Trump

[MOD EDIT: This thread was split from here, from inauguration day (20/01) forward. May god have mercy on us all.]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backstothewall

There are also a lot of examples of there being more than 1 swing. If Trump fails to live up to the hooge expectations he has set people up with there is a distinct possibility of a massive lurch to the left and a Sanders style democrat being elected in 4 years.

---

It would be great to see, but are there any contemporary precedents which spring to mind? Venezuela?...

Greece. After the crash the Greek people chucked out the traditional centre-left party and put in the centre-right crowd. Then when they did no better they swung back to the left and went for Syriza.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backstothewall

There are also a lot of examples of there being more than 1 swing. If Trump fails to live up to the hooge expectations he has set people up with there is a distinct possibility of a massive lurch to the left and a Sanders style democrat being elected in 4 years.

---

I am extremely hopeful for what Trump will do as President. Ignoring all the noise that is around him - some of which is his own doing, most of which is the incessant wailing from the liberal MSM - he has accomplished more in terms of an agenda in a week than Obama did in 8 years, including 2 when Dems had control of the house and senate. That said, if Trump fails to deliver, i do not see a massive lurch to the left - and for a couple of reasons. I dont think Trump represents a massive lurch to the right. He's essentially independent, he is a populist candidate with some centre right policies and a couple of (what you might consider more traditional) leftist policies. Hes no where near as right wing as, say, the Tea Party cohort of the Republican Party or some of the true right wing politicians in Europe. Also, i think the Democrats are in a lot of trouble. They have abandoned their traditional principles in favour of chasing a slice of the corporate pie. They continue to look outside of their party to find reasons why they lost to Trump instead of being self critical and foraging a new path. They also will lose more votes the more they continue to divide the country along race lines and deligitimize Trump. The bitterness is far more worrying and severe than i thought it would be.

Other reasons why i dont see a lurch to a far left candidate is that they have had essentially that for the previous 8 years and nothing that improved the lives of ordinary Americans was achieved. Even Obamacare has failed in many ways. An agenda that furthered globalism, poor trade deals, a foreign policy of interventionism and that ushered wildcat terrorism through the creation of ISIS is what they have to show for the Obama years. I do not think history will look favourably on Obamas tenure at all.

Here is an interesting and short interview with Tulsi Gabbard, an up and coming Dem, with CNN last night. FYI she was interviewed by Trump for the SoS position. This is the type of truth that the rest of her party needs to engage in before they can be taken seriously again. How can you fund terrorists that want to destroy you? How can you attend/support marches for womens rights in America when you take money from Saudi Arabia? The hypocricy of the left is astounding in so many ways. The desparation of CNN to find a way to defend (or have Gabbard defend) these actions is funny. She didnt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

Trump [...] has accomplished more in terms of an agenda in a week than Obama did in 8 years

---

Sorry to Godwin the thread, but, well, Hitler accomplished a lot too. Although I wouldn't call what Trump is doing "accomplishments". The entire senior State department staff leaving en masse is not an accomplishment; and that's just the latest example.

It's true. He's doing what he said he would and what he was voted in to do.

Like I said, I have high hopes he'll do well.

Can't believe you godwinned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

It's true. He's doing what he said he would and what he was voted in to do.
.

---

Yeah good to see him sticking up for the ordinary people and attempting to get rid of the estate tax in Congress today. It's literally the only decent progressive tax they have over there.

A depressing read by any standards:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.f29a675af12c

Im not saying he's perfect by any means (although show me a US president that was) but this is what I'd be holding him accountable to if I had voted for him.

http://static.animalpolitico.com/wp-...rato-trump.jpg

RAM, why are you reading WaPo and trying to get a fair take on Trump - it won't happen.

https://www.mrc.org/commentary/soros...-organizations

Unrelated image below. Take their points of view with a grain of salt.

https://consortiumnews.com/wp-conten...ournalists.jpg

Stu,

John Pilger wrote an excellent piece (published four days before Trump's inauguration) on where responsibility rests for Trump's rise, but it echoes some of your sentiments here on the failures and hypocrisy of Obama, the Democrats and the so-called "liberals" of the American (and British) "left".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Pilger

...

There is something both venal and profoundly stupid about famous writers as they venture outside their cosseted world and embrace an "issue." Across the review section of the Guardian on Dec. 10 was a dreamy picture of Barack Obama looking up to the heavens and the words, "Amazing Grace" and "Farewell the Chief."

The sycophancy ran like a polluted babbling brook through page after page. "He was a vulnerable figure in many ways ... But the grace. The all-encompassing grace: in manner and form, in argument and intellect, with humour and cool ... (He) is a blazing tribute to what has been, and what can be again ... He seems ready to keep fighting, and remains a formidable champion to have on our side ... The grace ... the almost surreal levels of grace."

...

One of the persistent strands in U.S. political life is a cultish extremism that approaches fascism. This was given expression and reinforced during the two terms of Barack Obama. "I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being," said Obama, who expanded the United States' favorite military pastime: bombing and death squads ("special operations") as no other president has done since the Cold War.

According to a Council on Foreign Relations survey, in 2016 alone Obama dropped 26,171 bombs. That is 72 bombs every day. He bombed the poorest people on earth, in Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan.

Every Tuesday — reported the New York Times — he personally selected those who would be murdered by mostly hellfire missiles fired from drones. Weddings, funerals, shepherds were attacked, along with those attempting to collect the body parts festooning the "terrorist target." A leading Republican senator, Lindsey Graham, estimated, approvingly, that Obama's drones killed 4,700 people. "Sometimes you hit innocent people and I hate that," he said, "but we've taken out some very senior members of Al Qaeda."

Like the fascism of the 1930s, big lies are delivered with the precision of a metronome, thanks to an omnipresent media whose description now fits that of the Nuremberg prosecutor: "Before each major aggression, with some few exceptions based on expediency, they initiated a press campaign calculated to weaken their victims and to prepare the German people psychologically ... In the propaganda system ... it was the daily press and the radio that were the most important weapons."

Take the catastrophe in Libya. In 2011, Obama said Libyan president Muammar Gaddafi was planning "genocide" against his own people. "We knew ... that if we waited one more day, Benghazi, a city the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."

This was the known lie of Islamist militias facing defeat by Libyan government forces. It became the media story and NATO — led by Obama and Hillary Clinton — launched 9,700 "strike sorties" against Libya, of which more than a third were aimed at civilian targets. Uranium warheads were used; the cities of Misurata and Sirte were carpet-bombed. The Red Cross identified mass graves, and UNICEF reported that "most (of the children killed) were under the age of ten."

Under Obama, the U.S. extended secret "special forces" operations to 138 countries, or 70 percent of the world's population. The first African-American president launched what amounted to a full-scale invasion of Africa. Reminiscent of the "Scramble for Africa" in the late 19th century, the U.S. African Command has built a network of supplicants among collaborative African regimes eager for U.S. bribes and armaments. Africom's "soldier to soldier" doctrine embeds U.S. officers at every level of command from general to warrant officer. Only pith helmets are missing.

It is as if Africa's proud history of liberation, from Patrice Lumumba to Nelson Mandela, is consigned to oblivion by a new master's Black colonial elite whose "historic mission," warned Frantz Fanon half a century ago, is the promotion of "a capitalism rampant though camouflaged."

It was Obama who, in 2011, announced what became known as the "pivot to Asia," in which almost two-thirds of U.S. naval forces would be transferred to the Asia-Pacific area to "confront China," in the words of his defense secretary. There was no threat from China; the entire enterprise was unnecessary. It was an extreme provocation to keep the Pentagon and its demented brass happy.

In 2014, the Obama administration oversaw and paid for a fascist-led coup in Ukraine against the democratically-elected government, threatening Russia in the western borderland through which Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, with a loss of 27 million lives. It was Obama who placed missiles in Eastern Europe aimed at Russia, and it was this winner of the Nobel Peace prize who increased spending on nuclear warheads to a level higher than that of any administration since the cold war, having promised, in an emotional speech in Prague to "help rid the world of nuclear weapons."

Obama, the constitutional lawyer, prosecuted more whistleblowers than any other president in history, even though the U.S. constitution protects them. He declared Chelsea Manning guilty before the end of a trial that was a travesty. He has refused to pardon Manning who has suffered years of inhumane treatment which the U.N. says amounts to torture. He has pursued an entirely bogus case against Julian Assange. He promised to close the Guantanamo concentration camp and didn't.

Following the public relations disaster of George W. Bush, Obama, the smooth operator from Chicago via Harvard, was enlisted to restore what he calls "leadership" throughout the world. The Nobel prize committee's decision was part of this: the kind of cloying reverse racism that beatified the man for no reason other than he was attractive to liberal sensibilities and, of course, U.S. power, if not to the children he kills in impoverished, mostly Muslim countries.

This is the Call of Obama. It is not unlike a dog whistle: inaudible to most, irresistible to the besotted and boneheaded, especially "liberal brains pickled in the formaldehyde of identity politics," as Luciana Bohne put it. "When Obama walks into a room," gushed George Clooney, "you want to follow him somewhere, anywhere."

William I. Robinson, professor at the University of California, and one of an uncontaminated group of U.S. strategic thinkers who have retained their independence during the years of intellectual dog-whistling since 9/11 wrote this last week, "President Barack Obama ... may have done more than anyone to assure Trump's victory.

While Trump's election has triggered a rapid expansion of fascist currents in U.S. civil society, a fascist outcome for the political system is far from inevitable ... But that fight back requires clarity as to how we got to such a dangerous precipice. The seeds of 21st-century fascism were planted, fertilized and watered by the Obama administration and the politically bankrupt liberal elite."

Robinson points out that "whether in its 20th or its emerging 21st-century variants, fascism is, above all, a response to a deep structural crisis of capitalism, such as that of the 1930s and the one that began with the financial meltdown in 2008 ... There is a near-straight line here from Obama to Trump ... The liberal elite's refusal to challenge the rapaciousness of transnational capital and its brand of identity politics served to eclipse the language of the working and popular classes ... pushing white workers into an 'identity' of white nationalism and helping the neo-fascists to organize them."

The seedbed is Obama's Weimar Republic, a landscape of endemic poverty, militarized police and barbaric prisons, the consequence of a "market" extremism which, under his presidency, prompted the transfer of US$14 trillion in public money to criminal enterprises in Wall Street.

Perhaps his greatest "legacy" is the co-option and disorientation of any real opposition. Bernie Sanders' specious "revolution" does not apply. Propaganda is his triumph.

The lies about Russia — in whose elections the U.S. has openly intervened — have made the world's most self-important journalists laughing stocks. In the country with constitutionally the freest press in the world, free journalism now exists only in its honorable exceptions.

The obsession with Trump is a cover for many of those calling themselves "left/liberal," as if to claim political decency. They are not "left," neither are they especially "liberal." Much of the United States' aggression towards the rest of humanity has come from so-called liberal democratic administrations such as Obama's. The U.S.' political spectrum extends from the mythical center to the lunar right. The "left" are homeless renegades Martha Gellhorn described as "a rare and wholly admirable fraternity." She excluded those who confuse politics with a fixation on their navels.

While they "heal" and "move forward," will the Writers Resist campaigners and other anti-Trumpists reflect upon this? More to the point: when will a genuine movement of opposition arise — angry, eloquent, all-for-one-and-one-for all. Until real politics return to people's lives, the enemy is not Trump, it is ourselves.

---

Glenn Greenwald has also done some fantastic reporting and commentary recently on the hypocrisy/deceit of the mainstream and "liberal" media/elite in relation to allegations of Russian hacking/interference in the US presidential election and the concepts of "fake news"/"post-truth" that have also featured so heavily in related discourse and mainstream analyses of Trump:

i) 'Glenn Greenwald: Mainstream U.S. Media is Culpable for Disseminating Fake & Deceitful News on Russia': https://www.democracynow.org/2017/1/...am_us_media_is
ii) 'The Guardian’s Summary of Julian Assange’s Interview Went Viral and Was Completely False': https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/...pletely-false/
iii) 'WashPost Is Richly Rewarded for False News About Russia Threat While Public Is Deceived': https://theintercept.com/2017/01/04/...c-is-deceived/

The video discussion with Greenwald (starting at 45m23s) on alleged Russian hacking in the first of the three links is well worth a watch.

The following is from the second link:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glenn Greenwald

...

This article, instead, is about a report published this week by The Guardian that recklessly attributed to [Julian] Assange comments that he did not make. This article is about how those false claims — fabrications, really — were spread all over the internet by journalists, causing hundreds of thousands of people (if not millions) to consume false news. The purpose of this article is to underscore, yet again, that those who most flamboyantly denounce Fake News, and want Facebook and other tech giants to suppress content in the name of combating it, are often the most aggressive and self-serving perpetrators of it.

One’s views of Assange are completely irrelevant to this article because, presumably, everyone agrees that publication of false claims by a media outlet is very bad, even when it’s designed to malign someone you hate. Journalistic recklessness does not become noble or tolerable if it serves the right agenda or cause. The only way one’s views of Assange are relevant to this article is if one finds journalistic falsehoods and Fake News objectionable only when deployed against figures one likes.

...

THE PEOPLE WHO should be most upset by this deceit are exactly the ones who played the leading role in spreading it: namely, those who most vocally claim that Fake News is a serious menace. Nothing will discredit that cause faster or more effectively than the perception that this crusade is really about a selective desire to suppress news that undermines one’s political agenda, masquerading as concern for journalistic accuracy and integrity. Yet, as I’ve repeatedly documented, the very same people most vocal about the need to suppress Fake News are often those most eager to disseminate it when doing so advances their agenda.

If one really wants to battle Fake News and deceitful journalism that misleads others, one cannot selectively denounce some Fake News accounts while cheering and spreading those that promote one’s own political agenda or smear those (such as Assange) whom one most hates. Doing that will ensure that nobody takes this cause seriously because its proponents will be seen as dishonest opportunists: much the way cynically exploiting “anti-Semitism” accusations against Israel critics has severely weakened the sting of that accusation when it’s actually warranted.

It is well-documented that much Fake News was disseminated this year to undermine Clinton, sometimes from Trump himself. For that reason, a poll jointly released on Tuesday by The Economist and YouGov found that 62 percent of Trump voters — and 25 percent of Clinton voters — believe that “millions of illegal votes were cast in the election,” an extremely dubious allegation made by Trump with no evidence.

But this poll also found that 50 percent of Clinton voters now believe an absurd and laughable conspiracy theory: that “Russia tampered with vote tallies to help Trump.” It’s hardly surprising they believe this: Some of the most beloved Democratic pundits routinely use the phrase “Russia hacked the U.S. election” to imply not that it hacked emails but the election itself. And the result is that — just as is true of many Trump voters — many Clinton voters have been deceived into embracing a pleasing and self-affirming though completely baseless conspiracy theory about why their candidate lost.

By all means: Let’s confront and defeat the menace of Fake News. But to do so, it’s critical that one not be selective in which type one denounces, and it is particularly important that one not sanction Fake News when it promotes one’s own political objectives. Most important of all is that those who want to lead the cause of denouncing Fake News not convert themselves into its most prolific disseminators whenever the claims of a Fake News account are pleasing or self-affirming.

...

---

Politicians and those governing have always deceived the public, from before World War 1 to the Iraq War and since. It's not that deception in politics is a new phenomenon; it's more so that the establishment is losing its control or monopoly over the truth, lies and the prevailing or dominant narratives due to social and new media. These "fake news"/"post-truth" tags/smears are weapons utilised by the establishment and the mainstream media to discredit political foes. In many instances, the accusations may indeed be legitimate, but they are so often also indicative of gross double standards. Indeed, the proven unreliability of the mainstream media (which is easier to spot now in the information era of new and social media) only provides fuel for Trump's conspiracy theories and more paranoid utterances.

As Greenwald states during the aforementioned video discussion in the first link above:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glenn Greenwald

But I think there’s another sort of more pernicious aspect to it, which is what Trump is doing is he’s trying to discredit every single source of information other than Donald Trump. So, he’s telling his followers, "Don’t listen to the American media, because they’re liars." He’s telling them, "Don’t listen to the intelligence community, because they defrauded you with Iraq." He’s telling them, "Don’t listen to experts, because these experts are all corrupted and they’re part of the D.C. swamp," that he wants to drain. "The only truth that you should trust comes from me, Donald Trump." And that is a very dangerous framework. It’s pure authoritarianism when a political leader also becomes the only source of information that the population trusts. But, unfortunately, his biggest allies in that are media outlets who have done the kinds of things that I just explained The Washington Post having done and journalists having helped them. They’re the reason why people are losing faith in American media outlets. And that’s what gives space to a demagogue like Donald Trump to say, "I’m the only person who you can trust." And his use of Twitter is really a weapon, a powerful weapon, in achieving that dangerous state of affairs.

---

Specifically in relation to the allegations of Russian hacking, Craig Murray spotted what was perhaps a very revealing admission by Obama in the outgoing president's final press conference:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craig Murray

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiHtH0IJids

In his final press conference, beginning around 8 minutes 30 seconds in, Obama admits that they have no evidence of how WikiLeaks got the DNC material. This undermines the stream of completely evidence-free nonsense that has been emerging from the US intelligence services this last two months, in which a series of suppositions have been strung together to make unfounded assertions that have been repeated again and again in the mainstream media.

Most crucially of all Obama refers to “The DNC emails that were leaked”. Note “leaked” and not “hacked”. I have been repeating that this was a leak, not a hack, until I am blue in the face. William Binney, former Technical Director of the NSA, has asserted that were it a hack the NSA would be able to give the precise details down to the second it occurred, and it is plain from the reports released they have no such information. Yet the media has persisted with this nonsense “Russian hacking” story.

Obama’s reference to the “the DNC emails that were leaked” appears very natural, fluent and unforced. It is good to have the truth finally told.

---

Complaints from the US establishment of alleged Russian interference in the election were exceptionally rich besides: http://fair.org/home/hypocrisy-of-ru...rd-to-stomach/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Janine Jackson

...

But in back of it all, what makes the umbrage of elite media so hard to stomach is the hypocrisy. This is, after all, the same elite media that supports outsider-induced “regime change” anywhere and everywhere they see an official enemy, from Iraq to Honduras to Libya to Syria—and wait, what’s this? A cover from Time magazine (7/15/96): a chipper Boris Yeltsin holding an American flag, and the line “Yanks to the Rescue! The Secret Story of How American Advisers Helped Yeltsin Win.”

http://fair.org/wp-content/uploads/2.../TimeYanks.jpg

You can make “one law for me, another for thee” your credo, but you can’t be too surprised when others are unimpressed.

Whatever story there is to be told about Russia and the 2016 election, corporate media have squandered the credibility it would take to tell it.

---

Some further words on US and Russian electoral interference and the hollowness of the professed outrage emanating from Washington: http://www.thenational.ae/opinion/co...ot-funny#page1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rashmee Roshan Lall

In his recently published research innocuously titled Partisan Electoral Interventions by the Great Powers, Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University, counted up more than 80 US interventions in foreign elections between 1946 and 2000. When he added in the USSR/Russia, the total came to 117 electoral interventions, "one out of every nine competitive, national-level executive elections".

Mr Levin did not count non-electoral attempts at regime change, such as coups. Instead, he focused on creating a data set of "partisan electoral intervention by the great powers". For this he used primary and secondary sources, including formal US Congressional investigations of CIA activities, declassified internal CIA histories and CIA officers’ and other US officials’ memoirs. For the Soviet/Russian interventions, he primarily consulted the Mitrokhin Archive, notes kept for over 30 years by a KGB archivist who defected to Britain.

After poring over the data, Mr Levin was able to arrive at a very definite conclusion. As he says, "the United States is the most common user of this technique". Russia or the Soviet Union used it half as much, while the Chinese and the Venezuelans under the late Hugo Chavez employed it only sometimes.

There is little reason for the US to feel aggrieved that it is hoist with its own petard. That said, it may be shortsighted to celebrate America’s predicament. What the US did to others was as wrong as the wrong it alleges has now been done to it. There are dangerous implications for democracies around the world or, at least, for the future of competitive elections.

---

In fact, never mind mere electoral interference, here's that list of 57 instances of the US overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since World War 2: https://williamblum.org/essays/read/...he-master-list

The hypocrisy from certain quarters in the British establishment has also been rich, especially when it's come to criticising Trump's proposed wall and his concerning views on the use of torture. Britain has engaged in systematic torture too without admission, regret or apology whilst the Tories, many of whom would have ridiculed and chastised Trump's fanciful notions of building a wall along the Mexican border to keep out Mexican migrants, are the very same ones who supported, both vocally and through direct funding, the building of a wall at Calais to help keep migrants and refugees who've fled war-zones out of the UK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

Im not saying he's perfect by any means (although show me a US president that was) but this is what I'd be holding him accountable to if I had voted for him.

---

That poster is absolutely hilarious - "The Restoring Community Safety Act" - why doesn't he just go the whole hog and put in the "Orange Skin and blond highlights act" - "The foot.ie" Act.

That Poster is a populist list of absolute and utter scutter and lies dreamt up to try and win an election. It has ZERO basis in reality - I mean how stupid do you have to be to absorb all of that.

Six measures to clean up the corruption and special interest in Washington – what a laugh – Look at his administration – Betsy De Vos – her family has given OVER $200m to the republican party over the last 25 years! He has a Labour Secretary who is has so many concerns surrounding him – he can’t even get his confirmation hearing organised.

The whole thing is a complete joke – let’s look at it again in 93 day’s time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

RAM, why are you reading WaPo and trying to get a fair take on Trump - it won't happen.

https://www.mrc.org/commentary/soros...-organizations

Unrelated image below. Take their points of view with a grain of salt.

https://consortiumnews.com/wp-conten...ournalists.jpg

---

It's a bit ironic that you mention 'a fair take' and in an attempt to show bias, you link to an organisation that is itself openly biased.

Or am I missing something?

A lot to read and respond to here. Also my last day in my current job. So ill attempt to respond and react to everyone over the next couple of days.

Osa, i linked to the MRC article which, yes, is an organization that takes on the liberal MSM from a conservative position. However, the article itself is just one of many that points out the links between the likes of WaPo et al and the globalist agenda of Soros and co. And the influence that these players have on US politics and how that is supported by a corrupt media. I feel it is important that we are all able to look at our own information sources with as much of a critical eye as we possibly can and challenge our own biases. The image is the one that i would encourage more people to spend time on. These are facts supported by the Podesta leaks. These are all huge organizations that i would say 90% of the populace place a high level of trust in. I spent an unhealthy amount of time last year diving into this stuff and it really is quite shocking the levels of collusion and corruption that are taking place and, more shockingly, that we are simply gobbling up as "the truth". For all that MRC has its agenda, it is not a huge player and it is open and transparent. The organizations in the above image are huge players and they are not transparent about their agenda at all and promote themselves as independent media. This is genuinely troubling stuff and this, more than anything Trump has said or will do, is what is creating instability in America and beyond.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

That poster is absolutely hilarious - "The Restoring Community Safety Act" - why doesn't he just go the whole hog and put in the "Orange Skin and blond highlights act" - "The foot.ie" Act.

That Poster is a populist list of absolute and utter scutter and lies dreamt up to try and win an election. It has ZERO basis in reality - I mean how stupid do you have to be to absorb all of that.

Six measures to clean up the corruption and special interest in Washington – what a laugh – Look at his administration – Betsy De Vos – her family has given OVER $200m to the republican party over the last 25 years! He has a Labour Secretary who is has so many concerns surrounding him – he can’t even get his confirmation hearing organised.

The whole thing is a complete joke – let’s look at it again in 93 day’s time.

---

It was created as part of his transition i.e. after he won. But how and ever. Whether you think this stuff is right or wroing, achievable or pie in the sky, it is his accountability framework and - yes - we should see how he has done in 93 days time, just like i suggested. We will see how he - and his picks - do after his term is done. If someone believes he has failed before he has started then it is that person that is being stupid.

Regarding Obama's cabinet - https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/795813354740781056

It'll be interesting to see how the NAFTA and the WTO react to this 20% import tax plan. I'm guessing negatively. The man and his administration just seem to have a hair-trigger when it comes to policy ideas. Someone on another forum I frequent commented on his idea to send "the feds" to Chicago to stop organized crime: "What feds? What agency? To play what role? It's just something he heard on TV, apparently." The man's Twitter account has already caused a diplomatic incident.

I have a feeling Paul Ryan's Congress is just waiting for the right issue to pull the rug out from under Trump - whose favorability ratings are shockingly low for a newly inaugurated President - and establish their authority. Ryan's already taken a shot by suggesting Trump drop his moronic attitude towards his decisive loss in the popular vote, and the media is treating his administration with greater and greater amounts of undeniable contempt every day it seems: Bannon's comments recently just seem bizarrely self-hurting.

I will say that as someone who would have no qualms being described as a liberal progressive, its disappointing to see some of the rhetoric being thrown around by that "side" since the election and especially in the last week, that bears an uncomfortable similarity to the kind of rhetoric thrown around in the Obama years by a certain strain right wing, which was so easy to mock. Democracy being described as irredeemably broken, legitimacy being questioned, the other side being painted in apocalyptic terms, open violence being not just endorsed but praised as a means of political expression, etc. Michelle Obama's rallying cry of keeping to the high road seems to have been completely discarded by a generation of angry young left voters suddenly realizing that not everything goes your way.

They really need a figurehead to group around at this point, someone akin to Sanders but not quite that left, to start putting front and centre as an alternative. But it doesn't seem like the Democratic party is overflowing with Presidential hopefuls right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

The image is the one that i would encourage more people to spend time on. These are facts supported by the Podesta leaks. These are all huge organizations that i would say 90% of the populace place a high level of trust in. I spent an unhealthy amount of time last year diving into this stuff and it really is quite shocking the levels of collusion and corruption that are taking place and, more shockingly, that we are simply gobbling up as "the truth". For all that MRC has its agenda, it is not a huge player and it is open and transparent. The organizations in the above image are huge players and they are not transparent about their agenda at all and promote themselves as independent media. This is genuinely troubling stuff and this, more than anything Trump has said or will do, is what is creating instability in America and beyond.

---

Am I the only one who didn't see any image attached to that post?

Donald Trump is signing a refugee ban on Holocaust Remembrance Day.

Bill Clinton speaks out in favour of Trump policy.

That's back in 1995, no wall, no mention of patroling Muslim neighbourhoods and no signing of executive orders banning immigrants from certain countries. Are you going to actually address some of the concerns of this man or are you going to continue to deflect with these obscure references?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Specifically in relation to the allegations of Russian hacking, Craig Murray spotted what was perhaps a very revealing admission by Obama in the outgoing president's final press conference:



Complaints from the US establishment of alleged Russian interference in the election were exceptionally rich besides: http://fair.org/home/hypocrisy-of-ru...rd-to-stomach/



Some further words on US and Russian electoral interference and the hollowness of the professed outrage emanating from Washington: http://www.thenational.ae/opinion/co...ot-funny#page1



In fact, never mind mere electoral interference, here's that list of 57 instances of the US overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since World War 2: https://williamblum.org/essays/read/...he-master-list

The hypocrisy from certain quarters in the British establishment has also been rich, especially when it's come to criticising Trump's proposed wall and his concerning views on the use of torture. Britain has engaged in systematic torture too without admission, regret or apology whilst the Tories, many of whom would have ridiculed and chastised Trump's fanciful notions of building a wall along the Mexican border to keep out Mexican migrants, are the very same ones who supported, both vocally and through direct funding, the building of a wall at Calais to help keep migrants and refugees who've fled war-zones out of the UK.

---

Thanks for this Danny. It all just points to the issues that we should all have with what we are seeing, hearing and reading these days. One thing that struck me as I was listening to many media outlets becry this Russian hack of the election was that, even if the russians were hacking accounts, the bare faced cheek of the establishment politik and media to try and convince us that this was something new and sinister that they would never dream of doing. Often the best form of defence is to accuse your enemy of the very actions you are guilty of. I'm sure this happened here.

The Obama comments were noted in some other arenas. Assange has repeatedly stated that their source was from within the Democratic Party. On 4chan and other sites like Voat and Reddit there are many theories as to who the leak was and some point to a low level staffer called Seth Rich as being the source. Assange states, for good reason, that WL will never reveal their sources but interestingly they are offering a reward for information on the death of Seth Rich. Yeah, Seth was shot twice in an apparent robbery in Washington although nothing was taken. Hmmm. For transparency, his family believe that there was no sinister motives. It's just interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

That's back in 1995, no wall, no mention of patroling Muslim neighbourhoods and no signing of executive orders banning immigrants from certain countries. Are you going to actually address some of the concerns of this man or are you going to continue to deflect with these obscure references?

---

What concerns should I have? They are a sovereign nation and he was elected on a very specific platform.

Do I think immigrants from these countries should barred unless they can be vetted? Yes I do.
Do I think that countries like Belgium, France, Germany and England are patrolling or monitoring Muslim neighbourhoods? Yes I do.
Do I think that the US should tolerate illegal immigrants? No I don't.
Do I believe there should be an amnesty for certain immigrants? Yes I do.
Do I think it matters that Trump signed an Executive Order limiting immigrants from these countries on Holocaust Rememberance Day? No I don't. Hyperbole will, indeed, destroy the world.

You may determine the video is an obscure reference. I think the spirit and tenor of the message is no different to what Trump is saying on the wall issue. For some reason, it was fine for Clinton to say it in 1995. Pfffft, please. Get real.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

What concerns should I have? They are a sovereign nation and he was elected on a very specific platform.

---

Just at the presser this evening with May - a British reporter asked about concerns the British people had with some of his policies - his reply to that .....PAUSE......"That's your one question" - plus a laugh - does that sort of thing not worry you at all?

Does Steve Bannon telling the Media the "SHUT UP AND LISTEN" - not worry you? Or is there a you tube video of JFK going the same thing somewhere?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

Do I think immigrants from these countries should barred unless they can be vetted? Yes I do.

---

They already are. Extensively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

Do I think immigrants from these countries should barred unless they can be vetted? Yes I do.

---

See answer to Q1 - interesting that you agree with Trump drumming up fear though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

Do I think that countries like Belgium, France, Germany and England are patrolling or monitoring Muslim neighbourhoods? Yes I do.

---

Apart from monitoring specific threats then I don't believe that is the case in Belgium ( I'm commuting there for work currently ) for sure , Germany I don't think either, France and England id be less sure of - but regardless - its more deflecting and is wrong wherever it happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

Do I think it matters that Trump signed an Executive Order limiting immigrants from these countries on Holocaust Rememberance Day? No I don't. Hyperbole will, indeed, destroy the world.

---

Its not Hyperbole - its a fact. It's timing is extraordinary IMO. Call THAT hyperbole if you like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

You may determine the video is an obscure reference. I think the spirit and tenor of the message is no different to what Trump is saying on the wall issue. For some reason, it was fine for Clinton to say it in 1995. Pfffft, please. Get real.

---

It was 21 years ago and it was wrong rhetoric then and its wrong now. Signing Executive orders banning Syrians entering the US indefinitely given what is going on there is disgusting, and while you are comparing Europe to Trump's America - then just look at the German response to that crisis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

Just at the presser this evening with May - a British reporter asked about concerns the British people had with some of his policies - his reply to that .....PAUSE......"That's your one question" - plus a laugh - does that sort of thing not worry you at all?

Does Steve Bannon telling the Media the "SHUT UP AND LISTEN" - not worry you? Or is there a you tube video of JFK going the same thing somewhere?

---

No - it doesn't. My opinion of the MSM is pretty clear. Why should he treat the MSM with any respect when he gets no respect in return?

Why should Bannons comments concern me? Maybe the media does need to shut up for a second and listen. If not to Trump then to the wishes of the approx 50% of the nation that voted for Trump.

The media is just making noise at the moment, they're not making sense and why they are doing is irresponsible and dangerous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

They already are. Extensively.

---

Please provide extensive details and a link please describing the vetting process for immigrants from these countries.

If they already are vetted, extensively, then what another vetting.

Anyway, details, please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

See answer to Q1 - interesting that you agree with Trump drumming up fear though.

---

I have a feeling that it's the multiple terrorist attacks by Islamic Extremists in America since 2001 that have created the fear and, ultimately, the need for a line in the sand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

Apart from monitoring specific threats then I don't believe that is the case in Belgium ( I'm commuting there for work currently ) for sure , Germany I don't think either, France and England id be less sure of - but regardless - its more deflecting and is wrong wherever it happens.

---

As per my answer above...you not only do not want additional vetting nor a bar on entry for those who cannot be vetted...not only do you not want any of those precautions but you also do not think it's acceptable to monitor places inside your own borders where extremist views are breeding and leading to terrorist incidents. It's remarkable that you are willing to turn a complete blind eye to this.

Also, I have watched two or three news segments (CNN and Fox as it happens) since the Paris attacks that talk about the extensive work that is underway in suburbs like Moelenbeek and areas of Paris to a) monitor the areas through things like CCTV and b) build intelligence networks in those neighbourhoods. This is happening. It doesn't matter what you believe.

And it's not deflecting. I'm being unnecessarily direct on all of this even though I also realize it's completely futile to be engaging you on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

Its not Hyperbole - its a fact. It's timing is extraordinary IMO. Call THAT hyperbole if you like.

---

It's completely irrelevant. Sounds like some stupid headline you pasted from somewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

It was 21 years ago and it was wrong rhetoric then and its wrong now. Signing Executive orders banning Syrians entering the US indefinitely given what is going on there is disgusting, and while you are comparing Europe to Trump's America - then just look at the German response to that crisis.

---

Why is it wrong rhetoric? Should countries not enforce their borders? Should we not expect aspiring immigrants to follow the visa or entry process? Is any of this really unreasonable? If so, why? Why bother having borders or immigration laws at all? Do you have walls around your real estate? Would you let people put a tent up in your back garden uninvited?

What's going on in Syria?? You mean the proxy war that the Obama administration was engaged in? Funding and arming terrorists like Al Queda. Yeah... America just needs to stay out of everyone's business for good and - as May and Trump said - stop trying to force the rest of the world to think like they do or have the values they do. The Middle East detests America and even more so since Obama.

Re Germany - they've had how many terrorist attacks in 2016? Three or four? There's a reason that Merkel is dropping like a stone and, call it what you like, but there's a reason that nationalism is on the rise all across Europe. Why is Germanys response to the Syrian issue better? Spell out for me what America or other European countries that turned migrants away are missing out on by saying "not right now, thanks".

Look, i don't want to come across as pro-Trump and that I support all his policies and behaviours. I am not and do not. I am extremely against the media and I think Obama was a disaster domestically and across the world. However, I do believe that Trump has a strong mandate and that he will implement that mandate and give people what they voted him in to do. I believe he needs to be allowed to implement that agenda and be held accountable to whether it is a success or a failure. Anyway, guess what - crying and wailing from the likes of you about how disgusting it all is won't stop it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

No - it doesn't. My opinion of the MSM is pretty clear. Why should he treat the MSM with any respect when he gets no respect in return?

---

Its not a question of respect - the journalist was asking a pretty straightforward question. There is respect and there is the utter contempt and the leader of the free world is duty bound to be answerable to the media - if he didn't agree with the content of the question then at least address why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

Why should Bannons comments concern me? Maybe the media does need to shut up for a second and listen. If not to Trump then to the wishes of the approx 50% of the nation that voted for Trump.

---

An incredible response to freedom of speech. Bannon and Trumps response to the irrefutable evidence concerning the size of the inauguration crowds gives most of us an uneasy feeling as to future conversations for more important issues surrounding facts. The message is clear - agree with us or shut up!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

Extensive details and a link please describing the vetting process for immigrants from these countries.

---

The extensive process is outlined here:
https://www.state.gov/j/prm/ra/admissions/

Some commentary from June of last year:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...tem-vet-refug/

Some personal stories:
https://thinkprogress.org/what-its-l...5a6#.os951jtiw

http://time.com/a-syrian-refugee-story/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

I have a feeling that it's the multiple terrorist attacks by Islamic Extremists in America since 2001 that have created the fear and, ultimately, the need for a line in the sand.
.

---

How many refugees have committed terrorist attacks in America since 9/11 ? Genuine question?

Islamic Extremists can carry American passports you know. Sure as long as they stop refugees from countries that you rightly point out they are helping destruct - they can safety provent terror attacks in the future.

I have a feeling this populist notion helps to win elections - if Mr Trump really cared about the lives of American people he might ban - I dunno - handguns?

Hopefully good people will fight this executive order.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

Also, I have watched two or three news segments (CNN and Fox as it happens) since the Paris attacks that talk about the extensive work that is underway in suburbs like Moelenbeek and areas of Paris to a) monitor the areas through things like CCTV and b) build intelligence networks in those neighbourhoods. This is happening. It doesn't matter what you believe.

---

Oh so you do watch and take in SOME media outlets - id like some proper proof please - like as in link and "extensive" back up - actually no forget it - and i'm not being flippant- just find your attitude to the media a bit inconsistent. I mean CNN is good enough there but I can't ref. the WaPo because I won't get a balanced view?

There has been CCTV in areas like Moelenbeek for a long time before there was a refugee crisis in Europe and building intelligence is hardly a new idea. Trump was more talking about the type of strain on civil liberties that goes well beyond the norm in the US, during his election campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

It's completely irrelevant. Sounds like some stupid headline you pasted from somewhere.

---

Actually took it from Elizabeth Warren's twitter account - similar postings on Bernie Sanders' and Gavin Newsome's - all elected rep's with Mandates as you so succinctly put it - dismiss it as Media Bias if you like.


[QUOTE=SkStu;1905189]
What's going on in Syria?? You mean the proxy war that the Obama administration was engaged in? Funding and arming terrorists like Al Queda. Yeah... America just needs to stay out of everyone's business for good and - as May and Trump said - stop trying to force the rest of the world to think like they do or have the values they do. The Middle East detests America and even more so since Obama.
[/QUOTE

Agree with all that - but isn't that the more reason to help these people you are displacing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

Spell out for me what America or other European countries that turned migrants away are missing out on by saying "not right now, thanks".
.

---

C-O-M-P-A-S-S-I-O-N.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

I am extremely against the media and I think Obama was a disaster domestically and across the world. ]

---

Some of the media clearly.

As for Obama - I've never ever cared much for his or any Presidents foreign policy - but I guess the 14 million Americans who have gotten access to health insurance for the first time and the lives that has saved may disagree on your disaster analysis as an example. For sure there were good and bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

I do believe that Trump has a strong mandate and that he will implement that mandate and give people what they voted him in to do. I believe he needs to be allowed to implement that agenda and be held accountable to whether it is a success or a failure. Anyway, guess what - crying and wailing from the likes of you about how disgusting it all is won't stop it.

---

He is disgusting! Deal with it! :usa:

(Sorry if i didn't address everything)

A strong mandate?

Like, Trump won fair and square under the US's bizarre system, no doubt about it, but lets not buy into the narrative that it was some kind of landslide. Most of the Americans who voted voted for somebody else. It's like saying Fine Gael alone have a strong mandate here. The Republican Party generally has a strong mandate I would say, but I don't think that includes a lot of Trump's fire and forget policy declarations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

I have a feeling that it's the multiple terrorist attacks by Islamic Extremists in America since 2001 that have created the fear and, ultimately, the need for a line in the sand.

---

Is the fear - which is undeniably perpetuated by obsessive and saturated media coverage, panic and scaremongering - rational or proportionate to the real material threat though? Or is it really more so a convenient and alarming distraction/alibi (used by the media and politicians to deflect focus and blame for society's ills away from them and onto a demonised and "threatening" Other) or a handy pretext (to legitimise foreign military ventures that help extend global influence or to justify domestic policies that accord to the state greater control/observational powers over its citizens and impinge upon civil liberties)?

As Real ale Madrid suggests, placing tougher restrictions on the possession of guns, especially heavier fire-arms and assault weapons, might be an intelligent and more appropriate place to start for those truly concerned about the general well-being and safety of US citizens. Working towards greater equality, social justice and health-care (especially mental) for all - or tackling economic, political, social and cultural exclusion of the poor and minorities, in other words - may also help. A complete revamp of belligerent and incendiary foreign policy might be worth some serious thought too.

A good piece by Jim Walsh on the reality of the threat from extremist Islamists here: http://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2016...yths-jim-walsh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Walsh

When it comes to terrorism, the media have done a poor job of providing context and have frequently rushed to judgment, invoking the "Islamic terrorism" tag when it was premature to do so. The Orlando attack is simply the latest example of the 24-minute news cycle insisting on “the answer” just hours after an attack. (To be fair, journalists are human beings, and they are subject to all the emotion and error that plague the rest of us.)

I am less sympathetic to the politicians. Many of them are also human and honestly believe the falsehoods they propagate. Others are more clever. They know better but won’t let facts get in the way of a good talking point, especially when the camera lights are aglow. This smaller but particularly cynical set of office seekers are primarily interested in self-advancement, not national security. If whipping up hysteria about terror and Muslims is good politics but bad public policy, so be it.

And to be clear, terrorism is a complex phenomenon. Not all of it fits into neat categories. And while research on terrorism is light years ahead of where it was even 10 years ago, there is much that even the experts don’t know.

But, gentle reader, you too have had a role in this. The press and political aspirants have rightly judged that that you will respond to their excesses with either votes or page views. You are prone to leaping to a conclusion or a stereotype and then clinging to it -- even when confronted by evidence.

Evidence, such as:

After a sharp rise in recent years, terrorism around the world declined in 2015 by nearly 15 percent.

Nearly 80 percent of all terrorist attacks take place in five countries: Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Nigeria. Since 9/11, only half of 1 percent of all terrorism deaths occurred in the West.

Contrary to the commonly held belief, “Islamic fundamentalism was not the primary driver of lone wolf attacks, with 80 percent of deaths in the West from lone wolf attacks being attributed to a mixture of right wing extremists, nationalists, anti-government elements, other types of political extremism and supremacism.”

In the U.S., you are more likely to be killed by your spouse than a terror attack carried out by an Islamic extremist (or an immigrant).

You are thousands of times more likely to be killed by mundane, everyday causes than you are by terrorism. That’s a hard number to wrap one’s head around. Not twice as likely. Not three times as likely. Thousands of times more likely.

Unfortunately, the problem is not simply our emotional attachment to empirical fallacies. We double down by employing a “logic” that mixes different problems into a hulking mass we call “Islamic terrorism.”

Consider the Orlando attack. The perpetrator verbally invoked ISIS, so that must mean he was an Islamic extremist, right? Well, that was the story on the first day. Since then, the FBI and others have started to walk that back. We still do not have a definitive assessment of Omar Mateen’s motives and behavior, but his horrific crimes may turn out to be more about a particular form of mental illness or hate combined with easy access to military style weapons than any religious beliefs.

So how should we disentangle this snake pit of motivations? How do we tease out what is cause and effect, and what is window dressing? One approach is to use a thought experiment. Imagine a world in which ISIS or violent Islamic extremism did not exist. Would he have committed this crime anyway? Would he have found some other ideology or excuse for his actions? If the answer is yes, then it is difficult to code this as Islamic terrorism or any kind of terrorism, really. And in turn, that suggests a completely different set of policies that we should pursue to prevent this from happening in the future.

It is not enough to say, well, all terrorists are crazy (another myth) or to retreat to “it’s complicated.” Yes, it’s complicated, just like health risks can be complicated, but if we get the diagnosis wrong, then we will get the prescription wrong.

None of this is meant to suggest that terrorism is not a threat. It is -- in part because we play into the terrorists’ narrative and make it scarier than it is. And as 9/11 demonstrated, high casualty terrorism is exceedingly rare but enormously consequential, often because of how we react to it. But if we are serious about preventing the next Orlando, then we may have to give equal and separate attention to risk factors that have nothing to do with “Islamic terrorism.” And we can start by substituting facts for fears and logic for labels.

---

With respect, we are clearly diametrically opposed on many issues here. I could respond point by point with stuff that supports my perspective and challenges yours and questions your values and sources of information but I think it would be a pretty futile exercise.

I have no interest in changing people's positions on substantive issues, I just trying to share an alternate perspective that is equally valid. You can't dismiss the views of the 60 something million Americans who voted for Trump and this agenda as invalid and disgusting - just because you don't share it. We'll see how it pans out. You think it's akin to the end of the world, I'm willing to wait and see.

[sorry - just to be clear this was in response to Real Ale Madrid]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

Also, I have watched two or three news segments (CNN and Fox as it happens) since the Paris attacks that talk about the extensive work that is underway in suburbs like Moelenbeek and areas of Paris to a) monitor the areas through things like CCTV and b) build intelligence networks in those neighbourhoods. This is happening. It doesn't matter what you believe.

---

I'd imagine most public areas in major European cities are heavily monitored by CCTV surveillance, especially underprivileged and economically-neglected areas with resulting high crime-rates. By any chance, were these segments related to the ill-famed misleading/mistaken (delete as appropriate) "reports" on Fox and CNN about alleged Muslim-enclave "no-go" zones in European cities? As David A. Graham writes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David A. Graham

[The areas concerned] are defined by their socioeconomic status—they're characterized by high unemployment, high rates of public housing, and low educational attainment. As it happens, many of these areas are populated largely by poor immigrants from the Muslim world, creating a neat but misleading correlation. Some of the "no-go" coverage has suggested that police and other emergency services dare not go into these areas. The United States is sadly not immune to dangerous city areas where emergency-service providers feel unsafe, so in that way this is a universal phenomenon. But as BusinessWeek notes, it's not the case that the government has written these zones off; in fact, they've been designated for further attention and work on urban renewal.

---

Quote:

---

What's going on in Syria?? You mean the proxy war that the Obama administration was engaged in? Funding and arming terrorists like Al Queda. Yeah... America just needs to stay out of everyone's business for good and - as May and Trump said - stop trying to force the rest of the world to think like they do or have the values they do. The Middle East detests America and even more so since Obama.

---

We'll have to wait and see if Trump lives up to this "promise", but May's seemingly amicable and placid rhetoric certainly doesn't amount to much. Britain is presently engaged in numerous covert wars around the globe: http://markcurtis.info/2016/10/14/br...n-covert-wars/

Quote:

---

Spell out for me what America or other European countries that turned migrants away are missing out on by saying "not right now, thanks".

---

There is surely an argument there that the West bears significant responsibility to help clean up or alleviate the historical messes it has created, and, indeed, the contemporary messes it is still creating. If humanitarianism - coming to the aid of people who've fled poverty, conflict or strife (in many cases, directly caused by Western powers' historical and present-day interference in their region) - or what one might call altruism isn't motivation enough for privileged and stable Western states whose historical development and prosperity is, again, in many cases, rooted in colonialism/imperialism (or what many regard as the neo-colonialism of globalisation), exploitation of people/resources and explicit racism, there is nevertheless a self-interest argument there too (for those who may be motivated only by such) that many Western economies could seriously do with an injection of motivated young people of working age due to those countries' ageing populations and top-heavy population pyramids (resulting from lower birth-rates and higher life expectancies). Statistically, most migrants are aged 20-30; thus, they increase the labour force, which in turn increases the economic output capacity of the country concerned.

Also, as Yanis Varoufakis pleaded on a recent BBC 'Question Time', respect refugees - treat their trauma - and they'll overwhelmingly return the favour both emotionally and materially.

And let's not forget that the US was built by migrants (and, yes, slaves brought from Africa involuntarily); it's a melting pot of different cultures and ideas. Excluding those of Native American descent and those whose ancestors were brought to the US as slaves, all US citizens are the descendants of migrants. People have always moved around the world to better their lives; it's what we do and it's how we've evolved, developed and civilised. That all seemed to work out OK for the US and what it has become; an economic superpower with vast and exceptional wealth (albeit distributed very, very unequally).

You're an immigrant in Canada yourself, to the best of my knowledge; do you consider yourself a burden on Canadian society or do you think of yourself as a contributor? Presumably you feel you have something to offer your host society? Are you thankful for opportunities with which Canada has (presumably) provided you? If you think about your answers to these questions, why would other immigrant hopefuls necessarily be or have to be any different from your case?

A friend of mine posted a great comment on the topic of immigration a while back, so I'll paraphrase the more relevant points and sentiments...

He wrote that the Malthusian argument that more people or increasing population leads to scarcity of resources ignores the fact that people innovate and adapt. Again, innovation and adaption is what we do; it's how we've evolved. People solve problems they encounter and the more people working on a problem, often the better. People are needed to deal with ever-present problems like sickness and disease, which is why 26 per cent of NHS doctors in the UK were born outside the UK. Then there are problems like agriculture, food production or the disciplines of science, technology, engineering and maths, all of which need more people working on them now.

In Ireland and the UK, for example, new immigrants and refugees cannot legally work or earn benefits - so scare stories about them doing just that are literally invented - but, once accepted, those who don't have the academic qualifications that are desperately needed tend to disproportionately do service-industry and low-paid jobs that are also under-staffed, for want of a better term. The overall impact of immigrants appears to be a net positive. But they look different and are a handy way for the rich to convince the poor that some "smelly", "animalistic" or "threatening" group of even poorer people are why they're so poor. Maybe the British establishment especially should be more squeamish about casting poor former colonial subjects as "coming over here to steal our resources". There's a huge dollop of post-colonial hypocrisy and mind-numbing irony at play there that they would do well to recognise.

I find it hard to respond to these long posts on my phone but I'll try and respond to the general themes that have been raised.

NFB - regarding mandate - the weeks just before the election we were told by almost every MSM outlet that Trump had no path to victory and that Clinton led in every state poll. It turned out that he absolutely destroyed her from an electoral college perspective, turning all key battleground states red and switching long standing blue states red like PA. It was, by any standard, a stunning result and a resounding victory that gives significant weight to his agenda. In addition the Republican Party now holds the majority in all branches of Government. That is an overwhelming green light for change away from the Obama years. Trump and his campaign promises energized a huge portion of the electorate and turned blue states red. That's a big deal.

Danny - re terrorist threat - in a large context the terrorist threat is not something that poses a daily threat to our quality of life. However, as is the intent of terrorism, when it happens it creates fear and an irrational feeling of insecurity. That this drives a public/policy response is normal.

To deny or downplay, as Jim Walsh has, the connection between Islam and these attacks is as irresponsible as blaming all Muslims for these attacks.

Is Trumps response the right one given the reality of the threat? I don't know. Probably not. But the key here is that to many people it is understandable. Insofar as there is a need for us to contextualise these attacks there is also a need for a response.

Agree re guns! They're bananas. It's a self fulfilling prophecy from that regard.

Heading out - will respond more soon... (I'm sure you all can't wait! :D )

I'm not denying that Trump won big in the electoral college, anymore than you could deny that Clinton won the popular vote by a significant margin. The question is what's more significant in terms of defining whether Trump has a "strong mandate". I certainly wouldn't consider something as inherently flawed as the EC (a different debate, but connected to all of this) the best metric to judge a populations support for the kind of policy Trump is coming out with. The Congress is a different story of course, but its already becoming clear that the Republican Congress and the "Republican" President aren't entirely on the same page.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

In Ireland and the UK, for example, new immigrants and refugees cannot legally work or earn benefits - so scare stories about them doing just that are literally invented - but, once accepted, those who don't have the academic qualifications that are desperately needed tend to disproportionately do service-industry and low-paid jobs that are also under-staffed, for want of a better term. The overall impact of immigrants appears to be a net positive. But they look different and are a handy way for the rich to convince the poor that some "smelly", "animalistic" or "threatening" group of even poorer people are why they're so poor. Maybe the British establishment especially should be more squeamish about casting poor former colonial subjects as "coming over here to steal our resources". There's a huge dollop of post-colonial hypocrisy and mind-numbing irony at play there that they would do well to recognise.

---

I just want to add from personal experience in my current work (admin/admissions in an academic institution), nearly every international applicant from outside the EU has a degree from their native country and is working a menial part-time job here because it isn't recognized as worth anything in the EU. For those studying to better themselves and improve their prospects, the stamp 2 Visa severely restricts their ability to work (legally), to the point that many of them are dangerously close to the poverty line in Dublin.

I wouldn't even touch this thread with Paul O'Shea's log-in :cool:

Probably the most intelligent thing said on this thread so far! :D haha - I knew I was doomed.

Another excellent article by the ever-reliable Glenn Greenwald here; this one's about Trump's outrageous and likely-unconstitutional ban on immigrants from Syria, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Iran, Sudan, and Yemen: https://theintercept.com/2017/01/28/...uely-shameful/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glenn Greenwald

It is not difficult for any decent human being to immediately apprehend why and how Donald Trump’s ban on immigrants from seven Muslim countries is inhumane, bigoted, and shameful. During the campaign, the evil of the policy was recognized even by Mike Pence (“offensive and unconstitutional”) and Paul Ryan (violative of America’s “fundamental values”), who are far too craven and cowardly to object now.

Trump’s own defense secretary, Gen. James Mattis, said when Trump first advocated his Muslim ban back in August that “we have lost faith in reason,” adding: “This kind of thing is causing us great damage right now, and it’s sending shock waves through this international system.”

The sole ostensible rationale for this ban — it is necessary to keep out Muslim extremists — collapses upon the most minimal scrutiny. The countries that have produced and supported the greatest number of anti-U.S. terrorists — Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, UAE — are excluded from the ban list because the tyrannical regimes that run those countries are close U.S. allies. Conversely, the countries that are included — Syria, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Iran, Sudan, and Yemen — have produced virtually no such terrorists; as the Cato Institute documented on Friday night: “Foreigners from those seven nations have killed zero Americans in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1975 and the end of 2015.” Indeed, as of a 2015 study by the New America research center, deaths caused by terrorism from right-wing nationalists since 9/11 have significantly exceeded those from Muslim extremists.

Trump’s pledge last night to a Christian broadcasting network to prioritize Christian refugees over all others is just profane: The very idea of determining who merits refuge on the basis of religious belief is bigotry in its purest sense. Beyond the morality, it is almost also certainly unconstitutional in a country predicated on the “free exercise of religion.” In the New York Times this morning, Cato analyst David Bier also convincingly argues that the policy is illegal on statutory grounds as well.

...

Trump did not appear out of nowhere. He is the logical and most grotesque expression of a variety of trends we have allowed to fester: endless war, a virtually omnipotent presidency, unlimited war powers from spying to due process-free imprisonment to torture to assassinations, repeated civil liberties erosions in the name of illusory guarantees of security, and the sustained demonization of Muslims as scary, primitive, uniquely violent Others.

A country that engages in endless war against multiple countries not only kills a lot of people but degrades its own citizenry. Trump is the rotted fruit that inevitably sprouts from such fetid roots.

Trump is not a Russian phenomenon, nor an Italian one, nor Latin American: He is distinctly and consummately American, merely the most extreme face yet from America’s endless war on terror and its post-2008 lurch toward oligarchy. Pretending that Trump is some grand aberration, some radical departure from U.S. history and values, is simply a deceitful way of whitewashing what we have collectively endorsed and allowed.

Thus did we witness the spectacle last week of many acting as though Trump’s plans for CIA black sites, torture, and rendition were shocking Trumpian aberrations even though many of those denouncing the plans were the ones who advocated or implemented those policies in the first place or protected those who did from criminal prosecution. Denouncing and opposing Trump should not serve to obscure sins of the recent past or whitewash the seeds planted before him that have allowed him to sprout. Opposing Trump’s assault on basic liberties requires a clear understanding of the framework that gave rise to it.

...

It is often the case that extremists on both sides of a protracted conflict end up mirroring one another’s attributes, mentality, and tactics. That is precisely what we are now witnessing as anti-Muslim crusaders in the U.S. adopt the same premises as ISIS and its allies: that the West and Muslims are inherently and irreconcilably adverse. As my colleague Murtaza Hussain described in 2015, the ultimate strategic and propaganda goal of ISIS is to eliminate the “gray zone” for Western Muslims, “generating hostility between domestic Muslim populations and the broader societies that they live in” so as to convince both sides that they should be at war rather than striving for harmony and assimilation.

It is difficult to envision anything that helps ISIS’s overarching objective, its central narrative, more than Trump’s immigration ban aimed at Muslims while privileging Christian refugees. But it’s not impossible to imagine policies that could be worse in this regard. The danger now is that this immigration ban is merely the first step on this heinous path, not the last. That’s why it’s urgent that everything be done to denounce it, battle it, and defeat it now.

---

Rather than immediately denounce Trump's ban when she was given the perfect opportunity to do so during her current visit to Turkey, however, Theresa May, who really is terribly disingenuous, twice dodged direct questions on it and simply refused to condemn it: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7551121.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Independent

Theresa May has repeatedly refused to condemn Donald Trump’s ban on refugees and entry for citizens of seven Muslim-majority nations after meeting with Turkish leaders.

She was speaking just a day after meeting the new President in Washington, where the pair pledged their commitment to the “special relationship” between Britain and the US.

After agreeing a controversial £100 million fighter jet deal amid wide-ranging purges and security crackdowns following an attempted coup against President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Ms May held a joint press conference with Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım.

Their talks were overshadowed by global debate over Mr Trump’s executive order to ban Syrian refugees from entering the US indefinitely, halt all other asylum admissions for 120 days and suspend travel visas for citizens of “countries of particular concern”, including Syria, Iraq and other Muslim-majority nations.

Faisal Islam, the political editor of Sky News, asked Ms May whether she viewed it as an “action of the leader of the free world”.

The Prime Minister replied that she was “very pleased” to have met Mr Trump in Washington, before evading the question by hailing Turkey’s reception of millions of refugees and Britain’s support for its government and other nations surrounding Syria.

When pressed for a second time for her view by another British journalist, Ms May continued: “The United States is responsible for the United States’ policy on refugees, the United Kingdom is responsible for the United Kingdom’s policy on refugees.”

Yvette Cooper, the former shadow Home Secretary, sent a letter to the Prime Minister urging her to echo condemnation from French and German ministers over the “deeply troubling” executive order.

Ed Miliband, the former Labour leader, said the Prime Minister's refusal to condemn Mr Trump's Muslim ban “is shocking, wrong and cannot stand”.

He added: “It flies in the face of the values of people across Britain.”

---

How utterly craven of May.

Interesting background on the above:

https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28...wont-tell-you/

Real Ale Madrid: within the narrow confines you've given me, in 2016 alone I can come up with 3 terrorist attacks carried out by refugees

- St Cloud
- New York and NJ bombings
- Ohio State University

Could also make an argument for Orlando and San Bernardino but they might be shouted down as not being part of the refugee program.

By the way, sincere thanks for the info on the screening they receive. Seems quite extensive. Not sure what else could or should be done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter

I'm not denying that Trump won big in the electoral college, anymore than you could deny that Clinton won the popular vote by a significant margin. The question is what's more significant in terms of defining whether Trump has a "strong mandate". I certainly wouldn't consider something as inherently flawed as the EC (a different debate, but connected to all of this) the best metric to judge a populations support for the kind of policy Trump is coming out with. The Congress is a different story of course, but its already becoming clear that the Republican Congress and the "Republican" President aren't entirely on the same page.

---

Hey NFB. You are right in that there are issues with the Electoral College system however you would have to also agree that there are significant problems with the alternatives. I think the college system needs adjusting but I do not think it would be wise to abandon it.

That said, it is what they use and Trump won resoundingly. By any yardstick imaginable what Trump achieved was mind blowing. Almost 200 point swing from 2012. To turn the states red that were turned (rust belt, PA etc) and how close he got to turning others was actually a massive achievement and speaks to how strong and the response to his agenda was. And also how much the Dems abandoned those people over the last 8 years and how much they were ignored in the campaign.

Although the liberal MSM will have you believe otherwise there is a strong mandate there. That said, it would be just as important for Trump to find a way to appeal to the liberals/left although at this stage, given the damage that has been done, is that even possible? And if it is not possible then should he still try? I don't know...

We'll have to just disagree on that. I don't need any media source to tell me that the winner of an election who got three million less votes than the other candidate doesn't have any popular mandate to pull the kind of stuff he's done in the last seven days, let alone a strong one.

Without wishing to derail the purpose of this threat, I found it continually baffling that the electoral college is so strongly defended by so many. Just about the only redeeming aspect of it is it's potential to ensure it remains a federal contest where candidates have to try and win a broad array of states, but even that's weak as an argument since it's come down to just 14 or so states consistently now. It's a system where it is mathematically possible to win 22% of the popular vote and be elected President; it's no surprise one in 20 elections see's the popular decision ignored.

There's been reports that Trump has even discussed doing away with it with legislators this week, but was talked out of it by senior Republicans (go figure; they have twice won the Presidency in our lifetimes without a popular majority, and only "Blue" states have signed the Popular Vote Compact). Not that surprising I suppose: You can tell the popular loss irks Trump by how much he goes on about illegitimate voters and fraud without a shred of hard proof, to the chagrin of Ryan and co.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

Real Ale Madrid: within the narrow confines you've given me, in 2016 alone I can come up with 3 terrorist attacks carried out by refugees

- St Cloud
- New York and NJ bombings
- Ohio State University

Could also make an argument for Orlando and San Bernardino but they might be shouted down as not being part of the refugee program.

By the way, sincere thanks for the info on the screening they receive. Seems quite extensive. Not sure what else could or should be done.

---

St Cloud , NY/NJ, San Bernardino and Orlando attacks were all carried out by US citizens not refugees.

The Ohio state was carried out by a refugee I think, no fatalities there thankfully.

Edit - 1 fatality in Ohio , looked it up there.