U.S. Politics Thread (2017 going forward)

[Dauerlutscher]

Originally Posted by MCAL

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/2....co/MU5TAHryYL

A good look into the "proof" Trump will be providing when he blames minorities for "crimes."

"...voters who did not look as if they should be allowed to vote, Mr. Trump said..."

Translation mode: "...voters who are not white..."

He is upset that a white non-citizen could not vote while non-white citizens could.

Statement from Bernhard Langer on what amounts to a game of telephone re: voter fraud story with Trump



But nope, Turd is just misunderstood, and maybe an imbecile liar, but definitely not a racist.


Trump Strategist Steve Bannon Says Media Should ‘Keep Its Mouth Shut’

WASHINGTON — Stephen K. Bannon, President Trump’s chief White House strategist, laced into the American press during an interview on Wednesday evening, arguing that news organizations had been “humiliated” by an election outcome few anticipated, and repeatedly describing the media as “the opposition party” of the current administration.

“The media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for awhile,” Mr. Bannon said during a telephone call.

“I want you to quote this,” Mr. Bannon added. “The media here is the opposition party. They don’t understand this country. They still do not understand why Donald Trump is the president of the United States.”

The scathing assessment — delivered by one of Mr. Trump’s most trusted and influential advisers, in the first days of his presidency — comes at a moment of high tension between the news media and the administration, with skirmishes over the size of Mr. Trump’s inaugural crowd and the president’s false claims that millions of illegal votes by undocumented immigrants swayed the popular vote against him.

Mr. Bannon, who rarely grants interviews to journalists outside of Breitbart News, the provocative right-wing website he ran until last August, was echoing comments by Mr. Trump this weekend, when the president said he was in “a running war” with the media and called journalists “among the most dishonest people on earth.”

During a call to discuss Sean M. Spicer, the president’s press secretary, Mr. Bannon ratcheted up the criticism, offering a broad indictment of the news media as biased against Mr. Trump and out of touch with the American public. That’s an argument familiar to readers of Breitbart and followers of Trump-friendly personalities like Sean Hannity.

“The elite media got it dead wrong, 100 percent dead wrong,” Mr. Bannon said of the election, calling it “a humiliating defeat that they will never wash away, that will always be there.”

“The mainstream media has not fired or terminated anyone associated with following our campaign,” Mr. Bannon said. “Look at the Twitter feeds of those people: they were outright activists of the Clinton campaign.” (He did not name specific reporters or editors.)

“That’s why you have no power,” Mr. Bannon added. “You were humiliated.”

Of all of Mr. Trump’s advisers in the White House, Mr. Bannon is the one tasked with implementing the nationalist vision that Mr. Trump channeled during the later months of the campaign, one that stemmed from Mr. Bannon himself. And in many ways Mr. Trump’s first week has put into action that vision — from the description of “American Carnage’’ Mr. Trump laid out in his inauguration speech, to a series of executive actions outlining policy on trade agreements, immigration, the building of a border wall and the demands that Mexico pay for it.



On the telephone, Mr. Bannon spoke in blunt but calm tones, peppered with a dose of profanities, and humorously referred to himself at one point as “Darth Vader.” He said, with ironic relish, that Mr. Trump was elected by a surge of support from “the working class hobbits and deplorables.”

The conversation was initiated by Mr. Bannon to offer praise for Mr. Spicer, who has been criticized this week for making false claims at the White House podium about the attendance of Mr. Trump’s inaugural crowd; for calling reporters dishonest and lecturing them about what stories to write; and for failing to disavow Mr. Trump’s lie about widespread voter fraud in the election.

Asked if he was concerned that Mr. Spicer had lost credibility with the press, Mr. Bannon chortled. “Are you kidding me?” he said. “We think that’s a badge of honor. ‘Questioning his integrity’ — are you kidding me? The media has zero integrity, zero intelligence, and no hard work.”

“You’re the opposition party,” Mr. Bannon said. “Not the Democratic Party. You’re the opposition party. The media’s the opposition party.”

[GDB]

“You’re the opposition party,” Mr. Bannon said. “Not the Democratic Party. You’re the opposition party. The media’s the opposition party.”

That's an assuring statement from the White House...

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Well the other potential is that if the US decides to go isolationist again, it will have to rebuilt its industry again and manufacturing.

Please do not forget that you need time and money to do said thing. ATM the usa has the highest debt of in its history and with china and india pushing ahead, time is a atm a luxury the usa does not have. As things are now many scientists might flee to europe or even china, since no doubt any budget for scientific research will be cut under trump. This might well be the start of a lost generation.

[Ithekro]

With isolationism, we are not talking about practical, or caring about international business and trade. The concept is the desire to make the country self sufficient and not require international trading partners for the most part. This goes along with the concepts of tariffs. Make foreign goods too expensive to import and the Americans have to buy American products.

That is a goal. Though not entirely practical. This is more or less thinking of the 1920s - 1940s in hope of the isolationist United States to be able to revamp its old glory days with industry and production coming out of every orifice. Hopefully without the world war attached it.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

This is more or less thinking of the 1920s - 1940s in hope of the isolationist United States to be able to revamp its old glory days with industry and production coming out of every orifice.

The glory days that required a World War in order to revitalize the dying/nearly dead economy?

[Demi.]

This poll shows Trumps approval rating at 59% which would be a massive rebound from his pre-presidency numbers.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...es-57-percent/
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ez_track_jan26

I know there is another that shows him with an approval rating of 39%.
However, even the poll where Trump has a 39% approval rating; "Americans are optimistic 53 - 43 percent about the next four years with Trump as president and say 44 - 36 percent that he will help rather than hurt the nation's economy."
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...pproval-rating

[KiraYamatoFan]

The Washington Times and Rasmussen Reports are pro-GOP. They are far from having the most reliable polls. I usually go have a look at Gallup for a more reliable poll in the US.

[GDB]

Trump supporters aren't allowed to like polls when they're favorable but call them fake and rigged when they're unfavorable.

Also, Rasmussen polls are pretty poorly rated by 538. While they aren't failing, they certainly don't seem reliable.

Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan

The Washington Times and Rasmussen Reports are pro-GOP. They are far from having the most reliable polls. I usually go have a look at Gallup for a more reliable poll in the US.

Washington Times didn't even poll. They literally just cited Rasmussen.

[Ithekro]

Technically the economy was revamped before the war started. What brought in the big money was arming the planet. But the economy would work prior to that as the economy was recovering prior to the US rearmament phase. It is a matter of scale.

The difference would be how such a move would effect unemployment, since what ended that during the Great Depression was the enlarged rearmament and military recruitment needed after the Europeans went to war in 1939. Today, with the US having become more of a service economy, rather than an industrial and manufacturing economy, would revamping the country to be an industrial nation again end an amount of unemployment? There should be a lot of jobs required to rebuilt all that silent infrastructure and new or revamped factories that would be required if the Americans decided to only buy American goods. You need to make everything again (which they use to do, which is why so many of the older conservative Baby Boomers want to go back to what they had going into the work force in the late 1960s and 1970s and what their parents had going into the late 1940s and 1950s when the Baby Boomers were born.)

This is the sort of group that follow the message "make America great again" because they saw or think they saw the days when American goods were either the best stuff, or at least the commonly purchased stuff. Which meant people in the United States were making the stuff, thus those people had jobs, and people selling that stuff had jobs, and usually the means to buy said stuff. They see things today and shake their heads (or fists sometimes). Most products are from someplace international (therefore no American was employed to make it). Lots are purchased via the internet, so the need for store fronts is getting less required...so no Americans needed to sell the stuff. Meaning less money for Americans to buy said stuff that doesn't particularly help any Americans along the production/supply train. About the only Americans involved are the delivery people moving stuff from one place to another and sometimes the customer service call centers. If you can find a live person. That speaks Spanish or English without a thick Asian accent of one kind or another. And possibly the people running the website, though that could be done anyplace. It is romanticized somewhat, but that is the picture they see and would rather go isolationist over globalization, as they think it would mean more jobs for Americans.

But they would only be selling to Americans, because counter tariffs are also a thing, and there is no guarantee that American goods would be any good after all these years. Why would the Europeans or Chinese have any interest in American products that aren't already being made presently. They won't be cheap...not only because of tariffs, but also high minimum wages verses factories in Asia. $15 an hour in some states.

But it wouldn't be just manufactured goods...it would likely have to be textiles again. Food we have covered for the most part, though if things get tough on illegal immigration, the work force in the west will disintegrate considering how much of it is migrant labor going from crop to crop through the West and Mexico, depending on the time of year and what is growing or what needs harvesting. This is not new, its been going on for at least a century. But all sorts of jobs for stuff if the Americans get serious about making stuff "Made in America". But that takes time, effort, and money. Which America might not have any of.

[Demi.]

Originally Posted by GDB

Trump supporters aren't allowed to like polls when they're favorable but call them fake and rigged when they're unfavorable.

Also, Rasmussen polls are pretty poorly rated by 538. While they aren't failing, they certainly don't seem reliable.



Washington Times didn't even poll. They literally just cited Rasmussen.

Can you quote me on what poll I said was fake and rigged?

I trust both polls equally and that means I'm not certain which poll is being more honest. It's easy to poll a demographic you know will be anti-trump or pro-trump.

[KiraYamatoFan]

Originally Posted by GDB

That's an assuring statement from the White House...

While we all know the concept of sore losers, there's also the concept of bad winners. Bannon epitomizes the latter there, the fat twat.

Originally Posted by GDB

The glory days that required a World War in order to revitalize the dying/nearly dead economy?

It was arguably the only time when a war effort actually helped a country's economy. Otherwise, it never does anywhere else.

[monsta666]

Originally Posted by Demi.

I trust both polls equally and that means I'm not certain which poll is being more honest. It's easy to poll a demographic you know will be anti-trump or pro-trump.

After the Brexit and the 2016 presidential election it is hard to take ANY poll seriously... At the minimum you take them with a large slab of salt.

[Xero8420]

People blatantly mistaken "safe zone" for "no-fly zone". Again, it's unlikely to be Hillary's way of doing things with the notion of regime change. Instead, Trump administration will prefer to engage with a dialogue with Russia, Turkey, Iran and Syria before doing anything. Once agreed, then "safe zone" is good to go to deal with migrant crisis.

And about democracy, it's not only people have the right to vote and respect the electoral outcomes, but also uphold the responsibilities to make sure the new administration delivers to the people's will, to hold the government accountable.

Those #NotMyPresident & #DisruptJ20 movements, petition to persuade electoral college to make Hillary president and petition for 2nd EU referendum were a disgusting examples of a BRAZEN DISRESPECT to the fundamental concept of democracy! I can't believe you folks don't feel disgusted of those filthy petitions created by salty two-faced snakes who behaving like children having their toys taken away.

[Ithekro]

"#NotMyPresident" is basically the Millennial version of what I've been hearing for the past eight years from Baby Boomer aged conservatives, and a few of the older Gen X crowd. The only difference being presentation and scale. The Millennials are louder and more internet savvy. Also more likely to protest en masse, as that doesn't seem to be a traditional conservative thing to do. The Baby Boomers are rolling their eyes and saying "not this shit again" be it over Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Clinton or G.W. Bush...depending on their own personal politics. They usually don't care about Ford to much either way, Reagan seems to be his own thing along with G.H.W. Bush, and Kennedy was killed when they are teens or kids.

The amount of protests I find disturbing, but that's probably just me thinking one should protests against actual actions...not potential actions, nor concepts that one things might happen, but actual happening things.

I actually can't tell which generation I'm from since the break point between Gen X and Millennials is ill defined around 1977.

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

I actually can't tell which generation I'm from since the break point between Gen X and Millennials is ill defined around 1977.

What? How in the world could someone who's almost 40 be considered a millennial? The entire idea behind these generations is based on when you grew up. It's the mid-late 80s babies that are in the ill-defined area between Gen X and millennials, not mid-late 70s.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

which is why so many of the older conservative Baby Boomers want to go back to what they had going into the work force in the late 1960s and 1970s and what their parents had going into the late 1940s and 1950s when the Baby Boomers were born.)

The thing is, back then what made "america great" was the influx of money from europe "winning" ww2 block to the USA (as payment for weapons, etc.). That was a one time thing that made the usa from a brazil level economy into a superpower. But that is not going to happen again, going back to manufacture atm (with salaries higher than any country in latin-america or south-east asia) is like an adult quitting his job and making a lemonade stand, you have already been there and you were making far more money even if you were flipping patties like bob squarepants, but hey, the memories. Easy to get in jobs (like driving goods in a big truck, telemarketing, attending a cashier) are going the way of the dodo soon so the more the usa delays upgrading its workforce, the higher the chances investments will flee and/or gross income (aka minimum wages) will decrease. But hey, in the 60s hippies lived the communist dream (that went nowhere fast), so I suppose this is the opposite side of the coin.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

I actually can't tell which generation I'm from since the break point between Gen X and Millennials is ill defined around 1977.

It's 1980-81 which is considered the start of Gen Y. But honestly the lines at those points are a bit blurry. I like to think of them as micro generations. My experience growing up wasn't like a lot of late 80's, early 90's millennials, but I definitely wasn't Gen X either.

[Ithekro]

Originally Posted by GDB

What? How in the world could someone who's almost 40 be considered a millennial? The entire idea behind these generations is based on when you grew up. It's the mid-late 80s babies that are in the ill-defined area between Gen X and millennials, not mid-late 70s.

Different source put the Millennials as far back as 1976, while other are 1981 and some are 1984.

There is a weird area for those born in the Carter years that is ill-defined. We don't feel like Gen X, nor Millennials. But some argue that we got some of the best cartoons.

[Akito Kinomoto]

There's an article from the Huffington Post detailing the draft of executive orders Trump could sign into action. So the Post explains

The document, which could still be amended before being officially signed, confirms the details reported by HuffPost on Tuesday, and adds new information about the planned strategy. According to the draft executive order, President Donald Trump plans to:
-Block refugee admissions from the war-torn country of Syria indefinitely

-Suspend refugee admissions from all countries for 120 days. After that period, the U.S. will only accept refugees from countries jointly approved by the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department and the Director of National Intelligence

-Cap total refugee admissions for fiscal year 2017 at 50,000 ― less than half of the 110,000 proposed by the Obama administration

-Ban for 30 days all “immigrant and nonimmigrant” entry of individuals from countries designated in Division O, Title II, Section 203 of the 2016 consolidated appropriations act: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. These countries were targeted last year in restrictions on dual nationals’ and recent travelers’ participation in the visa waiver program

-Suspend visa issuance to countries of “particular concern.” After 60 days, DHS, the State Department and DNI are instructed to draft a list of countries that don’t comply with requests for information. Foreign nationals from those countries will be banned from entering the U.S.

-Establish “safe zones to protect vulnerable Syrian populations.” The executive order tasks the secretary of defense with drafting a plan for safe zones in Syria within 90 days. This would be be an escalation of U.S. involvement in Syria and could be the first official indication of how Trump will approach the conflict there

-Expedite the completion of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for all visitors to the U.S. and require in-person interviews for all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa

-Suspend the visa interview waiver program indefinitely and review whether existing reciprocity agreements are reciprocal in practice

Okay, so I need everyone to understand this. This administration in an attempt to secure America is, firstly, already being massively hypocritical. Banning refugees from war-torn countries that in many cases America either directly or indirectly bombs the shit out of. So for example, America keeps supplying Saudi Arabia with weapons as they continue their bomb fest in Yemen. Taking out hospitals, open-air markets, and schools for the blind. There's also the disaster in Lybia, and then there's Iraq which needs no introduction unless you've been living under a rock

But I'm getting off into the weeds here. The idea behind stopping refugees from coming to America is in the name of keeping terrorists out. But while they say that, look at what countries are absent from the exclusion: Saudi Arabia and Qatar

You wanna talk about keeping out terrorists? Why isn't Saudi "same ideology as ISIS" Arabia being put on that list? How the fuck do America's leaders have the nerve to destabilize the middle east, block refugees when they wanna get out and dodge, say "no, you're near a terrorist area so close enough" but then not put Saudi Arabia on the list? Are you fucking shitting me? No bitch, it ain't about human rights! It's about the geopolitical chess board. It's about corporatism. It's about the military industrial complex

Now some people might go "we need regulations on refugees getting in!" and I'm like "...we've already got that. Our vetting process is ridiculously thorough. It takes at least a year to get through." Furthermore, just imagine if the script was flipped (hooray for basic introspection): Yellowstone supervolcano blows up, America needs to get out and dodge, and the rest of the world is like "nope, sorry. No white males because they're responsible for most mass shootings" or they go "nope, not sorry. America is the biggest threat to world peace" and you're like "wtf? that's our government, that's a few people, not us" and they're like "well close enough." It sounds stupid doesn't it?

And then there's the main problem here with Syria. Look, we're not saying Assad is a prize or that he isn't a bad dude, but for practicality's sake, he's the authoritarian strongman keeping ISIS in check inside Syria. He's doing the same thing Saddam Hussein did with Iraq in keeping the really bad shit down. Can you really blame China, Iran, and Russia for not wanting a nation so close to them to become AL-QAEDASTAN?

At the same time, we're not saying Vladimir Putin is a great guy. But understand that implementing policies in Syria that will escalate isn't something you do when you've got a nuclear power on the other side

Last point I want to add: even if Trump doesn't want to intervene and escalate in Syria, if Putin feels emboldened to start picking off former Soviet states, and if the mainstream TV news media starts calling Trump weak for letting Putin get away with it, I fear that authoritarian buffoon is going to be like "no, I'm not weak! I'll show you!" and boom, you just escalated to WWIII. Basically, even if Trump genuinely believes something good, the guy isn't versed enough to realize that not everyone on the world stage is mentally stable, and he sure af hasn't proved he's intelligent enough, mature enough to find a way to de-escalate without putting lives at risk

Sigh...wtf are we getting ourselves into

[Reckoner]

All the news coming out lately has been confirming my worst fears about Trump. We have a true fascist running the White House now, I just hope our government is built strong enough to resist the damage.