Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[ldrews]

Question: how do you get the quote source in the header to the quote?

 

Nevermind, I found it!

[hrothgar]

Well, since Trump voters currently have power, would you find it acceptable for them to shoot you?

 

You do understand that I was being facetious, correct?

 

With this said and done, I view the Trump voters as an unhealthy aberration, one that is already war with me and mine.

I am more than happy to up the ante...

 

I am not doing anything violent. I am not breaking laws. However, I have a long list of companies that I am boycotting and individuals that I am cutting out of my life.

 

And in all honesty, if I knew that I could pay a nickel and in so doing, stop you from suffering a horrible painful death I'd keep my money and sleep like a baby...

[cherdano]

This doesn't answer the question. What is your alternative solution?

 

My solution to solve the crisis in Syria is to drop an atomic bomb on North Korea. What is your alternative solution?

[Winstonm]

Apparently a lot of people (those who voted for Trump) feel that potential terrorism from people from the Middle East is a major problem. Trump has just made some attempt to address that perception/problem. If you object to his approach, how would you address that perception/problem?

 

President Obama already had the right approach in place, allying with other nations to eradicate a problem found within their borders, with our aid and assistance, and to utilize less standing army actions and more drone, special forces actions against specific targets while bolstering intelligence sources and relying on the FBI and others to protect from random homegrown/radicalized terrorists actions within our own borders.

 

That does not mean I think Obama was 100% right in everything he did - but he understood that generational problems can only be addressed incrementally by any one administration.

 

The lunacy of the Trump/Bannon approach is that they act and seem to believe that the problems of terrorist activity within the U.S. borders can be solved quickly and easily if only the right decisions are made about which groups to exclude.

[Trinidad]

Apparently a lot of people (those who voted for Trump) feel that potential terrorism from people from the Middle East is a major problem. Trump has just made some attempt to address that perception/problem. If you object to his approach, how would you address that perception/problem?

By teaching people elementary math:

1. 
    
   
2. How many people died in the USA through Muslim terrorism in the past 20 years? (Note that this includes 9/11. I could have said the past 10 years.)
   
3. How many people died from gun accidents in the USA in the past 20 years?
   
4. How many people died from drunk driving in the USA in the past 20 years?
   

 

 

1. 
    
   
2. Don't know, but the WTC bombing led to 2753 fatalities. Of course, there are more than 9/11 at the WTC. Let's say 3000-3500.
   
3. According to gunviolencearchive.org, in December 2016 alone 59 people died from gun accidents. In 20 years x 12 months x 59 = 14 160 (or 4-5 x more than muslim terrorism).
   
4. In 2014 alone, 9 967 people died in alcohol related car accidents in the USA. So, for the past 20 years, this number will have been approximately 200 000. (60-70 x more than Muslim terrorism.)
   

 

 

Don't get me wrong. Every victim of Muslim terrorism is one too many. But if you would look at these facts, what would be your priority?

1) Make people afraid of Muslims for electoral gain.

2) Do something about the real killers.

 

Rik

[PassedOut]

Apparently a lot of people (those who voted for Trump) feel that potential terrorism from people from the Middle East is a major problem. Trump has just made some attempt to address that perception/problem. If you object to his approach, how would you address that perception/problem?

You address it with a strong defense and by keeping the focus on being the best country the US can be, even in the face of those perceived threats.

 

One of Trump's character flaws is that he lets others control his emotions and behavior whenever he perceives a slight, real or imagined. This nasty order is certain to result in more terrorist attacks, by enraging others with the same character flaw as Trump. And there is no reason to suppose that those attacks will be limited to Trump properties around the world or in the US.

[Al_U_Card]

I find the reactions amazing! Trump says: "Give me 110% of what I want!" The opposition says:"110%! That is outrageous! Nobody gets that extra 10%! We won't give you more than 100%!" Trump:"OK"

Positive reinforcement. Tactics learned that get the (eventual) job done, bluff and bluster included. A form of brinksmanship that worked before and serves Trump well (if only personally and often at the expense of his shareholders).

[USViking]

Has anyone here tipped their hat to the threadstarer?

 

I thought he was full of it, and I paid no attention to this thread, which I thought was stupid.

 

It was me who was stupid.

 

God was I ever wrong, God was Winston ever right, and my hat is off to him for his great prescience. Well done Man.

 

 

The USA now has a real baboon for a president, who is surrounding himself mostly (completely?) with junior baboons, having been voted in by 62,985,105 baby baboons. The country will be lucky to escape this administration by baboon without a major calamity.

 

Bismarck is supposed to have said something like:

 

God takes care of fools, drunks, and the United States of America.

 

God please help us now.

[hrothgar]

Has anyone here tipped their hat to the threadstarer?

 

I thought he was full of it, and I paid no attention to this thread

 

I paid attention to the thread, but I never believed that this country could have been so stupid.

 

We're 8 days into the Trump Presidency and we've already hit the first constitutional crisis...

[ldrews]

My solution to solve the crisis in Syria is to drop an atomic bomb on North Korea. What is your alternative solution?

 

Who was talking about Syria? The topic is immigration control into the USA for the purposes of increasing the safety of US Citizens. Neither Syria nor North Korea pose an immediate threat to the US as far as I can tell.

 

So your solution is to go kill millions of people in other nations in order to feel safer. I guess that is the traditional left/liberal method.

[ldrews]

By teaching people elementary math:

1. 
    
   
2. How many people died in the USA through Muslim terrorism in the past 20 years? (Note that this includes 9/11. I could have said the past 10 years.)
   
3. How many people died from gun accidents in the USA in the past 20 years?
   
4. How many people died from drunk driving in the USA in the past 20 years?
   

 

 

1. 
    
   
2. Don't know, but the WTC bombing led to 2753 fatalities. Of course, there are more than 9/11 at the WTC. Let's say 3000-3500.
   
3. According to gunviolencearchive.org, in December 2016 alone 59 people died from gun accidents. In 20 years x 12 months x 59 = 14 160 (or 4-5 x more than muslim terrorism).
   
4. In 2014 alone, 9 967 people died in alcohol related car accidents in the USA. So, for the past 20 years, this number will have been approximately 200 000. (60-70 x more than Muslim terrorism.)
   

 

 

Don't get me wrong. Every victim of Muslim terrorism is one too many. But if you would look at these facts, what would be your priority?

1) Make people afraid of Muslims for electoral gain.

2) Do something about the real killers.

 

Rik

 

I totally agree that the fear of terrorism is overblown. However, the President has some power to do something about immigration, but relatively no power to do anything about guns or drunk driving. The US tried to legislate against alcohol, remember. That didn't work out very well. And since guns are embedded in our constitution, the President has little power to do anything about it.

 

Do you have any concrete practical suggestions for addressing these two issues?

[ldrews]

You address it with a strong defense and by keeping the focus on being the best country the US can be, even in the face of those perceived threats.

 

One of Trump's character flaws is that he lets others control his emotions and behavior whenever he perceives a slight, real or imagined. This nasty order is certain to result in more terrorist attacks, by enraging others with the same character flaw as Trump. And there is no reason to suppose that those attacks will be limited to Trump properties around the world or in the US.

 

Well, I think it too early to judge Trump's effectiveness. After all he did defeat 17 Republic candidates in the primaries and Clinton in general election. He has run a business empire of some 500 companies. And in one week he has initiated actions to carry out several of his campaign promises and also seems to have his opposition in a tizzy. Additionally, his cabinet picks do not seem like pushovers, but rather many of them have experience in managing large organizations.

 

So, you may not agree with or like him, but Trump seems like a formidable opponent.

[ldrews]

We're 8 days into the Trump Presidency and we've already hit the first constitutional crisis...

 

What constitutional crisis? A judge issued a partial stay on Trump's Executive Order, which stay may be overturned on review/appeal. The Executive Order is well within the President's authority. What constitutional crisis?

[Al_U_Card]

What constitutional crisis? A judge issued a partial stay on Trump's Executive Order, which stay may be overturned on review/appeal. The Executive Order is well within the President's authority. What constitutional crisis?

The "silent minority" (long-suffering victims of progressive policies) voted and carried the day. Trump may not have been their "piece de resistance" but Bernie was torpedoed by Hil and the Republicans could only present "establishment" (read same old, same old swampsters) candidates so Trump pretty much won by default. Is he satan or is he savoir? The "vocal majority" is proclaiming their displeasure with not being as correct as they expected to be.

[hrothgar]

What constitutional crisis? A judge issued a partial stay on Trump's Executive Order, which stay may be overturned on review/appeal. The Executive Order is well within the President's authority. What constitutional crisis?

 

The one where the Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Patrol stated that they will continue to enforce Trump's executive order regardless of the stay

[Trinidad]

I totally agree that the fear of terrorism is overblown. However, the President has some power to do something about immigration, but relatively no power to do anything about guns or drunk driving. The US tried to legislate against alcohol, remember. That didn't work out very well. And since guns are embedded in our constitution, the President has little power to do anything about it.

 

Do you have any concrete practical suggestions for addressing these two issues?

What the president is doing is shoot with a nuclear bomb on a mosquito, and even the wrong mosquito. (Correct mosquitos would be Saudi-Arabia or Pakistan, places where actual terrorists came from, were trained and funded.) If he would take equivalent measures against drunk driving his priority would be to ban bread, since everyone knows that bread contains alcohol. The effect is zero and the consequences for the innocent who are affected are tremendous... But hey, he is doing something about drunk driving!

 

Rik

[cherdano]

Who was talking about Syria? The topic is immigration control into the USA for the purposes of increasing the safety of US Citizens. Neither Syria nor North Korea pose an immediate threat to the US as far as I can tell.

 

So your solution is to go kill millions of people in other nations in order to feel safer. I guess that is the traditional left/liberal method.

 

You are, of course, missing my point.

 

Obviously, dropping and atomic bomb on North Korea does nothing to address the crisis in Syria.

Similarly obviously, preventing green card holders from (leaving and) re-entering the country does nothing to address the problem of terrorism.

 

You are misunderstanding the purpose of the EO. The purpose isn't to address terrorism. The purpose is to make life miserable for as many Muslims in the US as the White House legally can (or believes it cans) - just so it can proudly report that it made life miserable for Muslims.

Terrorism is a problem. We blame Muslims for it. Ergo we make their life miserable.

 

No sane person would consider dropping an atomic bomb a possible solution to the Syria crisis, and non-sarcastically ask for "alternative solutions". And no sane person would consider banning re-entry for green card holders as a possible solution to address terrorism, and ask for alternative solutions.b

[ldrews]

The one where the Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Patrol stated that they will continue to enforce Trump's executive order regardless of the stay

 

Constitutional crisis, hmmph! The government may have overstepped its boundaries (the courts will soon tell us), but apparently only with respect to individuals in transit. And even then we have to wait for the courts to tell us. But a constitutional crisis? Be serious!

 

Once again let me explain: Trump says: "Give me 110%", opposition says:"No way! 100% at most!, Trump says: "OK"

[ldrews]

You are, of course, missing my point.

 

Obviously, dropping and atomic bomb on North Korea does nothing to address the crisis in Syria.

Similarly obviously, preventing green card holders from (leaving and) re-entering the country does nothing to address the problem of terrorism.

 

You are misunderstanding the purpose of the EO. The purpose isn't to address terrorism. The purpose is to make life miserable for as many Muslims in the US as the White House legally can (or believes it cans) - just so it can proudly report that it made life miserable for Muslims.

Terrorism is a problem. We blame Muslims for it. Ergo we make their life miserable.

 

No sane person would consider dropping an atomic bomb a possible solution to the Syria crisis, and non-sarcastically ask for "alternative solutions". And no sane person would consider banning re-entry for green card holders as a possible solution to address terrorism, and ask for alternative solutions.b

 

Well, by your definition I must be insane. Green card holders from the countries designated as supplying terrorists/terrorism represent an increased opportunity for terrorists to legally enter the US. Unless you can verify the good intentions of all of those green card holders, then there exists increased risk. Verifying the good intentions is what the "enhanced vetting" is all about. Are you opposed to verifying those good intentions?

 

In the commercial world, companies mitigate increased risk by requiring the "risky" party to post a bond to cover potential damages/loss. Would you be agreeable to requiring green card holders from "risky" countries posting a substantial bond to pay for potential damages? If the green card holder is an upstanding individual, he/she should be able to persuade an insurance company to post the bond for a reasonable fee. And if an insurance company won't, why should we, the public, assume the risk?

[hrothgar]

Well, by your definition I must be insane.

 

I'd use the words "sociopathic idiot", however, insane does save on ink...

 

What you are neglecting to consider is that that there is risk with everything that we do. I have a pet cat... He might kill me one of these nights. And yet I let the critter into my house because the risk is very very small.

 

Personally, I feel a lot safer in the company of a Syrian refugee than I would around a Trump voter.

[ldrews]

I'd use the words "sociopathic idiot", however, insane does save on ink...

 

What you are neglecting to consider is that that there is risk with everything that we do. I have a pet cat... He might kill me one of these nights. And yet I let the critter into my house because the risk is very very small.

 

Personally, I feel a lot safer in the company of a Syrian refugee than I would around a Trump voter.

 

You are welcome to take on whatever risks you desire. But don't force your risky behavior on me, please. And if the risk is negligible then surely you would be willing to indemnify the rest of the public, right?

[cherdano]

Well, by your definition I must be insane. Green card holders from the countries designated as supplying terrorists/terrorism represent an increased opportunity for terrorists to legally enter the US.

Maybe you should get a clue before you open your mouth. Green card holders are people living in the US, with a permanent permission to continue living there. There is no gain at all from "You will not be allowed to re-enter the US if you go on a trip abroad".

 

Indeed, this is so absurd that even the Bannon White House has now reversed that policy (and there is an official statement from the DHS secretary to that effect).

 

How do you feel about defending a policy that was too cruel, bigoted and point-less even for the Bannon White House?

[hrothgar]

You are welcome to take on whatever risks you desire. But don't force your risky behavior on me, please. And if the risk is negligible then surely you would be willing to indemnify the rest of the public, right?

 

Stop pretending that you approach is without risks of its own

There is a reason that the US has steered away from the whole "We're at war with Islam" until now...

 

As for your suggestion about indemnification:

 

The world doesn't work this way

I know this. You should know this.

 

What was the point of making such a facetious comment?

[ldrews]

Maybe you should get a clue before you open your mouth. Green card holders are people living in the US, with a permanent permission to continue living there. There is no gain at all from "You will not be allowed to re-enter the US if you go on a trip abroad".

 

Indeed, this is so absurd that even the Bannon White House has now reversed that policy (and there is an official statement from the DHS secretary to that effect).

 

How do you feel about defending a policy that was too cruel, bigoted and point-less even for the Bannon White House?

 

Vituperative language and bad manners seems to be a badge of honor with you. Would you like to have a discussion or do you want to continue to rant?

 

Immigration, green cards, and visas are not a right of people from other countries, they are a privilege extended by the US Government. And can be withdrawn or amended at any time. And since a couple of the terrorist incidents in the US were committed by children of legal immigrants, one would think that looking more deeply into their cultural motivations would be warranted before extending citizenship. We have enough social problems already; I don't see the benefit to inviting more.

[ldrews]

Stop pretending that you approach is without risks of its own

There is a reason that the US has steered away from the whole "We're at war with Islam" until now...

 

As for your suggestion about indemnification:

 

The world doesn't work this way

I know this. You should know this.

 

What was the point of making such a facetious comment?

 

I agree, life is inherently risky. But you and I both get the opportunity to choose which risks we take and which we mitigate. But I have no right to choose for you and vice versa.

 

I am not at war with Islam. But neither am I foolish enough to ignore their cultural/religious imperatives or their history. So I am not motivated to invite them into my society. But I wish them well in theirs.

 

The point of the indemnify comment is to point out that the risk is there and to bring to the surface that you would like me to share in that risk. But I do not want to share in that risk if I do not have to. So if you insist, then indemnify me. Then we are both happy.