The OFFICIAL Trump/HRC/2016 General Election Thread...

[jamil]

Member when SNL went after everybody? I member.

A look back at all the **** that was going on with the clintons for our younger members.
Another bullet dodged..... unlike Vince foster...

yeah, the Janet Reno X/Y chromosome bit just wouldn't be tolerated today. That's some funny **** there.

 

[Kutnupe14]

lolwut

Well, I guess I don't need to respond to you seriously anymore.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Trump's transition team announce 5-year lobbying ban for appointees

How exactly does one enforce that, if it's not law?

 

[printcraft]

 

[bwframe]

...If they hate Trump now, wait 'til his policies start working...

...I would tell the kids and the Dems, keep doing what you are doing. Go ahead and put Keith Ellison in charge. Grab this oportunity and run way to the left...


[video=youtube;SNcWw_xvL2Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNcWw_xvL2Y[/video]

 

[actaeon277]

If they hate Trump now, wait 'til his policies start working...

[video=youtube;SNcWw_xvL2Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNcWw_xvL2Y[/video]

Yup. Keep doing it.

 

[chipbennett]

You can't excuse everything away with semantics.

It's an easy tool to try and shut down legit arguments and criticisms.

Next you'll tell me you agree with the "sheriff star" explanation for the graphic they used on the Shapiro article.

How is it semantics? Explain how the phrase "renegade Jew" is bigoted/anti-semitic. I'll wait.

And, no: I have no problem with whatever clipart that article used. Has the six-pointed star been banned/rendered verboten, like the swastika? Oh, that's right: it gets used in all sorts of contexts, but is only an issue when someone wants to use Alinsky tactics to smear someone.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

How is it semantics? Explain how the phrase "renegade Jew" is bigoted/anti-semitic. I'll wait.

Literally posting a dictionary definition is how you're using semantics to argue this. Context is more important. There's nothing insulting or odd about calling someone a "renegade black", "renegade white", "renegade mexican"... someone that you oppose (given who said it, and who they said it about). That's 100% cool? Was it necessary? Was it something he'd call him to his face?

And, no: I have no problem with whatever clipart that article used. Has the six-pointed star been banned/rendered verboten, like the swastika? Oh, that's right: it gets used in all sorts of contexts, but is only an issue when someone wants to use Alinsky tactics to smear someone.

... I really, really hoped you were telling the truth early this year when you said you could be neutral on this stuff and critical about things. I'm seeing more and more that's not happening.

 

[chipbennett]

Literally posting a dictionary definition is how you're using semantics to argue this. Context is more important. There's nothing insulting or odd about calling someone a "renegade black", "renegade white", "renegade mexican"... someone that you oppose (given who said it, and who they said it about). That's 100% cool? Was it necessary? Was it something he'd call him to his face?

You're making the claim that "renegade Jew", used in that specific context, is wrong. Explain how it is so.

... I really, really hoped you were telling the truth early this year when you said you could be neutral on this stuff and critical about things. I'm seeing more and more that's not happening.

I merely see the Alinsky tactics for what they are. Neither Steve Bannon nor Breitbart is anti-semite, nor does either one advocate anti-semitism. A piece of clipart does not refute the volume of actual words published, or the editorial stance taken.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I merely see the Alinsky tactics for what they are. Neither Steve Bannon nor Breitbart is anti-semite, nor does either one advocate anti-semitism. A piece of clipart does not refute the volume of actual words published, or the editorial stance taken.

I look at a negative article about a jewish journalist, in which his face is within a 6-pointed star, to have some meaning to it. Not an accident.

You trivialize it (because I assume you agree with the article) by merely calling it "clipart".

I disagree with you. That's just how it's going to be.

 

[chipbennett]

I look at a negative article about a jewish journalist, in which his face is within a 6-pointed star, to have some meaning to it. Not an accident.

You trivialize it (because I assume you agree with the article) by merely calling it "clipart".

I disagree with you. That's just how it's going to be.

I've not read the article, so I can't say whether I agree with it or not.

I'm still waiting for the explanation of how "renegade Jew" is offensive/bigoted/anti-semitic/whatever.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I've not read the article, so I can't say whether I agree with it or not.

But you're willing to interpret, without reading the article, what it means. See? There it is, the literally blind defense of it... without having any context at all.

This is why the "clipart" remark is so ridiculous. This is why this thread is so ridiculous.

 

[chipbennett]

But you're willing to interpret, without reading the article, what it means. See? There it is, the literally blind defense of it... without having any context at all.

This is why the "clipart" remark is so ridiculous. This is why this thread is so ridiculous.

I'm still waiting for the explanation of how "renegade Jew" is offensive/bigoted/anti-semitic/whatever. My agreement or disagreement with the article has no bearing on that explanation.

 

[miguel]

Somebody looks a wee bit tired.

 

[T.Lex]

So, on a totally unrelated topic, it looks like the Trump administration will have a Muslim-oriented registry of some sort.
Trump's Muslim registry wouldn't be illegal, constitutional law experts say - POLITICO

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, known for his hard-line stance on immigration, told Reuters in a story published Wednesday that he has been in regular contact with Trump’s immigration advisers and that the president-elect’s team is considering a system modeled after a controversial one implemented in the months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It fulfills Trump’s promise of “extreme vetting” for immigrants from countries affected by terrorism, a threshold he has yet to flesh out more fully.
That program, labeled the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, required those entering the U.S. from a list of certain countries — all but one predominantly Muslim — to register when they arrived in the U.S., undergo more thorough interrogation and be fingerprinted.

INGO's thoughts?

And yeah, it probably is constitutional. Doesn't make it right.

NY's funky laws on rifle attributes are probably constitutional. Doesn't make them right.

 

[chipbennett]

So, on a totally unrelated topic, it looks like the Trump administration will have a Muslim-oriented registry of some sort.
Trump's Muslim registry wouldn't be illegal, constitutional law experts say - POLITICO

INGO's thoughts?

And yeah, it probably is constitutional. Doesn't make it right.

NY's funky laws on rifle attributes are probably constitutional. Doesn't make them right.

The only problem that I have is that such a "registry" (which is really nothing more than a record of entry, and a record of exit) should be required for all immigrants. I'm surprised that it isn't. It is in the country's interests to have a record of entry, and a record of exit. (Were I to emigrate to another country, I would have zero problems with doing this myself.)

Note that it isn't "Muslim-oriented". Both Muslims and non-Muslims from the identified countries would undergo the process (registry, more-thorough interrogation, fingerprinting).

 

[jamil]

I've not read the article, so I can't say whether I agree with it or not.

I'm still waiting for the explanation of how "renegade Jew" is offensive/bigoted/anti-semitic/whatever.

if you haven't read the article how would you know the context to form an opinion? I haven't read it myself. I don't believe I'm read in enough to say whether it's anti-Semitic or not. And I also don't have a predisposition to believing one way or the other.

 

[T.Lex]

The only problem that I have is that such a "registry" (which is really nothing more than a record of entry, and a record of exit) should be required for all immigrants. I'm surprised that it isn't. It is in the country's interests to have a record of entry, and a record of exit. (Were I to emigrate to another country, I would have zero problems with doing this myself.)

Note that it isn't "Muslim-oriented". Both Muslims and non-Muslims from the identified countries would undergo the process (registry, more-thorough interrogation, fingerprinting).

So that's the thing. We do already do all of this. (Well, not sure of the fingerprinting, but ID checks/confirmation, etc.)

As described, it would be Muslim-oriented, as it focuses on Muslim countries. (Side note: I'd be curious about which Muslim countries, or all of them.) If the registry was for Italy, Ireland, and France, it would make sense to say it focused on Catholics. (Ok, maybe not France anymore, but I needed a third country.)

Anyway, the main problem I have is that it is a placebo like racial profiling. It substitutes doing something for doing something effective. It is using people who want to come to the US to start a million mini-investigations that are unlikely to an extreme to generate anything substantive. It redefines RAS to include anyone who wants to come to the US (from those countries).

I presume The List will be public. So, real terrorists can easily circumvent it.

Then when we add more countries to it, the system becomes bloated.

Interesting, somewhat contemporaneous, treatise on NSEERS.
http://www.law.msu.edu/king/2003/2003_Rubin.pdf

Of course, certain predictable entities claim it was ineffective. Haven't really found anything suggesting it was effective, but I'm open to enlightenment on it.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Bit of thread cross-over here, and related to the "fake news" stuff going on right now.

Facebook fake-news writer: ‘I think Donald Trump is in the White House because of me’

 

[chipbennett]

if you haven't read the article how would you know the context to form an opinion? I haven't read it myself. I don't believe I'm read in enough to say whether it's anti-Semitic or not. And I also don't have a predisposition to believing one way or the other.

I'm still waiting for the explanation of how "renegade Jew" is offensive/bigoted/anti-semitic/whatever. The burden of supporting that argument lies with those who make it. Until that explanation is given, whether or not I've read the article remains irrelevant.