2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

How have I caricatured him? By using his own words? By pointing out the nature of likely cabinet picks?

Which, as I have explained, tell us almost nothing without considering the candidates involved.
Confirmation bias is a very difficult one to control for.
Presupposition and then also presupposing that sane confirmation and then acting upon that and by building a 'story' is pretty much caricaturing the man no?

Is there any reason at all, any other reason whatsoever, just one, just a single reason, why there might not be many female cabinet members?

Jawgap wrote: »

Did he not say the things he was reported to have said? Was that not his voice on the tape? Did he not have openly criticise a grieving mother for her inability to talk in public about her dead son?

I am not defending Trump against the rubbish and ridiculous stuff that he has said. I am attacking your attempted smear as both
- The evidence suggests otherwise (he appointed a female candidate to campaign manager - possibly the most important role he could have, at an extraordinarily important time)

- The logic used is so weak as to render it dangerous if it were to become acceptable. "Likely no female cabinet members => guy is a woman hater".

Jawgap

Deleted User wrote: »

These questions have nothing to do with what we were discussing.

Again I'll point out that
1 - I'm not a Trump supporter
2 - I don't like the guy nor will event spend a moment defending his ridiculous policies

BUT
3 - There is enough actual , genuine, remarkable ****e to put on his table that we don't need to invent stuff. The logic that you have used to push the narrative that you have is weak, and if it is somehow acceptable, then it could be accepted again to invent and smear others. Why invent stuff up about him and project it?

It is telling that you haven't answered the question about Zappone's representative abilities btw. I don't doubt her ability to represent fairly and objectively my brother, but you would question that (if the genders were reversed).

You don't have to be a supporter or a defender to draw out a few rhetorical examples to show his position on certain issues

....and what have I invented? I posted up articles discussing his likely cabinet and economic team picks in response to a question about the likelihood of him nominating women to significant cabinet positions......I agreed that Palin was a potential candidate for Interior (and I believe my assessment of her likely direction was sound given her history).....and simply asked for examples that might lead one to conclude he is capable of assessing people without regard to their gender.

And I know not much about Catherine Zappone and even less about your sibling so I doubt I'd be in a position to pass comment or judgement on her ability to represent him and address his needs.

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

You don't have to be a supporter or a defender to draw out a few rhetorical examples to show his position on certain issues

....and what have I invented? I posted up articles discussing his likely cabinet and economic team picks in response to a question about the likelihood of him nominating women to significant cabinet positions......I agreed that Palin was a potential candidate for Interior (and I believe my assessment of her likely direction was sound given her history).....and simply asked for examples that might lead one to conclude he is capable of assessing people without regard to their gender.

You have invented the idea that if there are no women in his cabinet it is evidence of his inability to work with women, or to not consider gender when assessing likely candidates.

However the evidence which we have available to us (Kellyanne Conway) runs counter to this.

You tried to downplay the real, tangible evidence available to us, and instead work off the theoretical musings as proof. You've presupposed an event, invented a narrative if that event occurs, and judged him based upon that narrative. It's presumptive projection.

Jawgap wrote: »

And I know not much about Catherine Zappone and even less about your sibling so I doubt I'd be in a position to pass comment or judgement on her ability to represent him and address his needs.

Well. He's a 27 year old white male. And she's a 62 year old white female TD. His TD in fact.

Why don't you believe that she could represent him and legislate for his rights accordingly?

You suggested that if the genders were swapped, then that TD would be incapable of doing so. Strange.

Jawgap

Deleted User wrote: »

Which, as I have explained, tell us almost nothing without considering the candidates involved.
Confirmation bias is a very difficult one to control for.
Presupposition and then also presupposing that sane confirmation and then acting upon that and by building a 'story' is pretty much caricaturing the man no?

Is there any reason at all, any other reason whatsoever, just one, just a single reason, why there might not be many female cabinet members?


I am not defending Trump against the rubbish and ridiculous stuff that he has said. I am attacking your attempted smear as both
- The evidence suggests otherwise (he appointed a female candidate to campaign manager - possibly the most important role he could have, at an extraordinarily important time)

- The logic used is so weak as to render it dangerous if it were to become acceptable. "Likely no female cabinet members => guy is a woman hater".

.....how have I smeared* him? Look, you can bandy words like 'smear' and 'caricature' around all you like, it doesn't make them true.

.....and yes, he appointed a female campaign manager, but after the primary season, and 3 months out from the general, but would you say his manner of arguing with Megyn Kelly was appropriate? What about his demeanour towards women as expressed on the Access Hollywood tape? His criticism of Ghazala Khan?

.....do you think he is a misogynist?








Smear:- damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations

BoJack Horseman

alastair wrote: »

The Russian airforce are not the Syrian airforce, and the prospect of a negotiated deal whereby Russian planes are allowed agreed movement

That has nothing to do with Hillary's no-fly zone though.

There already is a de-facto demarcation of operations.
For example: RuAF planes never or very rarely go further east of the Euphrates. There only ISIS east of that river and Russia doesn't care about ISIS

However that is not what Hillary was taking about.
She was taking about a no-fly zone over rebel territories primarily in Idlib or Aleppo provinces.
or to put it another way, a no-fly zone 5-10 mins away from Latakia.
Essentially grounding the SyAF & RuAF.
This necessitates patrol aircraft to be very very close to Russia's air defence assets.

No one.... no one believes that Pres Hillary (post reset button humiliation) can ground the SyAF & RuAF & deactivate its AD assets based on "negotiation".

No, just like the Kosovan, Libyan & Iraqi no-fly zone's weren't done by asking nicely or negotiations.

Why would any American vote for this.
An absolutely moronic intention backed with nothing but bluster.

walshb

I have been watching a fair bit of both recently. For all his "failings" he has so much more passion and enthusiasm than her. There's a kind of honesty and sincerity about him that is sorely lacking with her. I am kind of warming to him.

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

.....how have I smeared* him? Look, you can bandy words like 'smear' and 'caricature' around all you like, it doesn't make them true.

Patently. However the evidence supports the opposite of what you presented. And so it's not the bandying about that's made them true, it's the backing them up with real world tangible examples that has made them true.

Jawgap wrote: »

.....and yes, he appointed a female campaign manager, but after the primary season, and 3 months out from the general, but would you say his manner of arguing with Megyn Kelly was appropriate? What about his demeanour towards women as expressed on the Access Hollywood tape? His criticism of Ghazala Khan?

He said filth about everyone. Or was it just the Mexican women he was talking about? Or the Syrians? Or the "Liberal Eilte"? Or the "establishment"?
I didn't realise he was speaking solely about the females in those groupings.

Jawgap wrote: »

.....do you think he is a misogynist?

a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.

No. I think he's a narcissist who actually dislikes, despises and is strongly prejudiced against all non Donald Trumps.

Jawgap wrote: »

Smear:- damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations

You literally wrote something that is demonstrably false. You accused him of being unable to not consider gender when appointing someone. You accused him of suffering from gender bias. Kellyanne Conway was appointed to the most important role in Donald's career (at that point) at a ridiculously important time. How does that fit in with your narrative?

Jawgap

Deleted User wrote: »

You have invented the idea that if there are no women in his cabinet it is evidence of his inability to work with women, or to not consider gender when assessing likely candidates.

However the evidence which we have available to us (Kellyanne Conway) runs counter to this.

You tried to downplay the real, tangible evidence available to us, and instead work off the theoretical musings as proof. You've presupposed an event, invented a narrative if that event occurs, and judged him based upon that narrative. It's presumptive projection.

Well. He's a 27 year old white male. And she's a 62 year old white female TD. His TD in fact.

Why don't you believe that she could represent him and legislate for his rights accordingly?

You suggested that if the genders were swapped, then that TD would be incapable of doing so. Strange.

Well, maybe start a thread on Catherine Zappone - I didn't pass judgment on her abilities to represent anyone because I know nothing about her - on the other hand having followed (and voted in the US election) I've read a lot more about Trump than I ever have about her.

Plus - 27, white and male, tells me zero about what your brother's needs, wants, aspirations or concerns so how could I possibly pass comment on her ability/inability to represent him.

...and no, I suggested that a bunch of middle-aged (I'm being generous to 70 year olds!) men are incapable of legislating on women's productive rights - as our own country shows......

alastair

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

That has nothing to do with Hillary's no-fly zone though.

There already is a de-facto demarcation of operations.
For example: RuAF planes never or very rarely go further east of the Euphrates. There only ISIS east of that river and Russia doesn't care about ISIS

However that is not what Hillary was taking about.
She was taking about a no-fly zone over rebel territories primarily in Idlib or Aleppo provinces.
or to put it another way, a no-fly zone 5-10 mins away from Latakia.
Essentially grounding the SyAF & RuAF.
This necessitates patrol aircraft to be very very close to Russia's air defence assets.

No one.... no one believes that Pres Hillary (post reset button humiliation) can ground the SyAF & RuAF & deactivate its AD assets based on "negotiation".

No, just like the Kosovan, Libyan & Iraqi no-fly zone's weren't done by asking nicely or negotiations.

Why would any American vote for this.
An absolutely moronic intention backed with nothing but bluster.

Hillary's strategy and the specifics of her no fly zone proposal weren't known to you, me, or any media source. Let's not pretend otherwise. The general intent was to stop helicopters dropping barrel bombs on cities. Which doesn't really impinge on Russian airbase movements. The Russians are well able to flag their movements and ensure that there's no misunderstandings in a tight airspace. That they didn't with the Turks is something that they've presumably learned from.

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

Well, maybe start a thread on Catherine Zappone - I didn't pass judgment on her abilities to represent anyone because I know nothing about her - on the other hand having followed (and voted in the US election) I've read a lot more about Trump than I ever have about her.

Right. But the statement you made had nothing to do with Trump. You questioned the ability of "middle aged white men" to legislate for and represent the needs of young women. Nothing about Trump. Just this "middle aged white men" thing.

Jawgap wrote: »

Plus - 27, white and male, tells me zero about what your brother's needs, wants, aspirations or concerns so how could I possibly pass comment on her ability/inability to represent him.

↑ Cognitive Dissonance ↓

Jawgap wrote: »

...and no, I suggested that a bunch of middle-aged (I'm being generous to 70 year olds!) men are incapable of legislating on women's productive rights - as our own country shows......

BoJack Horseman

alastair wrote: »

Hillary's strategy and the specifics of her no fly zone proposal weren't known to you, me, or any media source. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Indeed.

And I highly doubt they were known to Hillary either.

It is a crying shame that with all those thousands of cameras & microphones in her face & the many thousands of hours for the news networks to fill she couldn't find the time to tell America how she would ground 2 x airforces without harming anyone!

Lets not defend her non-thought-out sillyness.
She probably just wanted to appear though towards Russia in opposition to Trump & his seeming favourable outlook towards Russia.

alastair

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Indeed.

And I highly doubt they were known to Hillary either.

It is a crying shame that with all those thousands of cameras & microphones in her face & the many thousands of hours for the news networks to fill she couldn't find the time to tell America how she would ground 2 x airforces without harming anyone!

Lets not defend her non-thought-out sillyness.
She probably just wanted to appear though towards Russia in opposition to Trump & his seeming favourable outlook towards Russia.

Again - it requires grounding the Syrian airforce, not the Russians. And it obviously involves the harming of the Syrian military infrastructure. I've not got a need for Hillary to tell anyone what her gameplan is before sitting down with the Russians, and to suggest she should have is a bit disengenous - particularly in the light of her opponent's shortcomings on policy across the board.

Billy86

A question for those who wanted Trump... Now that he has actually won, what do you want him to do over the next four years?

Improving relations with Russia would be the obvious one from many in here, but after that... what specific things do you expect from him? If we were to fast forward to 2020, what would you deem as the things you would expect him to enact?

Building the wall?

Eliminating all corruption from Wall Street?

Banning Muslims from 'terror states' entering the US, and specifically which nations that should pertain to and not pertain to?

Getting rid of Citizens United re elections?

Making abortion illegal?

Getting rid of Obamacare - and if so what would you replace it with?

Repealing Gay marriage?
Increased personal freedoms, and if so which - guns? Marijuana? Others?

Bringing jobs home and introducing penalties etc on companies who hire people overseas? Any specific industries or all?

Protectionism against imports in the event of returning manufacturing home, so that American companies don't have to compete with those from other nations who can offer the same (for example) smartphone at a fraction of the cost?

Increasing or decreasing corporate taxes? Changing the personal tax system and if so in which way(s) - lower taxes all around, lower taxes on the poor, higher taxes on the rich (and what would constitute 'rich') and so on? Keep in mind that what he can and cannot introduce introduce needs to be balanced out by income entering the country, e.g. That the book need to balance.

Increasing or decreasing welfare and subsidies, and if so who to? The unemployed (who it had to be remembered made up a larger chunk of his voter base in the rust belt, deprived rural areas, etc), or elsewhere?

Increase certain areas of spending, or decrease - and which? Military? NASA and sciences? Others?

Kicking out all illegal immigrants immediately? And if so, how to implement it? And if using a task force going door to door, school to school, business to business etc like (if I recall) he suggested in recent months, where to get the money to fund it from?

And of course, anything else that you want or expect from him over the next four years not mentioned in this post.

I'm not being smart here, I am genuinely interested as he has now win the election so it is worthwhile to see what those happy either the result expect to see over the next four years in order to make them feel vindicated come 2020. The republicans now control the house, the senate, the supreme court and the oval office so he does not have any democrat controlled areas of government to get in the way of his pushing for what he wants done, so I really am curious what people who were in favour of him want to see him do with it.

Amazingfun

"banning all Muslims"

He never said that. So why bother even answering you?

I am more concerned with the rotten Irish media and various government actors who continue to insult and smear Trump, even after his election. You should be too.

RobertKK

Well Hillary Clinton is now irrelevant, as are her love of regime change. It was nice that her political career ended in the type of regime change she supported elsewhere, but this time it being her who was stopped from taking political power.
After all with Wikileaks, we found her campaign wanted her opppnent to be someone like Trump. It was justice that like the other regime changes she supported, that this time her failed regime change policies affected herself.
I think she got justice.
As the voters can say 'we voted, we counted, she lost'.
Karma...

Jawgap

Deleted User wrote: »

Right. But the statement you made had nothing to do with Trump. You questioned the ability of "middle aged white men" to legislate for and represent the needs of young women. Nothing about Trump. Just this "middle aged white men" thing.

↑ Cognitive Dissonance ↓

No, there's a difference between saying "I don't know the people involved enough to reach a conclusion" and "The system is not configured to be effective or efficient in respect of an issue."

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

No, there's a difference between saying "I don't know the people involved enough to reach a conclusion" and "The system is not configured to be effective or efficient in respect of an issue."

Interesting thought.

Of course, you didn't say that though. Instead you asked these leading questions;

Jawgap wrote: »

You don't think a government should reflect the citizenry it serves?

For example, do you think a bunch of middle-aged men are capable of legislating or governing on women's reproductive rights?

To which I responded

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course they are! Such a nonsense suggestion.

Do you think that it's crazy that no children wrote this? http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx

Have you ever heard of empathy? Objectivity?

The idea that the only type of person that can adequately represent your views, legislating on your behalf, voting and affording you representation in government is someone with near-identical characteristics across some arbitrary set of indicators (age, race, gender) is absurd.

I would chose the 67 year old black jewish lesbian Pole if she had similar views on topics as me. Certainly wouldn't consider the 29 year old white atheist straight Irish guy who cites the manifesto of Identity Ireland as his motus operandi.

Representation is not about what you are. It's about what you think.

alastair

Amazingfun wrote: »

"banning all Muslims"

He never said that. So why bother even answering you?

I am more concerned with the rotten Irish media and various government actors who continue to insult and smear Trump, even after his election. You should be too.

Ehh, to quote the man:

Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on

I called for a ban after San Bernardino and was met with great scorn and anger. But now … many are saying that I was right to do so. And although the pause is temporary, we must find out what is going on. We have to do it,” he said. “It will be lifted, this ban, when and as a nation we’re in a position to properly and perfectly screen these people coming into our country.

But have no fear - he's only president elect less than a day, and this commitment is erased:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-president-election-muslim-ban-immigrants-website-statement-removed-a7408466.html

Amazingfun

Yeah, and that is not saying "ban all Muslims". God, you people are tiresome.

Oh, you've edited your post. Fact: that statement was made right after the terrorist attack in San bernadino and was clarified to specify those unvetted and potentially hostile actors, like the wife in that case, and those like her, from entering .

alastair

Amazingfun wrote: »

Yeah, and that is not saying "ban all Muslims". God, you people are tiresome.

It's a proposed ban on all Muslims entering the country.

Jawgap

Deleted User wrote: »

Interesting thought.

Of course, you didn't say that though. Instead you asked these leading questions;


To which I responded


The idea that the only type of person that can adequately represent your views, legislating on your behalf, voting and affording you representation in government is someone with near-identical characteristics across some arbitrary set of indicators (age, race, gender) is absurd.

I would chose the 67 year old black jewish lesbian Pole if she had similar views on topics as me. Certainly wouldn't consider the 29 year old white atheist straight Irish guy who cites the manifesto of Identity Ireland as his motus operandi.

Representation is not about what you are. It's about what you think.

I agree, that's why plurality - the essence of a government reflecting the population (not just the electorate or its supporters) - is critically important.

Trump.......pluralist?

Amazingfun

alastair wrote: »

It's a proposed ban on all Muslims entering the country.

Nope:


Trump clarifies his stance on a Muslim ban, saying he'd bar only those from 'terror states'

http://uk.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-muslim-ban-2016-6?r=US&IR=T

alastair

Amazingfun wrote: »

Yeah, and that is not saying "ban all Muslims". God, you people are tiresome.

Oh, you've edited your post. Fact: that statement was made right after the terrorist attack in San bernadino and was clarified to specify those unvetted and potentially hostile actors, like the wife in that case, and those like her, from entering .

Trumps post San Bernadino statement was simply a re-affirmation of his original December 2015 'total and complete shutdown' policy. A total and complete shutdown is not a targeted ban - it's a universal one.

TheOven

Amazingfun wrote: »

Nope:


Trump clarifies his stance on a Muslim ban, saying he'd bar only those from 'terror states'

http://uk.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-muslim-ban-2016-6?r=US&IR=T

He backtracked later when he found out he can't ban an entire religion from entering.

Then there's the database.

Amazingfun

You cling to a lie even in the face of being shown you are mistaken. This is a strange affliction.

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

A question for those who wanted Trump... Now that he has actually won, what do you want him to do over the next four years?

Improving relations with Russia would be the obvious one from many in here, but after that... what specific things do you expect from him? If we were to fast forward to 2020, what would you deem as the things you would expect him to enact?

Building the wall?

Eliminating all corruption from Wall Street?

Banning all Muslims?

Getting rid of Citizens United re elections?

Making abortion illegal?

Getting rid of Obamacare - and if so what would you replace it with?

Repealing Gay marriage?
Increased personal freedoms, and if so which - guns? Marijuana? Others?

Bringing jobs home and introducing penalties etc on companies who hire people overseas? Any specific industries or all?

Protectionism against imports in the event of returning manufacturing home, so that American companies don't have to compete with those from other nations who can offer the same (for example) smartphone at a fraction of the cost?

Increasing or decreasing corporate taxes? Changing the personal tax system and if so in which way(s) - lower taxes all around, lower taxes on the poor, higher taxes on the rich (and what would constitute 'rich') and so on? Keep in mind that what he can and cannot introduce introduce needs to be balanced out by income entering the country, e.g. That the book need to balance.

Increasing or decreasing welfare and subsidies, and if so who to? The unemployed (who it had to be remembered made up a larger chunk of his voter base in the rust belt, deprived rural areas, etc), or elsewhere?

Increase certain areas of spending, or decrease - and which? Military? NASA and sciences? Others?

Kicking out all illegal immigrants immediately? And if so, how to implement it? And if using a task force going door to door, school to school, business to business etc like (if I recall) he suggested in recent months, where to get the money to fund it from?

And of course, anything else that you want or expect from him over the next four years not mentioned in this post.

I'm not being smart here, I am genuinely interested as he has now win the election so it is worthwhile to see what those happy either the result expect to see over the next four years in order to make them feel vindicated come 2020. The republicans now control the house, the senate, the supreme court and the oval office so he does not have any democrat controlled areas of government to get in the way of his pushing for what he wants done, so I really am curious what people who were in favour of him want to see him do with it.

A CNN exit poll showed:
46% wanted the next president to be more conservative.
18% more liberal
Most of the rest wanted something similar to Obama.

Trump will put conservative judges on the Supreme Court which is good.
When it comes to illegal immigrants, there are rules and regulations there for a reason. The people who make excuses for these people, would you like thousands of illegals entering Ireland and we not knowing who they are? A country should know who is inside their borders. Trump has a responsibility to deal with it.
Obama's administration has been kicking out lots of illegals, but Trump seemed to have the backing of the people who deal with immigration, as it is a problem.
He needs to see what can and cannot be done.
Ahortion should be restricted.
He needs to do away with Obamacare for something that is affordable and works.
There is already a wall along some parts of the Mexican border, given people were arrested in Mexico who were not Mexican but who were terrorists looking to enter the US via the border, there is a case that something more secure is needed.

I like how Jake Tapper on CNN yesterday said Trump believes the US got involved in too many countries abroad militarily, which many veterans agreed with, but Hillary didn't.
I feel the US has made many situations worse rather than better by the use of military in recent times. So if Trump pulls away from neocon policy, he could become a good president. He has a lot of messes that are there today from people who actively supported neocon policy, that need to be cleaned up which has made the terrorism problem far worse.

Jawgap

Amazingfun wrote: »

Nope:


Trump clarifies his stance on a Muslim ban, saying he'd bar only those from 'terror states'

http://uk.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-muslim-ban-2016-6?r=US&IR=T

Clarification indeed.....

Donald Trump said his latest proposal to stop immigration "from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism" is an "expansion" of his blanket ban on Muslims, in an interview aired Sunday.

"I actually don't think it's a rollback. In fact, you could say it's an expansion," Trump told NBC's Chuck Todd on "Meet the Press."

alastair

Amazingfun wrote: »

Nope:


Trump clarifies his stance on a Muslim ban, saying he'd bar only those from 'terror states'

http://uk.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-muslim-ban-2016-6?r=US&IR=T

Not what his campaign website said - right up until he was elected.

Billy86

Amazingfun wrote: »

"banning all Muslims"

He never said that. So why bother even answering you?

I am more concerned with the rotten Irish media and various government actors who continue to insult and smear Trump, even after his election. You should be too.

Edited to 'Banning Muslims from 'terror states' entering the US, and specifically which nations that should pertain to and not pertain to?' after your clarification.

What the Irish media or celebrities do or don't say about him is irrelevant at this point - he won the election, and the Republicans won the house and senate so he is in office for four years and they have full control for at least two, regardless of what anyone says. The reason you should answer is because you wanted him elected, and now he has been elected, so it is pretty important what you and everyone else who wanted him elected actually want you to see from him now that he has four years in power with a Republican house, senate and supreme court once eh makes his appointment - with no democrat controlled areas to do an effective job blocking him.

TheDoctor

alastair wrote: »

Not what his campaign website said - right up until he was elected.

The wall was only a metaphor too.

alastair

Amazingfun wrote: »

You cling to a lie even in the face of being shown you are mistaken. This is a strange affliction.

Where is the lie? A "total and complete shutdown" is a blanket ban.

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

I agree, that's why plurality - the essence of a government reflecting the population (not just the electorate or its supporters) - is critically important.

I've quite literally just written the opposite of that. You've said 'I agree, and then written the opposite of what you 'agreed' with'.

It's about representing the views. Not 'arbitrary characteristics' - (age,race,gender, etc)

It does not matter what 'body' turns up to do that.

You've suggested otherwise. That by virtue of someone being a 'middle aged white man' that an elected official is incapable of representing a different group.

This is a dangerous and nonsensical idea.

Jawgap wrote: »

Trump.......pluralist?

Why are you once again asking me to defend someone I've already said I wont? I've attacked a notion that you have offered regarding the suitability of a representative based entirely on some arbitrary characteristics. Defend that, and attack my logic if you wish; or hopefully see the wood through the trees and realise that the statement is patently untrue and retract it.

TheOven

TheDoctor wrote: »

The wall was only a metaphor too.

At least it is a sign that even some of his supporters know he has stupid ideas which need to be gutted to have any sign of reality.

Billy86

alastair wrote: »

Where is the lie? A "total and complete shutdown" is a blanket ban.

There's no point getting into an nonconstructive back and forth at this point, let's give him the benefit of the doubt on the issue/clarification as the article linked was from June, and rather than continue on a he said/she said loop, actually get into some detail as to what Trump fans now expect that he is in power.

Jawgap

Deleted User wrote: »

I've quite literally just written the opposite of that. You've said 'I agree, and then written the opposite of what you 'agreed' with'.

It's about representing the views. Not 'arbitrary characteristics' - (age,race,gender, etc)

It does not matter what 'body' turns up to do that.

You've suggested otherwise. That by virtue of someone being a 'middle aged white man' that an elected official is incapable of representing a different group.

This is a dangerous and nonsensical idea.

Why are you once again asking me to defend someone I've already said I wont? I've attacked a notion that you have offered regarding the suitability of a representative based entirely on some arbitrary characteristics. Defend that, and attack my logic if you wish; or hopefully see the wood through the trees and realise that the statement is patently untrue and retract it.

Hey don't take my word for it, let the research cover it.....

In a new analysis of the 151,824 public bills introduced in the House between 1973 and 2014, to be published in print in Political Science Research and Methods, researchers found that women were significantly more likely than men to sponsor bills in areas like civil rights, health and education. Men were more likely to sponsor bills in agriculture, energy and macroeconomics

Over all, female lawmakers are just as successful as men at getting their bills passed — except when the bills are about issues affecting women, health, education and social welfare, according to the new study of four decades of House bills by Craig Volden of the University of Virginia, Alan E. Wiseman of Vanderbilt University and Dana E. Wittmer of Colorado College.

Then, only 1 percent of bills sponsored by women passed, compared with 4 percent of all bills. That has been true since 1970, even when controlling for other factors that influence bills’ success.

The researchers concluded that it was not because of a gender difference in expertise or lawmaking ability, but because of institutional bias. Bills on the issues that women dominate are often gridlocked in committee, so they never make it to a vote.

Amazingfun

This is going to be a fun first year I guess ;-)

Maybe we need some virtual therapy dogs for some here to deal with Trump's election:


How stressful was the 2016 election season? So stressful that therapy dogs were brought to Capitol Hill today. Two golden doodles, two American Eskimo dogs, and a beagle mix mingled with staffers in the Cannon House office building. Organizers say it was a great way for workers to blow off steam especially for those whose bosses may have lost re-election bids.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/national-international/Capitol-Hill-Therapy-Dogs_Dallas-Fort-Worth-400582861.html?_osource=SocialFlowTwt_BAYBrand

RobertKK

About the current wall/fence along the US/Mexican border:

As of 2014, 653 miles of this border has been fenced at a cost of about $7 billion. A few dozen miles are reinforced with secondary and tertiary fencing. About half of the fencing is designed to prevent pedestrians from crossing through, while the other half just blocks vehicles. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security reports that the pedestrian fencing cost an average of $6.5 million per mile, and the vehicle fencing $1.7 million per mile.

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

Hey don't take my word for it, let the research cover it.....

Neither of those titbits support the contention offered

B0jangles

RobertKK wrote: »

A CNN exit poll showed:
46% wanted the next president to be more conservative.
18% more liberal
Most of the rest wanted something similar to Obama.

Trump will put conservative judges on the Supreme Court which is good.
When it comes to illegal immigrants, there are rules and regulations there for a reason. The people who make excuses for these people, would you like thousands of illegals entering Ireland and we not knowing who they are? A country should know who is inside their borders. Trump has a responsibility to deal with it.
Obama's administration has been kicking out lots of illegals, but Trump seemed to have the backing of the people who deal with immigration, as it is a problem.
He needs to see what can and cannot be done.
Ahortion should be restricted.
He needs to do away with Obamacare for something that is affordable and works.
There is already a wall along some parts of the Mexican border, given people were arrested in Mexico who were not Mexican but who were terrorists looking to enter the US via the border, there is a case that something more secure is needed.

I like how Jake Tapper on CNN yesterday said Trump believes the US got involved in too many countries abroad militarily, which many veterans agreed with, but Hillary didn't.
I feel the US has made many situations worse rather than better by the use of military in recent times. So if Trump pulls away from neocon policy, he could become a good president. He has a lot of messes that are there today from people who actively supported neocon policy, that need to be cleaned up which has made the terrorism problem far worse.

I knew it, for all your "both candidates are bad but here's the latest thing wikileaks has said about Clinton..." -posturing, it was all about the Supreme Court and overturning Roe vs. Wade for you, wasn't it?

Jawgap

Deleted User wrote: »

Neither of those titbits support the contention offered

Well there you go then, case closed.

in other news.......

https://twitter.com/foxandfriends/status/664061417377533952

Jawgap

Jawgap wrote: »

Well there you go then, case closed.

So you do/don't retract this terribly divisive idea that the only person that can possibly represent you is someone with the same profile in age, gender and race as you?

CMOTDibbler

RobertKK wrote: »

About the current wall/fence along the US/Mexican border:

As of 2014, 653 miles of this border has been fenced at a cost of about $7 billion. A few dozen miles are reinforced with secondary and tertiary fencing. About half of the fencing is designed to prevent pedestrians from crossing through, while the other half just blocks vehicles. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security reports that the pedestrian fencing cost an average of $6.5 million per mile, and the vehicle fencing $1.7 million per mile.

All that expense and it doesn't actually work.

Overheal

Speaking of that Muslim ban, the campaign promises are evaporating already

https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-president-election-muslim-ban-immigrants-website-statement-removed-a7408466.html%3Famp?client=safari

aloyisious

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

This is one of those situations where the FBI are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they didn't investigate the Hillary/Huma Abedin/Anthony Weiner shared laptop emails until after the presidential election, they'd be accused of being pro-Hillary. If they investigate the Hillary/Huma Abedin/Anthony Weiner shared laptop emails before the presidential election, they're accused of being pro-Trump. Seems to me the FBI came out very quickly to exonerate Hillary of any wrongdoing. Not suggesting for a moment that they might have been lent on by higher powers....
Considering what's at stake, the naïveté or the sheer stupid-mindedness of Hillary and her aides beggars belief. And they were perceived as being the intellectual superiors of Trump and his advisors.......

I've been minded for some time now that a better course would have been for the FBI PR person to announce that "the investigation is ongoing and includes the leaking of classified documents to the public, so no further comment can be made in the interests of natural justice.". So simple that I'm surprised it wasn't done.

A private briefing to persons within congress on the need to know list would have sufficed, and they could have told all others in the houses that they'd be updated shortly. It would have covered all the bases and not interfered with the electoral process.

alastair

RobertKK wrote: »

Well Hillary Clinton is now irrelevant, as are her love of regime change. It was nice that her political career ended in the type of regime change she supported elsewhere, but this time it being her who was stopped from taking political power.
After all with Wikileaks, we found her campaign wanted her opppnent to be someone like Trump. It was justice that like the other regime changes she supported, that this time her failed regime change policies affected herself.
I think she got justice.
As the voters can say 'we voted, we counted, she lost'.
Karma...

These would be the voters who give more votes to Hillary than Trump?

Jawgap

Overheal wrote: »

Speaking of that Muslim ban, the campaign promises are evaporating already

https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-president-election-muslim-ban-immigrants-website-statement-removed-a7408466.html%3Famp?client=safari

I don't think anyone really expected otherwise, but the interesting thing will be how the people who voted for him on the basis of some of those promises react.

alastair

aloyisious wrote: »

I've been minded for some time now that a better course would have been for the FBI PR person to announce that "the investigation is ongoing and includes the leaking of classified documents to the public, so no further comment can be made in the interests of natural justice.". So simple that I'm surprised it wasn't done.

A private briefing to persons within congress on the need to know list would have sufficed, and they could have told all others in the houses that they'd be updated shortly. It would have covered all the bases and not interfered with the electoral process.

Comey could have handled things better for sure, but I doubt that it really influenced the final vote that much.

Zubeneschamali

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Explain? They seem like serious people to me.

Perhaps, but then Trump looks Presidential to you.

Mr.Micro

Trump is now the apprentice. America deserves him. If Clinton had won it would be no better.

aloyisious

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Giuliani was NYC mayor and took down the NYC mob. Won person of the year in time magazine. If that's not serious I don't know what is.

Gingrich's CV is also highly impressive.

If it's the AG's position that's offered to Rudy, he hasn't been practicing law in a courtroom since '89. That was as a US prosecutor going after a crooked financier. He has his detractors as well as promoters. Don might be aware of Rudy leaking insider information from FBI and NYC cops to the media of ongoing criminal investigations and have to be wary of putting him in overall charge of justice, head cop in the US.