Pages: 1 ... 47 48 [49] 50 51 ... 331   Go Down

Author Topic: Trump II  (Read 917886 times)

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Trump II
« Reply #960 on: February 28, 2017, 11:52:50 am »

My brother and I have been saying this for years. We don't see any difference between the batsh*t crazy bible-belters and "radical" islamists, whatever "radical" means anymore.

I recommend Elmer Gantry by Sinclair Lewis.
and of course we also have the wonderful 'Church' of Scientology which started off as a prank by L. Ron Hubbard.
Logged

Otto Phocus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 655
Re: Trump II
« Reply #961 on: February 28, 2017, 01:20:08 pm »

Too funny, our President now thinks that President Obama is behind all the protests that are going on right now. It's an interview up on the only 'truthful' news source, Fox and Friends!!!

So President Trump does not think that journalists should be able to publish stories unless their sources are identified, but he can make statements about what he heard, or someone told him without producing evidence.  I don't think it works like that.
Logged
I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and transmits light.

JNB_Rare

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1052
    • JNB54
Re: Trump II
« Reply #962 on: February 28, 2017, 01:30:27 pm »

Poor old democracy. I think Trump and his wealthy supporters would be much more comfortable with a wealth-based oligarchy (are they working hard towards that? some would argue yes). I think there are aspects of the Russian reality that quite appeal to him. He may also see Russia as a vast untapped market for American goods or investment (no, wait, America first). I remember hearing similar things about China once.

Many fundamentalist Christians and Muslims would support a theocracy or ecclesiocracy. But which one? Christianity or Islam? Catholic or Protestant? Sunni or Shia? Evangelicals or Princeton Theology (biblical inerrancy) or Dispensationalism? Qutbism or the Salafi movement? It's interesting how the Christian evangelical "revivals" (the first and second great awakenings), sound eerily like Islamic revivalism (Islamic awakening) which is a key underpinning of jihadism. So far, the militant movements in the Islamic world have found more traction than the ones in the predominantly Christian world. IMO, xenophobic rhetoric serves to give traction to both.

Oh yes – let's not forget the Scientologists and the "Moonies", and, and...    Of course, Thomas Jefferson had a different idea.

Pluralism will always have a fight on its hands – a fight in which far too many suffer and die.
Logged

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4770
    • Robert's Photos
Re: Trump II
« Reply #963 on: February 28, 2017, 02:00:11 pm »

Poor old democracy. I think Trump and his wealthy supporters would be much more comfortable with a wealth-based oligarchy (are they working hard towards that? some would argue yes). I think there are aspects of the Russian reality that quite appeal to him. He may also see Russia as a vast untapped market for American goods or investment (no, wait, America first). I remember hearing similar things about China once.

Many fundamentalist Christians and Muslims would support a theocracy or ecclesiocracy. But which one? Christianity or Islam? Catholic or Protestant? Sunni or Shia? Evangelicals or Princeton Theology (biblical inerrancy) or Dispensationalism? Qutbism or the Salafi movement? It's interesting how the Christian evangelical "revivals" (the first and second great awakenings), sound eerily like Islamic revivalism (Islamic awakening) which is a key underpinning of jihadism. So far, the militant movements in the Islamic world have found more traction than the ones in the predominantly Christian world. IMO, xenophobic rhetoric serves to give traction to both.

Oh yes – let's not forget the Scientologists and the "Moonies", and, and...    Of course, Thomas Jefferson had a different idea.

Pluralism will always have a fight on its hands – a fight in which far too many suffer and die.

This is off-topic, sorry, but years ago there was a call here in Ontario Canada for sharia law to be incorporated into what is called Family Law here. The talk surfaced for discussion for a while, until whoever was the premier at the time shut the entire discussion down, by essentially saying that the law is not an arm of any religion. The most interesting to me at the time was how receptive to the idea were clergy from other religious groups. I remember watching a TV discussion panel where the various men of cloths were almost slobbering at the mouth for a chance at some more power to control the daily lives of their flock. Among the most receptive were religious leaders from groups who aren't keen on equality for women, I remember. Same old, same old. The old bearded geezers just can't let go, they still think they're in charge.
Logged
--
Robert

Petrus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 952
Re: Trump II
« Reply #964 on: February 28, 2017, 02:12:42 pm »

Any support for that?

I have seen the numbers mentioned many times recently. Do you not follow the news?

https://news.vice.com/story/10-plots-and-attacks-by-white-people-the-white-house-left-off-its-terrorism-list

or maybe it is just another lie...
Logged

JNB_Rare

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1052
    • JNB54
Re: Trump II
« Reply #965 on: February 28, 2017, 02:53:42 pm »

This is off-topic, sorry, but years ago there was a call here in Ontario Canada for sharia law to be incorporated into what is called Family Law here. The talk surfaced for discussion for a while, until whoever was the premier at the time shut the entire discussion down, by essentially saying that the law is not an arm of any religion. The most interesting to me at the time was how receptive to the idea were clergy from other religious groups. I remember watching a TV discussion panel where the various men of cloths were almost slobbering at the mouth for a chance at some more power to control the daily lives of their flock. Among the most receptive were religious leaders from groups who aren't keen on equality for women, I remember. Same old, same old. The old bearded geezers just can't let go, they still think they're in charge.

Yes, "freedom of religion" interpreted as the power to make some less free. Watching the presidential debates, the "defense of religious freedom" kept coming up. This appeared to be mostly a question about letting individual states decide about LGBT and other rights.

Edit: Found it – an analysis of the original debate in Ontario five years afterwards. For an editorial opinion, it's remarkable free from a siloed viewpoint.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2017, 03:27:02 pm by JNB_Rare »
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Trump II
« Reply #966 on: February 28, 2017, 03:20:44 pm »

In some ways, that's why my personal take on God has little to do with organized religions.

I settled long ago for a feeling, a sense of some kind of natural emotional instinct telling me that things do have a sort of intended path - much as outlined in the saying that what's for you won't go past you. I've found that to have held true in my own life, where things I had tried hard to achieve never did come my way, but others just fell into my lap, largely the product of having been somewhere and meeting one person who, ages later, would lead me to another and, thus, good things. Even the way I met my wife-to-be was quite extraordinary, IMO. It's as if we are plugged into our own predestined network, one we can't really work.

That there's not some broader deal going down seems too far from my observed reality. It's all I need to keep me assured.

Rob

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Trump II
« Reply #968 on: March 01, 2017, 03:32:05 am »

I do follow the news, both left and right, hence a few counter-argument articles:

http://ijr.com/2016/01/518045-a-study-showed-right-wing-extremism-kills-more-than-islamic-terrorism-then-a-real-researcher-looked-into-it/

http://www.weeklystandard.com/debunking-the-left-wing-myths-about-right-wing-extremist-christians/article/577384

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/12/the-myth-of-the-right-wing-extremist/
The tone of these counter arguments is a bit "Foxy", which doesn't help their credibility.

Also they're not saying anything about the incidents mentioned in the original link, they're mainly trying to talk down the seriousness of the right wing attacks in general vs. other attacks.
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8914
Re: Trump II
« Reply #969 on: March 01, 2017, 09:22:41 am »

The tone of these counter arguments is a bit "Foxy", which doesn't help their credibility.

Also they're not saying anything about the incidents mentioned in the original link, they're mainly trying to talk down the seriousness of the right wing attacks in general vs. other attacks.

Yes, the problem with most of such links, is that they attempt to stick simple explanations to complex issues. The 'religion label' is only too easily used to denigrade complete groups, while there only some deranged/frustrated individuals who see no better solution than murder. It's usually amongst those who hold very dogmatic believes that a number of them derail. But this is then usually not more than a symptom for other root causes of intolerance.

The solution is not a simplistic one like suggested by Trump's Muslim ban, in fact it only feeds more people in their believes that destruction is the only way to retaliation and achieve a better life (here or in afterlife).

It seems that Iran is taken off of the to be released new list of affiliations to be banned, so it either was a mistake, or financial gain dictated a different (geopolitical) route. So much for principles. Besides, it would probably still miss the mark at solving issues, since most terrorist attacks are home grown. People entering the USA with Visa, have already been vetted at the time of application, so why ban them???

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

JNB_Rare

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1052
    • JNB54
Re: Trump II
« Reply #970 on: March 01, 2017, 11:45:01 am »

It seems that Iran is taken off of the to be released new list of affiliations to be banned, so it either was a mistake, or financial gain dictated a different (geopolitical) route.

Not Iran, but Iraq.

"Four officials told The Associated Press that the decision followed pressure from the Pentagon and State Department, which had urged the White House to reconsider Iraq’s inclusion on the list given its key role in fighting Daesh." (Toronto Star)

Trump dialed back the pugnacious quality of his rhetoric quite a bit last night. So, are the usual confrontational tweets and comments a deliberate act or was his speech a deliberate attempt to rein in his natural proclivities?
Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8914
Re: Trump II
« Reply #971 on: March 01, 2017, 12:21:23 pm »

Not Iran, but Iraq.

"Four officials told The Associated Press that the decision followed pressure from the Pentagon and State Department, which had urged the White House to reconsider Iraq’s inclusion on the list given its key role in fighting Daesh." (Toronto Star)

Ah, indeed. It didn't make much sense, not that the first version of the EO did anyway. Looking forward to what will actually be presented (today...) .

Quote
Trump dialed back the pugnacious quality of his rhetoric quite a bit last night. So, are the usual confrontational tweets and comments a deliberate act or was his speech a deliberate attempt to rein in his natural proclivities?

Well, without support from the Republican majority, nothing gets implemented. Anything that does get implemented will stick to the GOP like nothing before. The repeal of Obamacare, which was supposed to be effectuated on day one, is an example. It turns out to be harder to put something better in its place.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump II
« Reply #972 on: March 01, 2017, 05:51:03 pm »

Trump pivoted and became President.   The Democrats walked out and had a retired governor give the contra speech.

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Trump II
« Reply #973 on: March 01, 2017, 06:21:52 pm »

Someone wrote him a nice speech and he basically stuck to it.  See what happens in another 30 days.
Logged
Phil Brown

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump II
« Reply #974 on: March 01, 2017, 06:32:34 pm »

OK We'll see.

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Trump II
« Reply #975 on: March 01, 2017, 09:16:51 pm »

Of course, some people who voted for him are not happy that he may be changing course or backing off (if the speech is to be believed) on some issues.
Logged
Phil Brown

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump II
« Reply #976 on: March 02, 2017, 12:41:53 am »

He is compromising on some issues.  But that's in line with his negotiation process where he starts off asking for the world.  So when he backs off, it seems that he suddenly has become so reasonable that you're willing to settle where he wanted you to settle in the first place.  No one really cares if he doesn't build a great wall as long as he can stop illegal immigration.  He doesn't want to get out of NATO.  He just said he wanted to so he can get Europe to pay more than they have and be willing to use more of their soldiers in problems rather than Americans.  He bargains down from positions of strength that are beyond what he knows he can get. 

His supporters won't care about his compromises as long as the results supports his main objectives.  I think people are smart enough and realize he has to deal with Congress, other countries,  and other stakeholders who have their own interests.   Also, when your guy won, you just give him slack because you're so happy to be on the winning side and realize how worse it would be if the other side won. 

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Trump II
« Reply #977 on: March 02, 2017, 04:51:56 am »

Those are very orange coloured glasses, Alan ;-)
Logged
Phil Brown

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8914
Re: Trump II
« Reply #978 on: March 02, 2017, 05:37:31 am »

He is compromising on some issues.  But that's in line with his negotiation process where he starts off asking for the world.  So when he backs off, it seems that he suddenly has become so reasonable that you're willing to settle where he wanted you to settle in the first place.  No one really cares if he doesn't build a great wall as long as he can stop illegal immigration.  He doesn't want to get out of NATO.  He just said he wanted to so he can get Europe to pay more than they have and be willing to use more of their soldiers in problems rather than Americans.  He bargains down from positions of strength that are beyond what he knows he can get.

How easily he fools his own constituents into believing it is all due to him. Most of the 'extra' jobs with Boeing/Ford/Dakota pipeline/etc. were largely already planned, or are temporary jobs. The increase in NATO contributions for those under the 2% GDP guideline had already been agreed upon and many countries had already been budgeted for that (over a period of 10 years starting in 2014, as agreed in the The Wales Declaration on the Transatlantic Bond). And some of that will benefit the USA military industry, we see the connection to that self-interest for Trump, but again most was already in the pipeline (also thanks to Obama who stressed the importance).

It is true that his bargaining tactics are transparent, over-ask and then pull back a bit in the hope to end higher (as if others don't see right through that).

Quote
His supporters won't care about his compromises as long as the results supports his main objectives.

Who knows what his real objectives are, besides an ego trip now that he got the job, and improve the financial situation for himself and his cronies. People keep mistaking their own objectives with those of Trump. Too much Kool-Aid?

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Trump II
« Reply #979 on: March 02, 2017, 08:39:16 am »

I always get a chuckle when I hear the President refer to the 94 million people in the US who are out of work.  Just for the record, I am one of those 94 million as are all the other retirees who are voluntarily not working, along with students, those on disability, etc.  He also used this during the campaign.  I don't know why he keeps putting up this phony stuff.  He would really do a lot better if he stuck to the facts.  I don't know if this was unscripted or not but the speech writer really should have known better.  This was one of the first thing the fact checkers nailed him on.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 47 48 [49] 50 51 ... 331   Go Up