PRESIDENT TRUMP

Posts

author=kentona
If we are going to discuss celebrities and politics, I would prefer that a Terminator is president over the whackadoo in there now. Trump's bahavior is abhorent and undignified.


Well, we're pretty close. Basically, all the bad guys from Captain Planet are in the White House.
Hexatona
JESEUS MIMLLION SPOLERS
3702
Man that realization is really sad...
Kellyanne Conway, a top aide to President Donald Trump, cited the 2011 “Bowling Green massacre” to defend the president's travel ban - a “massacre” that actually never happened.

Like, what the actual fuck??

WHAT IS THE REAL AIM OF THE BAN?

Scaring people so that they are more malleable is so far my pick.
author=Ankylo
I'm genuinely curious, what is the "alt-left" and what do they want?

So, no matter where you fall politically, you have to admit that some people really are crazy SJWs. I consider myself a social-justice minded person firmly on the left, I think Trump is somehow even worse than I was imagining, I'm a third-wave feminist, I think Obama was one of the best presidents the US has ever seen... but there's totally an "alt-left" SJW faction out there.

These are the people that make it very difficult, even impossible, to have an honest conversation about the links between Islam and terrorism without being branded a bigot. About the links between race and crime without being branded a racist. The differences between men and women without being branded a sexist.

Now, I think the worst you can say about the "alt-left" is generally better than the best you can say about the alt-right. Sorry, but I'll take "ALL COPS ARE RACIST" over "GET THE JEWS OUT OF AMERICA" any day of the week.

But racist cops aren't the only reason more black people are incarcerated (I think it's obviously socio-economic conditions that exist from slavery/Jim Crow/institutionalized racism/prison industrial complex/etc, and has absolutely nothing to do with anything intrinsic to race). Even if you removed all traces of racism right this second, this problem would still persist, and the oppressors (let's say people in positions of power, which are mostly white people) can only do so much. Black people (not necessarily as a group; I don't know exactly what I mean by 'black people' in this context) would have to contribute to this process as well. Do you see how much I have to hedge against racism in talking about this?

But even acknowledging that what I've said is true gets you branded a racist by the "alt left".

It's a tricky situation because there really are a fuck ton of people that use "reasonable arguments" like what I've said above to smuggle in actual racism, and I think the "alt left" is generally coming from a good place in being sensitive to that. I'd rather people be too sensitive to racism than not sensitive enough. But it's still true that trying to have any honest conversation about this will get you labelled a bigot by a way-too-large group of people.

There is a faction of the "alt left" that would love to see people fined or imprisoned for saying "nigger."

Now, I think the right greatly exaggerates this. They're overreacting terribly. Most of the left is pretty reasonable. But these people do exist. They exist on a spectrum from the very far left (armed militias giving out vigilante justice for saying "cunt"?) to people that might just unfairly think you're a bigot and make a snide remark on twitter. There are people with very toxic and/or misinformed ideas about social justice on both the left and the right.

From where I'm standing, I'll take an SJW over a Nazi without a second thought. But the SJW problem is definitely a problem.

Being part of a movement doesn't help anybody think clearly. And again, I say this as someone that considers himself a feminist and absolutely a proponent of social justice. I consider myself an ally in the struggle of women, an ally of the struggle of LBGTQ people. But there are those that take it too far, and they do present an actual problem to the task of creating a viable global civilization.

I suspect merely ignoring them isn't the best way to deal with this.
Regarding the Berkley riot: please don't use the actions of a small group of young, stupid radicals as a metonymy for "the left." That's like me pointing to the whole Quebec thing or the Pizzagate foible as indicative of "the right." There are assholes in every cultural context.

Regarding Sarah Silverman: first, if people really listen to celebrities, then Donald Trump would have lost the election. Second, of course calling for a coup is a bad thing. Trump may be a fucking trainwreck, but a coup could cause major instability. So I agree: Silverman shouldn't have said that. But it's also really hard to give a shit.
Well, he lost the popular vote by quite a lot. He won because a quirk in the system allows the loser to be awarded victory, and without James Comey's second letter, you're probably looking at an easy Clinton win. FL, PA, MI and WI all likely go to Clinton without Comey.

I'm inclined to agree that people don't listen to celebrities, but that he would have lost if people did isn't necessarily true, given that the loser can win in the US presidential election.
Hahaha, you're not going to get an argument out of me about the election results. They were indeed horseshit for a number of reasons.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
author=kentona
As David Bier, an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute—a conservative, libertarian think-tank founded by Charles Koch, of Koch brothers fame—pointed out:

“The order would ban all people entering the United States from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen, and yet no terrorist from these places has carried out a lethal attack in the United States. Indeed, no Libyans or Syrians have even been convicted for planning such an attack. Moreover, the likelihood of being killed by any refugee from any country is just 1 in 3.64 billion a year. This discrimination is arbitrary and cannot be rationally justified based on a assessment of the risk.”
So, what is the real aim of the ban? Is it to incite fear in the American people? Because a far reaching, hasty, broad temporary ban should mean that there is an imminent and dangerous threat, shouldn't it?

Is it because Trump wants to look tough?

It's just not adding up between the EO and what the White House is saying and what reality is. A piece of the puzzle is missing.

Yes to all of the above. The missing piece, however, is Trump Industries. How convenient it is that the nations who actually serve a threat to America aren't on the ban list and also have dealings with Trump Industries. If they can just move all the talent of the region towards those countries, their international job market and economies will boost... in Trump's favor. Let's also not forget how Melania Trump has been virtually invisible since Trump took office and has in fact decided to spend the entirety of her husband's presidency out of the White House (probably running the business).

It's also speculated that Melania Trump is an abuse victim based on her demeanor at the swearing in of her husband. According to another victim of abuse (who wishes to remain anonymous), the signs were there. Her face seemed to "drop" at her proposed abuser's victory.

The skeletons keep piling up, but at least the American people can live in relative comfort that "Muslims"™ won't be flying into the country to take all the jobs and incite Sharia Law.
I was going to say earlier that Trump's arrogance and impetuousness will get someone killed, but it looks like it already has.
Craze
why would i heal when i could equip a morningstar
15170
all i know is that i've felt sick to be an american after the travel ban. it took the women's march wind out of my sails

and then i was morbidly reading through KAC's twitter today... for somebody who wrote a book about women empowerment a few years ago, she's doing her best to shit on anybody with a vagina outfit. "what would your mother think?" my step-mother marched, you self-loathing vampire
author=kentona
So, what is the real aim of the ban?
I heard a good analysis on this.
Occasionally, when a troubled regime sees a major issue coming down the pipe, they'll try to cover it up with a more major issue. International events are good for this because they command the attention of the world, not just the governed population. One recent example is China's aggressive territorial behavior in the South China Sea. A far more extreme example is Hitler invading Poland because the Nazi Economy's substantial debts were coming due.

What the White House administration may have been trying to cover up is the growing split in the Republican party. For the last decade or so, the Republicans have comfortably gotten away with rhetoric, saying how they'll destroy this or that social program, hold government spending in check, go after the Muslims, et al. Now that they're actually in power and pretty much have carte blanche, some of them are realizing "Oh my god. If we actually go through with our promises, we'll be attacking our own electorate!" Smarter and cooler heads are suggesting they tone it down a little, but the party is still filled with Tea Party fanatics determined to burn down the house.
Obamacare is particularly contentious because it's first on the chopping block and they still have no replacement, despite their promise to swap out the old with the new "essentially simultaneously." They're catching on that, if they go ahead and demolish it, Trumpcare™ will be an albatross around their necks for generations to come.

So rather than letting it come to light that, two weeks after inauguration the Republicans are already showing signs of dissent and internal strife, the White House decided to go ahead with this rushed, hackneyed executive order that pissed off the entire world and is guaranteed to be challenged and defeated in court.


As an aside, it's another example of Trump's decisionism. He wants to be able to rule by decree, not by legal constitutional government. Maybe he and his confidants believe that if they saturate the system with dictatorial edicts, some of them will start to slide.
pianotm
The TM is for Totally Magical.
32388
Well, this could be a pretty good explanation when one considers that of all of the banned countries, none of them are among the countries whose nationals have successfully launched terrorist attacks on the U. S.

EDIT: Also, found this, for a bit of fun:

http://www.heavymetal.com/news/president-elect-donald-trump-as-foretold-in-a-1990-heavy-metal-story/
author=Dyhalto
author=kentona
So, what is the real aim of the ban?
snip

This makes... a shocking amount of sense when you really think about it. And honestly, it's gotren me thinking about the deeper facets of this whole controversy. I wouldn't say it makes me feel "better" but it has me looking away from the outrage and thinking about it critically, for sure. I guess I feel a lot more composed than anything.

It will be interesting to see what kinds of discussions arise in the coming months, about the full extent of what's been going on.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
To play Devil's advocate, Obama first petitioned a ban on international travel and started collecting information on "troublesome" countries but never went through on any action based on such information. If anything, Trump is just being the judicial branch to Obama's legislative. I guess the Republicans got tired of being called the party of "no" and are now going full bore on anything they can get their hands on.

And as far as I've heard, Trumpcare is just going to be Obamacare but without punishing those who don't pay for it. How they plan to make up the financial difference is beyond me, but with upwards of 35,000 human lives at stake per year, I guess they didn't feel like changing too much.
pianotm
The TM is for Totally Magical.
32388
Corfaisus
And as far as I know, Trumpcare is just going to be Obamacare but without punishing those who don't pay for it. How they plan to make up the financial difference is beyond me, but with human lives at stake, I guess they didn't feel like changing too much.


This is more of a relief than many people, I would think, can imagine. I would think that the cost would be made up by adding to standard taxes, which is how it should have been done in the first place.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
http://www.wfaa.com/news/politics/national-politics/trump-blasts-so-called-federal-judges-block-of-travel-ban/398736244

HULK SMASH!


"so-called judge"

So-Called President Donald John Trump everyone.

And if that honestly wasn't lulzy enough...


>Holds up traffic to record internet video.
>Complains about other drivers.
>Savage


tl;dw "I like him because he's unprofessional." Washington also apparently rode into battle with a musket instead of a sword.

Please know your own country's history before you start referencing it. It makes absolutely no sense at all for a decorated commander to ride into combat brandishing an infantryman's weapon.
Agreed with everything BadLuck posted tbh.

Also, re: the milo riot
Just a reminder that image macros are no-nos outside of the Welp section. We don't usually mind their use with extra text every now and then in a topic when it fits but let's keep them out of the more serious topics, shall we?

(This is in relation to the reaction gifs from a page or so back, nothing on this page).
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
If you were alive in 1930, and were not a time traveller who had knowledge of the future, it would in fact be morally wrong to stop Hitler's free speech. There's no question. Taking away people's rights because you're worried they might do bad things in the future is wrong. This applies to preventing Muslims from trying to enter because you're worried they may one day blow us up, and also equally to trying to depose Trump's legitimate government because you're worried they may one day blow us up. Both things are wrong.