis.gif /We're gonna need more ninjas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 3 minutes ago, Week said: What was the point of all those ladies marching? What rights did anyone lose? ... Makes me want to tear my fucking hair out. I just wonder what excuse those scumbags are going to offer. "But the women in Saudi Arabia don't even get to drive omg so shut up about your lesbo relationship and your pending adoption in a state that would love nothing more than to allow your landlord to kick you out of your rental." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/039/067/5IU2E675NC5YGYV2IZZPXRPRM4Z5CP6Y20110724-22047-12yahis.gif /We're gonna need more ninjas. Really, so much of Trump's presidency and life can be explained by the simple idea that he was unable to beat a number of video games in the 80s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 So @Commodore, are you in favor of not allowing 5 year olds in to the US as a refugee? That's what Spicer is advocating. Quote “That’s why we slow [the process] down a little,” Spicer said at the daily press briefing. “To make sure that if they are a 5-year-old, that maybe they’re with their parents and they don’t pose a threat. But to assume that just because of someone’s age or gender or whatever that they don’t pose a threat would be misguided and wrong.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 23 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Also, why Republican congress support Trump: because they're far more afraid of being primaried than losing their general, and most Republicans support Trump. A 25% "dip" is fairly minor, but what happens to a sustained 25%-or-less over months, beset by scandals, court battles, Congressional disaffection, etc.? It's a very different picture then, because I think the electorate grows well beyond those "likely voters". It's also worth considering that at some point GWB was very popular with the electorate. Those who stuck by him had a very positive recollection of this time, and may well have stuck by him for that. Trump is historically unpopular, and is very likely to remain so -- much less chance of getting a shiny glow to anyone but the most diehard-of-diehards, IMO. Unless there's some catastrophe or war where he manages to get people to rally about him, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindwalker Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 It would be a purely symbolical thing if Trump were not received by the Queen when he visits the UK, but nice nonetheless... And I believe it would infuriate him. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/171928 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, Ran said: A 25% "dip" is fairly minor, but what happens to a sustained 25%-or-less over months, beset by scandals, court battles, Congressional disaffection, etc.? It's a very different picture then, because I think the electorate grows well beyond those "likely voters". When that happens, cool beans. My suspicion is that it won't matter in the least for most of these districts because they really are just gerrymandered to hell and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindwalker Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 7 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said: I just wonder what excuse those scumbags are going to offer. "But the women in Saudi Arabia don't even get to drive omg so shut up about your lesbo relationship and your pending adoption in a state that would love nothing more than to allow your landlord to kick you out of your rental." Hmmm, let's see: 1. Freedom (to discriminate as we please) - removal of this dictatorship of pc 2. Our Children who suffer when these lifestyles are being 'promoted' OK, I really hope this is just hysteria and rumors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Doesn't this mean the opposite? That the Republicans in Congress are _more_ likely to be willing to dump Trump and survive the hit with some portion of the base, not less? If they have so successfully gerrymandered things to be very secure in 2018, I don't see this as an argument against cutting Trump loose if his misanthropic, chaotic administration causes too many legislative problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/01/30/trump-says-his-travel-ban-will-make-america-safer-our-research-shows-it-will-do-the-exact-opposite/ Quote Our research suggests they could do exactly the opposite. By dehumanizing minority group members in word and deed, Trump’s rhetoric and policies may promote the very actions that they purport to prevent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, Mindwalker said: It would be a purely symbolical thing if Trump were not received by the Queen when he visits the UK, but nice nonetheless... And I believe it would infuriate him. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/171928 Serious question not meant to offend, but does the queen even stand for anything? I mean, does she have any formal opinions about anything at all? Without any sort of opinion, I can't imagine she'd break tradition and not receive the US president. Though I guess she can claim another heavy cold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindwalker Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said: Serious question not meant to offend, but does the queen even stand for anything? I mean, does she have any formal opinions about anything at all? Without any sort of opinion, I can't imagine she'd break tradition and not receive the US president. Though I guess she can claim another heavy cold. Hopefully one of our UK friends will step in and tell us. to my limited understanding, Parliament would debate and decide whether or not she receives him. Oh, and I think she does not officially hold political opinions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaircat Meow Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said: Serious question not meant to offend, but does the queen even stand for anything? I mean, does she have any formal opinions about anything at all? Without any sort of opinion, I can't imagine she'd break tradition and not receive the US president. Though I guess she can claim another heavy cold. The suggestion isn't that she'd decide not to receive him but that the government would go back on its offer of a state visit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.022a4ba4f4aa53526e0290eedde6f808.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.