Trump II

[Alan Goldhammer]

I don't see money returned to taxpayers as unconstitutional if their kids are not educated in a public school but rather in a private or religious school .   That's basically what a voucher does.   Basically the government is just giving a tax deduction for your kid that is not public school educated.  It similar to when you take a dependent deduction on your 1040 return for each child you have.  The government doesn't tell you where to spend the deduction money.  You can spend it for your dependent kids to learn something or drink it away in a bar.   How you spend the voucher or education credits to educate your kid is your business as long as the school meets education standards of the State in which you live.  The government is not imposing any religious test or requirement on you so there's no constitutional implication.  You decide what you want to do with the money in how to educate your kids.  Why should others tell you what to do?  It's none of their business. 

As an aside, voucher or tax credits are usually less than what it costs to educate the student in a public school.  So the public school system saves additional dollars that can be used for the kids that remain.

Charter schools take money away from the global school budget and go to the charter school.  This is fine for the charter school which might have enrolment criteria that all students in the city might not be able to meet.  However, the rest of the schools have to do with a budget that is lowered by the amount of money that flows to the charter schools.  This would be OK if the charter schools all performed at or beyond expectation.  The reality is that many charter schools do a poorer job than the public schools and in many cities are closed down.  this ends up being a waste to tax payer money.

Vouchers only go so far.  I know that the private schools in Washington DC have tuition in the $20K or more region.  I believe that Sidwell where the Obama girls went is now $25K/year.  I don't think anyone is talking about vouchers that high.  You say the public school system saves money for the kids who remain.  Where do you think the money for the vouchers is going to come from?

[JNB_Rare]

From Newsweek:

RIGHT-WING EXTREMISTS ARE A BIGGER THREAT TO AMERICA THAN ISIS

Hum, any chance we can get Trump to ban right-wing extremists in America?

Naw, he just wants to ban travelers from those 7 Muslim majority countries and let right-wing wingnutz free range...hum, has Trump even condemned the Trump admirer that murdered those 6 Muslims in that Quebec City mosque?

Oh, yeah...this is what the White House said: "We condemn this attack in the strongest possible terms," White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Monday afternoon. "It's a terrible reminder of why we must remain vigilant and why the president is taking steps to be pro-active, rather re-active, when it comes to our nation's safety and security."

Trump did tweet "A new radical Islamic terrorist has just attacked in Louvre Museum in Paris. Tourists were locked down. France on edge again. GET SMART U.S." on Feb 3 but has yet to tweet about that Quebec City mosque.

The tragic events of Quebec City are a stark reminder of the effect that divisive, xenophobic politics and policies can have anywhere in the world. In terms of actually improving homeland security, many agree that the effect of the travel ban will be miniscule. However, a number of security experts point out that it certainly plays into the narrative used by terrorist recruiters. And it further emboldens the alt-right, white nationalists, and violence-prone lone-wolves. It makes them feel "safe and supported" in their bigoted convictions, to hear and see the President and his administration's rhetoric and actions. While I fully support a nation's right to security and defense, I firmly believe that to focus on division, play upon fears, and use tweets to justify it, is simplistic and counterproductive.

When the President seems to routinely use canards as a rhetorical strategy, it makes one wonder what the real purpose of the Executive Order might be. Some would suggest that Trump is simply following through on his campaign promises and, on the surface, this would seem to be the case. But there may be much more to it than that.

a) It seems to be a trial balloon to test the President's power, particularly with respect to orders that segment society based on religion and culture (tempered by economic interests, of course).

b) It plays consistently to the narrative that terrorists are only Muslim. It fits lock-step with the President's rhetoric that Iran is the seat of terrorism. One wonders what would happen if that confrontation were to become more active? I wouldn't be surprised to see alt-right calls for Muslim internment camps, as was done with the Japanese during World War II. "You know, folks, you just can't trust them". Interestingly, Iran is one area where Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin seem to be at odds.

c) It perpetuates the fear that America is under attack, and infers that the current intelligence and security communities are incompetent and in need of help from Trump and his team who "know better". I think Trump and Bannon want firm control of the intelligence apparatus, to set their own agenda and priorities. "WE will tell YOU where the danger lies, who to keep tabs on, who we want you to mess with." The question is, do you trust them?

d) It infuriates and unhinges social liberals, causing a few to lash about in regrettable and ineffectual ways. While cooler heads organize legal challenges and retrench for longer-term vigilance and effective change, the President tweets to belittle and bully the opposition, and to preemptively lay the blame for any future terrorist acts at its feet.

e) It makes the guileless feel safer. "Trust me. Believe me. Don't worry about it. The world's a bad place, but we're going to fix it. That's what I do. I fix things. We'll make it better. Believe me. It's true." Years ago I worked for a company with a VP who said stuff like this. I was immediately skeptical. He turned out to be a sociopath (or maybe NPD?) who attacked and undermined colleagues, and sabotaged operations so he could play the saviour. He exhorted his sales staff to lie to customers. He was instrumental in destroying that company. Fortunately for me, I worked for a different VP and never came under personal attack, but we ALL lost out in the end. Now, this kind of patter gives me the "willies".

f) It distracts from other items that are (or seem to be) on the administration's agenda:

- scale back consumer protections
- scale back environmental protections
- scale back health care assistance for the most vulnerable
- claw back women's rights
- claw back LGBT rights
- claw back worker's rights
- work toward "corporatizing" education
- give massive tax cuts (which disproportionately advantage the already rich)
- claw back funding of social programs (which diminishes the standard of living and quality of life of the poor and lowest economic strata)

In my own country, I'm following the debates for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. It's interesting (alarming?) to watch what some of the candidates have "learned" from the U.S. election, and the strategies that some employ to differentiate themselves. Some want to focus on whether or not public employees can wear the niqab. Some want additions to the citizenship process and/or oath. One seems to implore us to outsource our interests to the "economic elite". This is the same individual who posted a video of himself gleefully firing a series of automatic weapons at a Miami gun range on the day of the funeral for three of the Quebec City shooting victims. Oops! Personally, I hope that this dark and disturbing world vision and brand of politics makes little headway here. For my friends and (distant) relatives in the United States, I sincerely hope for the best.

[Raul_82]

Charter schools take money away from the global school budget and go to the charter school.  This is fine for the charter school which might have enrolment criteria that all students in the city might not be able to meet.  However, the rest of the schools have to do with a budget that is lowered by the amount of money that flows to the charter schools.  This would be OK if the charter schools all performed at or beyond expectation.  The reality is that many charter schools do a poorer job than the public schools and in many cities are closed down.  this ends up being a waste to tax payer money.

There have been quite a few scandals concerning charter schools, embezzlement being the most common one, some charter schools had to close doors after the first few weeks, leaving a bunch of students hanging in the air.

[Kevin Gallagher]

Here's a list of his executive actions and memorandums as of Feb 3rd (you can check what they mean HERE)

20. “Fiduciary rule” delay
19. Reviewing financial regulations
18. Cutting regulations
17. Lobbyist bans
16. Reorganizing the top security councils
15. Plan to fight ISIS
14. Blocking refugees and all visitors from some countries
13. Reshaping the military
12. Border wall
11. Deportations and sanctuary cities
10. Review manufacturing regulations
9. American steel in pipelines
8. Speeding up environmental reviews for all priority infrastructure
6 + 7. Speeding approval of Dakota Access and Keystone Oil Pipelines
5. Federal hiring freeze
4. TPP.
3. Abortion
2. Regulation freeze
1. ACA rollback




Well about #14

"In 2011 via executive order, Obama suspended travel from these same countries (that’s where Trump got the list from) for twice as long, six months, yet there were no objections on the Democrats part, no invections about his unsuitability for office, no protests, no riots and destruction of property, no suggestion of unconstitutionality, no calls for impeachment, no rabble rousing by the media, etc. And why not! Because he was a Democrat, the first black president, the media and liberal’s darling, who could do no wrong!

So why now all this against Trump’s essentially identical executive order but of shorter duration? Bitterness, revenge, being sore losers, anything to divert, misinform, deceive about its intent, anything to disparage and disrupt the new administration! A very sad commentary about Democrats and an easily led, easily misinformed, easily deceived bunch of liberal lemmings!"

But don't let facts get enter into the discussion. As far a the "tantrums" I referred to in my earlier post it was directed at those in the opposite camp that haven't stopped stamping their little feet, missing classes,  and crying like spoiled children.

Kevin in CT

[Alan Klein]

Charter schools take money away from the global school budget and go to the charter school.  This is fine for the charter school which might have enrolment criteria that all students in the city might not be able to meet.  However, the rest of the schools have to do with a budget that is lowered by the amount of money that flows to the charter schools.  This would be OK if the charter schools all performed at or beyond expectation.  The reality is that many charter schools do a poorer job than the public schools and in many cities are closed down.  this ends up being a waste to tax payer money.

Vouchers only go so far.  I know that the private schools in Washington DC have tuition in the $20K or more region.  I believe that Sidwell where the Obama girls went is now $25K/year.  I don't think anyone is talking about vouchers that high.  You say the public school system saves money for the kids who remain.  Where do you think the money for the vouchers is going to come from?

I don't understand your point.  Maybe you can clarify.  If voucher money comes out of the public school budget, the charter school pays for teachers and other services out of it.  The global school system is not teaching those kids so they save money on teachers.  So there's a saving for the global system. 

Of course the global system has other costs such as providing space, security, utilities, etc  to the charter school that should also be reimbursed by the charter school.  Frankly, the overarching issue that no one wants to talk about is that charter school teachers are not union.  So the objection to charters is from the union directors, union teachers and union supported politicians.    It's all about power and money.  No one really cares about the kids except the parents.

[James Clark]

You're quite right about facts not entering the discussion, at least on this specific point.  And amusingly so regarding who the "easily led, easily misinformed, easy deceived.." are.  (Edit - there are certainly people on both sides of the equation that meet that description...) 

To clarify:

1) Obama's 2011 order didn't ban anyone.  It slowed new visa applications from Iraqis while at the same time re-examining some previously issued visas in response to some identified holes in the vetting process.  The process DID slow down significantly.

2) The other countries were not part of this process, but rather were part of a program to tighten a visa *waiver* procedure.  Meaning that it's more accurate to say that prior to Obama's changes some of these people could travel *without* visas, much as we (US citizens) do to Canada, for example, but Obama changed that.   In actuality, there's practically no equivalency.   

3) What this DOES mean, however, is that claims that Obama was allowing "open borders" and had practically no oversight on those entering the country from areas that generate terror are nonsense.

Carry on.

So why now all this against Trump’s essentially identical executive order but of shorter duration? Bitterness, revenge, being sore losers, anything to divert, misinform, deceive about its intent, anything to disparage and disrupt the new administration! A very sad commentary about Democrats and an easily led, easily misinformed, easily deceived bunch of liberal lemmings!"

But don't let facts get enter into the discussion. As far a the "tantrums" I referred to in my earlier post it was directed at those in the opposite camp that haven't stopped stamping their little feet, missing classes,  and crying like spoiled children.

Kevin in CT

[Alan Klein]

The tragic events of Quebec City are a stark reminder of the effect that divisive, xenophobic politics and policies can have anywhere in the world. In terms of actually improving homeland security, many agree that the effect of the travel ban will be miniscule. However, a number of security experts point out that it certainly plays into the narrative used by terrorist recruiters. And it further emboldens the alt-right, white nationalists, and violence-prone lone-wolves. It makes them feel "safe and supported" in their bigoted convictions, to hear and see the President and his administration's rhetoric and actions. While I fully support a nation's right to security and defense, I firmly believe that to focus on division, play upon fears, and use tweets to justify it, is simplistic and counterproductive.

When the President seems to routinely use canards as a rhetorical strategy, it makes one wonder what the real purpose of the Executive Order might be. Some would suggest that Trump is simply following through on his campaign promises and, on the surface, this would seem to be the case. But there may be much more to it than that.

a) It seems to be a trial balloon to test the President's power, particularly with respect to orders that segment society based on religion and culture (tempered by economic interests, of course).

b) It plays consistently to the narrative that terrorists are only Muslim. It fits lock-step with the President's rhetoric that Iran is the seat of terrorism. One wonders what would happen if that confrontation were to become more active? I wouldn't be surprised to see alt-right calls for Muslim internment camps, as was done with the Japanese during World War II. "You know, folks, you just can't trust them". Interestingly, Iran is one area where Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin seem to be at odds.

c) It perpetuates the fear that America is under attack, and infers that the current intelligence and security communities are incompetent and in need of help from Trump and his team who "know better". I think Trump and Bannon want firm control of the intelligence apparatus, to set their own agenda and priorities. "WE will tell YOU where the danger lies, who to keep tabs on, who we want you to mess with." The question is, do you trust them?

d) It infuriates and unhinges social liberals, causing a few to lash about in regrettable and ineffectual ways. While cooler heads organize legal challenges and retrench for longer-term vigilance and effective change, the President tweets to belittle and bully the opposition, and to preemptively lay the blame for any future terrorist acts at its feet.

e) It makes the guileless feel safer. "Trust me. Believe me. Don't worry about it. The world's a bad place, but we're going to fix it. That's what I do. I fix things. We'll make it better. Believe me. It's true." Years ago I worked for a company with a VP who said stuff like this. I was immediately skeptical. He turned out to be a sociopath (or maybe NPD?) who attacked and undermined colleagues, and sabotaged operations so he could play the saviour. He exhorted his sales staff to lie to customers. He was instrumental in destroying that company. Fortunately for me, I worked for a different VP and never came under personal attack, but we ALL lost out in the end. Now, this kind of patter gives me the "willies".

f) It distracts from other items that are (or seem to be) on the administration's agenda:

- scale back consumer protections
- scale back environmental protections
- scale back health care assistance for the most vulnerable
- claw back women's rights
- claw back LGBT rights
- claw back worker's rights
- work toward "corporatizing" education
- give massive tax cuts (which disproportionately advantage the already rich)
- claw back funding of social programs (which diminishes the standard of living and quality of life of the poor and lowest economic strata)

In my own country, I'm following the debates for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. It's interesting (alarming?) to watch what some of the candidates have "learned" from the U.S. election, and the strategies that some employ to differentiate themselves. Some want to focus on whether or not public employees can wear the niqab. Some want additions to the citizenship process and/or oath. One seems to implore us to outsource our interests to the "economic elite". This is the same individual who posted a video of himself gleefully firing a series of automatic weapons at a Miami gun range on the day of the funeral for three of the Quebec City shooting victims. Oops! Personally, I hope that this dark and disturbing world vision and brand of politics makes little headway here. For my friends and (distant) relatives in the United States, I sincerely hope for the best.

So you spent all this time and a long essay focusing on Trump's immigration policy when a French-Canadian citizen killed 6 Muslim-Canadians in the French-Canadian town of Quebec City where twenty years ago the French Canadian Province of Quebec tried to breakoff from Canada totally and nearly caused a civil war there.      Maybe you should focus on your own problems.

[Alan Klein]

The edit got messed up.  The point I was making is that no one in America has killed Muslim-Americans in a terrorist attack like the one that occurred in Canada.  Trying to blame Trump immigration policy for Canada's bigoted attack on Muslims is an insult to America and you should straighten out the bigotry in your own country and not try to blame America and others for Canadian bigotry.

[Alan Goldhammer]

I don't understand your point.  Maybe you can clarify.  If voucher money comes out of the public school budget, the charter school pays for teachers and other services out of it.  The global school system is not teaching those kids so they save money on teachers.  So there's a saving for the global system. 

There is no net savings at all.  If the school budgets $10K for a 100 students (make the math easy) the global budget is $1M.  20 kids go to a charter school and that school gets $200K while the public school is left with $800K.  That's the way it works in Washington DC which is the system I'm familiar with.  Other districts may have a different way of funding.

Frankly, the overarching issue that no one wants to talk about is that charter school teachers are not union.  So the objection to charters is from the union directors, union teachers and union supported politicians.    It's all about power and money.  No one really cares about the kids except the parents.

Union or non-union is irrelevant.  It's whether the teachers are committed along with the school district.  As I already noted our country school system is first rate.  Very few kids attend private schools other than the parochial schools (both Catholic and Jewish).  There has never been a drive for charter schools and the teachers that our two girls had were all very committed to educating.  Similarly the public schools in northern Virginia are also excellent and I think the STEM magnet high school, Thomas Jefferson is regarded as one of the top ten high schools in the country.

[Farmer]

  My question is can  you set up a parliamentary system in a Federal system like the US if you have a weighted electoral system where smaller states have more electoral votes?  Second question, how can you have a multiparty system in an electorally weighted system like the US? The 51% requirement to become President forces a two party arrangement.  How would you get around that with a Parliamentary system?

Yes, of course you can.  The EC is voting for the head of state only.

Other countries use a run-off system for presidential elections - if no one candidate gets over 50%, then the top two are voted on again.  The other way to do it is with preferential voting (as we have here), wherein each candidate provides an order of preference in the event they don't get enough votes (so that their votes flow to another candidate) and voters can either use that order or they can preferentially order all the candidates themselves.  We've been doing this long since before computers, and now it's really quite quick and easy to crunch the preferences to get a result, particularly in a relatively small field (our senatorial elections can have dozens of candidates with preferences).

[Alan Klein]

There is no net savings at all.  If the school budgets $10K for a 100 students (make the math easy) the global budget is $1M.  20 kids go to a charter school and that school gets $200K while the public school is left with $800K.  That's the way it works in Washington DC which is the system I'm familiar with.  Other districts may have a different way of funding.
Union or non-union is irrelevant.  It's whether the teachers are committed along with the school district.  As I already noted our country school system is first rate.  Very few kids attend private schools other than the parochial schools (both Catholic and Jewish).  There has never been a drive for charter schools and the teachers that our two girls had were all very committed to educating.  Similarly the public schools in northern Virginia are also excellent and I think the STEM magnet high school, Thomas Jefferson is regarded as one of the top ten high schools in the country.

Your figures are wrong.  The vouchers are not equal to but are less than the public school cost so the difference is a saving to the global school system.  And it is a union issue because money that goes to charter schools and their non-union teachers doesn't go to union teachers and union officials.  Also, union dues are less overall because there are less union teachers so that's another reason unions object to charter schools. 

[Morris Taub]

So, while I was writing my respectful response to a member's post, stuff got heated and the thread was closed. But since I took the time to write a respectful post with lots of info, I'm going to try a new post and ask that we stick to a healthy, respectful debate on the issues and resist the temptation of personal attacks (well, except to attacks on Trump :~)

So, he's my post as written: (thank goodness I wrote it in a document so I didn't lose it when the thread was closed)

You may be right...but I'm not sure Trump voters really knew what they were voting for because it's really hard to know what Trump truely stands for in many cases because over the years he has flipped and flopped about. It's also hard to know what he actually believes because he's a serial liar–Politifact tracked him last year and ranked him as mostly false, false or pants on fire a whopping 69.6%. So, only about 30% of what comes out of his mouth is true. Hard to really know, ya know? Heck, even Kellyanne Conway said we "should judge Donald Trump based on “what’s in his heart” rather than “what’s come out of his mouth”. The problem is it's hard to know what's in his heart.

But say they knew what they were doing when they voted for Trump. Unfortunately, the people who voted for Trump represent only 27% of of the eligible voters. Of the total of 231,556,622 eligible voters, only about 60% (138,884,643) voted. That means 92,671,979 (40%) who didn't vote and the 65,979,879 who voted for Hillary were out voted by 62,979,879 of the voting population. That means the majority of the eligible voters didn't vote for Trump. That doesn't sound like much of a mandate to me...

Point in fact, Trump just barely won. If not for about 80K voters in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania that gave Trump the electoral votes required to win, Hillary would be President now.

One can debate all you want about why, but I'm pretty sure that Russia hacking the DNC computers and Podesta's email and James Comey's handling of the email server investigation and several states' attacks on voting rights (read voter suppression) had a negative impact on the Democratic Presidential Candidate's campaign. It didn't help that Hillary didn't even bother to visit Wisconsin and didn't really get out and connect with the people who Obama was able to connect with.

So, Trump is President. But he's not my choice and I don't have to accept what he is trying to do. My goal is to help generate the action and political will to get those people who didn't vote off their asses and get involved for the midterm elections to regain control of the Senate, mitigate the House and make sure Trump can't do everything he has said he wants to do because I think it's wrong for the country.

I want to see progressives (Democrats or Independents) organize in a way similar to the way the Tea party organized after Obama was elected. I saw an article in the NYT called The Alt-Majority: How Social Networks Empowered Mass Protests Against Trump that is a sign of the times (I know, Trump thinks the NYT is fake news but hey, I think he's a fake person).

I'm not going to accept Trump's attempts at reshaping America into his likeness. I reject "Alternative Facts". I reject accepting Trump's lies as the new normal. I reject having a President who suffers from a mental disability called Narcissistic Personality Disorder (from Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM5)). I even wrote a post on Facebook in case you want to read more about NPD.

I can only hope that the GOP can somehow get Trump to quit being CEO of a closely help corporation that steps on everybody but answers to nobody and learn how to become a President of all Americans. If you voted for Trump, I hope you are right but fear you are wrong. Sadly the Doomsday Clock has moved to just 150 seconds from midnight–the closest setting to doom since 1953.

I'm an old white guy with money who stands to benefit by what Trump is likely to do (short of all out nuclear war) but that doesn't mean I want that for my country...so far it seems everything he's done has been at the expense of the little guy and instead of draining the swamp he's refilling the water with his own brand of billionare cronyism. Really, nominating Steven T. Mnuchin for Treasury secretary is gonna get rid of the swamp?

So, I'm going to work to bring about change. I'm an old hippy at heart. I actually walked in anti-Vietnam War marches (ok, it was only the last 2 years before the war ended, but I marched). My wife and my daughter walked in the Woman's March here in Chicago–I supported them and the other 250K that walked but couldn't make it. I donated money and joined the ACLU for the first time in my life and I'm going to write letters and work in support of the NEA, PBS and NPR. I'm actually thinking of marching in Washington on Earthday to support the The March for Science. What Trump and his Trumpets are trying to do to the EPA and climate science is truly scary. So, who's with me? What other Americans are going to step up and take action?

It's our country and we should be willing to work to bring about change...if you don't then you deserve what you get...Donald J Trump-President of the United Staes of America. Is that what ya want? Really?

Thanks for this Jeff. Agree 110 percent. Dark days on the american landscape...

[JNB_Rare]

So you spent all this time and a long essay focusing on Trump's immigration policy when a French-Canadian citizen killed 6 Muslim-Canadians in the French-Canadian town of Quebec City where twenty years ago the French Canadian Province of Quebec tried to breakoff from Canada totally and nearly caused a civil war there.  Maybe you should focus on your own problems.

Thank-you; we most certainly are, and most certainly will continue to focus on our not inconsiderable problems. Here's part of one recent newspaper editorial (Toronto Star):

But the most encouraging thing in the wake of the shooting is that Quebec’s political leaders and news media are finally taking a hard look in the mirror. They’re starting to openly acknowledge their own role in creating an atmosphere of suspicion and hostility towards Muslims.

A decade of toxic debates about supposed threats to Quebec values, about hijabs and niqabs and “reasonable accommodation,” has taken its toll. No one yet knows exactly why the shooter did what he did, but the poisoned rhetoric undoubtedly created a climate in which hate can more easily flourish and extremists can find justification for their feelings.

For far too long, Quebec politicians and commentators have gone into a defensive crouch whenever anyone (especially an outsider) points out the streak of Islamophobia that has run through the province’s political discourse. Any suggestion that the province has a special problem is just more “Quebec bashing,” they insisted.

But the massacre at the mosque is a turning point, the moment for some long-overdue soul-searching.

To his credit, Premier Philippe Couillard has opened the debate by acknowledging that Quebec, like all societies, has to deal with its “demons” – and “these demons are named xenophobia, racism, exclusion.” Importantly, he pointed out that the way public figures talk about social issues can have hurtful effects in the real world: “Words can be knives slashing at people’s consciousness.”

That’s a vital reminder to politicians who have cynically played on voters’ fears for their own benefit. Couillard’s own government has proposed a law that would ban veiled women from receiving government services; he could follow up his fine words by backing away from any such action, which just fuels public fear to no good end.

This is not a problem for the province of Quebec alone. As I pointed out, some candidates for our federal Progressive Conservative Party leadership seem to promote the same rhetoric. You can be sure that they will not get my support, even if they succeed in winning the leadership race.

Part of my point is that this is an international problem. We are too connected through media for it to be otherwise. Hate groups exist world-wide; they normalize aberrant behaviour and attitudes for their following. Canada struggles along with other countries in defending free speech and ideas, and guarding against the promotion of bigotry and hatred – the things that spur a disturbed mind to heinous acts. The problem is that messages can be misappropriated, and careless rhetoric can be misconstrued. The fact that Alexandre Bissonnette, an admirer of Donald trump, committed this act two days after the signing of the travel ban, just as it was really heating up in the media, is probably a coincidence. It seems that he's harboured Islamaphobic thoughts for a while. But, like it or not, what the President of the United States says and does, and the manner in which he says and does it, is followed around the world, and has consequences at home and abroad.

It is not my intent to insult America. An act of terrorism (regardless of who carries it out, or wherever it is carried out) sickens me, as I'm sure it does you. As the article implies, I believe it's time for responsible politicians, the media, and society to think very carefully about the impact of their voice and actions. Perhaps you will disagree. I will not continue to try to convince you. All I hope for is that you think about the efficacy of this Executive Order in advancing homeland security beside its farther-reaching political impact.

[Alan Klein]

...
It is not my intent to insult America. An act of terrorism (regardless of who carries it out, or wherever it is carried out) sickens me, as I'm sure it does you. As the article implies, I believe it's time for responsible politicians, the media, and society to think very carefully about the impact of their voice and actions. Perhaps you will disagree. I will not continue to try to convince you. All I hope for is that you think about the efficacy of this Executive Order in advancing homeland security beside its farther-reaching political impact.

  I appreciate your balanced response.  Despite all the terrorist attacks in America, and my sister lost her daughter on 911, most Americans, myself included, do not harbor ill will toward people of the Muslim faith.  However, we have a right to protect ourselves from further violence from those Muslims who still want to kill us.  There will always be those, like the Canadian,  who will take action into their own sick hands and use their own problems to hurt innocent people.  But I think that's unavoidable.   Their sickness and acting out however should not stop the rest of us from taking appropriate action to protect ourselves.  That would be foolish.

[Schewe]

But don't let facts get enter into the discussion.

Yes, let's not since what you said was, in fact, not a fact. I won't bother to respond to your alternative facts because James Clack did a great job of that. But I would ask you where you got your "facts"?

Was it from a Trump surrogate or perhaps stated on Fox News or perhaps, shudder at the thought, http://www.breitbart.com?

I ask because, well and this is important, if you haven't noticed, Trump and his surrogate lie...not only do they lie, when they get caught in a lie they go right ahead and lie about it. It's called "doubling down". As I said before during the campaign, Politifact determined Trump lied about 69.6% No, you might be temped to write them off as a Fake News but PolitiFact has won a Pulitzer prize for, well, telling the truth about liars...

So, I recently read an opinion in the The Guardian that seems to make a lot of sense...Trump’s lies are not the problem. It’s the millions who swallow them who really matter.

One phrase hits it on the head:

"Compulsive liars shouldn’t frighten you. They can harm no one, if no one listens to them. Compulsive believers, on the other hand: they should terrify you. Believers are the liars’ enablers. Their votes give the demagogue his power. Their trust turns the charlatan into the president. Their credulity ensures that the propaganda of half-calculating and half-mad fanatics has the power to change the world."

So, maybe you think I'm a leftwing wing nut? Nope...personally I'm fiscally conservative but socially liberal. I'm more of a libertarian. The problem with most libertarians is there is little to no chance they can win any serious elections. So, call me a bit more if an "independent" sort of like Joe Lieberman was and like the way Bernie Sanders is. Yes, I voted for Bernie but of course, Chicago, IL went big time for Hillary.

The point I'm trying to make is that people have to exercise good judgment and not blindly follow anybody.

When it comes to news: be skeptical, check the author, check the publisher, check the sources. Don't get your news single sourced...

I watch CNN and Fox News...take what I hear and assume the truth is somewhere in the middle (leaning towards CNN as more balanced).

I also go to web sites like ProPublica (a non for profit news web site) as well as Breitbart (which is decidedly for profit-wanna buy a Breitbart hoodie). I also check out British newspapers and the BBC as well as The Economist to see what the world thinks about what we're doing.

The one thing I try really REALLY hard is to avoid the Echo Chamber where the only things I see and read are things hand picked for me based on social media or google algorythims determination that these times would be news I would be inclined to agree with.

Yes, it takes work to be well informed. You can't simply go to the place where they tell you what you want to hear because it makes to feel good about yourself. You have to challenge everything and everybody and have the conviction to stand up for your own beliefs and convictions. As I'm doing now...I seriously wish I had started this effort earlier last year–I bet a lot of people are kicking themselves right now for not working harder or making the effort to vote. But rumination won't impact the future, effort will.

Edit to fix ProPublica link

[Otto Phocus]

I also go to web sites like ProPublica (a non for profit news web site)

Thanks for posting that link.  It looks like an interesting site worth checking out.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The edit got messed up.  The point I was making is that no one in America has killed Muslim-Americans in a terrorist attack like the one that occurred in Canada.  Trying to blame Trump immigration policy for Canada's bigoted attack on Muslims is an insult to America and you should straighten out the bigotry in your own country and not try to blame America and others for Canadian bigotry.

American geopolitics (and Russian and some others) are a major feeding ground for radical Jihadists. The Muslim ban (masqueraded as immigration policy) is a major help to those hate preachers for recruitment, and also for home-grown terrorists who get their indoctrination fake news from the internet.

For instance, why Iran, and not Saudi-Arabia on the Ban-list? Geopolitics, for oil, and for weapons delivery, and for regional influence.

The Trump administration (supported by the Republican party representatives in congres) feeds the negative sentiments around the world, as well as at home.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Their sickness and acting out however should not stop the rest of us from taking appropriate action to protect ourselves.  That would be foolish.

Appropriate action... Not feeding radical extremist sentiments. Who could be opposing that? But that's not what is happening.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I ask because, well and this is important, if you haven't noticed, Trump and his surrogate lie...not only do they lie, when they get caught in a lie they go right ahead and lie about it. It's called "doubling down". As I said before during the campaign, Politifact determined Trump lied about 69.6% No, you might be temped to write them off as a Fake News but PolitiFact has won a Pulitzer prize for, well, telling the truth about liars...

So, I recently read an opinion in the The Guardian that seems to make a lot of sense...Trump’s lies are not the problem. It’s the millions who swallow them who really matter.

I agree with most of that article, and your post. Which is exactly the reason why Trump disqualifies the media as unfair bringers of biased news, only to discredit him, by going over their head directly to the believers via Twitter. Good quality investigative reporting (which is more important than ever before) is a threat to him, because it exposes his lies.

His mental condition does not see his alternative facts as lies, they are an integral part of the likely condition he's suffering from. But by bypassing the media verification (just like daily security briefings, or critical judges), he can remain living in his imagination bubble, and probably gain some support for his views by, as the article describes them, "compulsive believers".

And yes, the compulsive believers are at least as responsible for the developing situation, because they are the liars’ enablers. The Republican Party's paralysis in free thinking, due to 'the wrath of Trump', will only help to further reduce the checks-and-balances that Congress is supposed to offer. It's the axe at the roots of the political democracy, as flawed as it already was.

Cheers,
Bart

[stamper]

You can gripe all you want but he won the election.  All the attacks are pretty meaningless and are just sour grapes.  If he doesn't perform, he'll be voted out of office in 2020.  If he performs, he'll be voted in until 2024.  So you got him for 4 or 8 more years. 

He will implode long before that. His hubris will get the better of him and he will do something to get impeached. Another Nixon?