President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Billy86

recedite wrote: »

Lets just leave it to people to use their own intelligence.
Anyone that has any, will not find that claim to be in any way credible.

Go get yourself an education on the matter, because you very clearly have none.

jaykay74

Inrteresting to see the relationship between Trump and wikileaks. Nice timing of an attack on Sweden from wikileaks this evening.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/833391985100779521

johnnyskeleton

Billy86 wrote: »

Go get yourself an education on the matter, because you very clearly have none.

Mod note:

Banned.

Other posters please do not reply to Billy's posts.

Nody

jaykay74 wrote: »

Inrteresting to see the relationship between Trump and wikileaks. Nice timing of an attack on Sweden from wikileaks this evening.

That would be shooting yourself in foot moment though of complaining about Sweden selling weapons to Saudi Arabia.

Christy42

jaykay74 wrote: »

Inrteresting to see the relationship between Trump and wikileaks. Nice timing of an attack on Sweden from wikileaks this evening.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/833391985100779521

Yeah I disagree with the arms sales (from all countries) going to Saudi Arabia but seriously that is some interesting timing.

I am curious if the Whitehouse will apologise/explain Trump's random comments any further given the Swedish have asked for it.

weisses

recedite wrote: »

Once off? A €1200 per person prize is a lot of money in Afghanistan or Niger. There'll be no stopping them when word of this cash bounty gets passed all around Eurasia and Africa via smartphone.
I can guarantee you one thing, The Donald is not stupid enough to hand cash to illegal immigrants.

Indeed .. He makes them work for it in one of his buisneses

Probably for half that amount

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/09/02/trumps-dirty-history-hiring-exploiting-undocumented-workers.html

Manic Moran

DeepMess wrote: »

So to summarize you support the idea of The National Guard being used to detain 'Illegals' and send them to detention camps.

Why can't you just say it rather than replying with such an evasive long winded post? The National Guard being deployed on US streets to round up anyone deemed to be illegal is a scary and new precedent. I wouldn't want to be Hispanic and walking around a southern state without my ID. 

This is all scarily familiar. And then you get intelligent people like ManicMoran who are fully aware of the implications of these sort of actions who go out of their way to justify and defend it. That is even more scary to be honest.

When you start being ok with the National Guard being deployed on US streets to round up individuals and send them to detention camps its a very slippery slope.

Even the words are changing, they are not individuals anymore but 'illegals' it dehumanizes them and makes it easier for people to disassociate with what will happen. Moves like these are terrifying.

More like "I accept it as a legitimate course of action", one of many. I'm not sure if it's the best course of action, but there is nothing inherently wrong with it either. Don't respond to the below with emotional appeals and 'slippery slope' arguments, give me rational, logical assessments. You know, the things that government policies are supposed to be based on. I mean, look at your leap: " The National Guard being deployed on US streets to round up anyone deemed to be illegal is a scary and new precedent. I wouldn't want to be Hispanic and walking around a southern state without my ID." Under what proposal or law would that situation be permitted? I've not seen one. If someone proposes a law permitting hispanic-looking folks to be detained for looking hispanic by anybody, military or police, or mandating that immigrants carry ID at all times, then come back to me, and I think we'll have a point of agreement on the matter of civil liberties.

Let me try some simple yes/no questions.

Should the US control who is in the country?
Should the US be able to arrest and remove those who are not in the country legally?
Should the US only arrest and remove those who are in the country in accordance with the extant laws relating to due process and respecting the legal rights of those arrested?

If 'yes' to all three questions, and I hope we both agree to it, then it merely comes down to questions of methodology and applicability. 

"Must all the people doing the arresting have been through the Federal Law Enforcement Academy and wear ICE uniforms?" "Can some of the people involved in the arresting process be not wearing ICE uniforms?". "Can some of the people be military personnel?" Decades of precedent without great controversy in the US indicates that the answer to the three questions are "Yes, Yes, and Yes." 

Then you have further questions, such as "After how long does someone who has illegally been in the country bootstrap themselves with squatter's rights which mean that they can stay?" or "Should children of illegal immigrants whose choice it was not to enter the US be permitted to remain?" These are the sorts of moral judgement questions which can be legitimately argued one way or another. Once you have made those moral selection determinations, then the methods used can be quite simply defined as "lawful" or "unlawful".

What is the moral difference between ICE increasing their capacity by hiring contract personnel on the private market to do the support work, and using the National Guard to do it? I'm not seeing one. At least the Guard are disciplined, have a definable chain of command, and some pretty reasonable training in doing things like 'guarding folks'. 

Where we seem to have a split here is that you are envisioning squads of soldiers breaking down doors and rounding folks up. I'm envisioning ICE officers rounding folks up, and handing them to the Guard while ICE go and round more folks up.

Even the words are changing, they are not individuals anymore but 'illegals' it dehumanizes them and makes it easier for people to disassociate with what will happen. "

OK. "People who moved to the US in order to try to obtain a better life for themselves and their families and who are generally honest, but failed to follow the extant processes like legal immigrants did, and are thus illegally in the country". However, writing "illegals" tends to get the point across instead of PWMttUSIOTTTOaBLFT&TFaWAGHBFtFtePLLID&ATIitC. "Criminals" seems overly broad. Accepting that they are in the country illegally doesn't dehumanise them. What it does do is differentiate between those who went to the time and effort and trouble to go through the US's (admittedly not easy) immigration process, and those who said 'screw it, we'll try it our way' and did not do so.

oscarBravo

Manic Moran wrote: »

Don't respond to the below with emotional appeals and 'slippery slope' arguments, give me rational, logical assessments. You know, the things that government policies are supposed to be based on.

That's at odds with the practice of citing examples of illegal immigrants who have killed or otherwise harmed people as arguments against sanctuary cities. They are nothing other than naked appeals to emotion.

People commit crimes while on bail. That's not an argument against bail.

I mean, look at your leap: " The National Guard being deployed on US streets to round up anyone deemed to be illegal is a scary and new precedent. I wouldn't want to be Hispanic and walking around a southern state without my ID." Under what proposal or law would that situation be permitted? I've not seen one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_SB_1070

Yes, I know the bill says that race can't be used as the sole basis for investigation, but even SCOTUS didn't seem entirely reassured on that point when they ruled on the bill's constitutionality.

PopePalpatine

Nody wrote: »

Then he'd be aware that the latest terrorist attack in Sweden was done by Right wing Nazis in January right? I mean Trump knows what goes on in Sweden after all...

Shure that's not a terrorist attack, it's just "Making Sweden Great Again". :rolleyes:

Of course, we're not going to hear anything about that from Trump or his cultists, just like with the mosque massacre in Canada when the perpetrator was outed as a Trump fanboy.

fryup wrote: »

Trump did himself no favours inviting that guy on stage, he looks & sounds demented

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

he salutes a cardboard cut-out of Trump every morning :cool:

Sounds familiar...

Manic Moran

oscarBravo;102675185
That's at odds with the practice of citing examples of illegal immigrants who have killed or otherwise harmed people as arguments against sanctuary cities. They are nothing other than naked appeals to emotion.

People commit crimes while on bail. That's not an argument against bail.
I mean, look at your leap: " The National Guard being deployed on US streets to round up anyone deemed to be illegal is a scary and new precedent. I wouldn't want to be Hispanic and walking around a southern state without my ID." Under what proposal or law would that situation be permitted? I've not seen one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_SB_1070

Yes, I know the bill says that race can't be used as the sole basis for investigation, but even SCOTUS didn't seem entirely reassured on that point when they ruled on the bill's constitutionality.

With respect to the first part, they are concrete examples, not appeals like 'slippery slope'. With regards to bail, it is part of an agreement to follow the law, and instructions of the court, pending re-appearance. With regards to an illegal immigrant who has been released, there is no possibility of continued following of the laws because their very presence in the country is inherently unlawful, neither is it pending re-appearance because no requirement to re-appear for the original arrest cause remains. And the particularly egregious part of it is that the request of the law enforcement body whose job it is to enforce those laws was ignored by other law enforcement as a matter of local policy. So, no, bail is not an equivalent situation.

As to the second part, my response is "And so balance has been restored to the Force". We have a pretty independent Supreme Court, it seems to generally do OK. I would assume by now that if ICE's policies and procedures were an issue, that some court somewhere would have taken issue with them. Given this has not happened, it seems to me that if Guardsmen support ICE in their current role and processes, (and I have seen nothing to indicate that there is a planned change in such policies) there should be no legal issue there either.

Leroy42

Manic, IMO, the problem stems from Trump and his administration.

We have already seen that Trump seems to have little respect for the law, especially when he considers it is going against what he feel is right for the country. (he has actively berated the courts and judges and fired and acting AG)

When he met with the Sheriffs he pointed out how wrong a senator was to take the position of needing a conviction of a person before being able to seize their assets.

Based just on those two, I don't think it much of a stretch to imagine that Trump will 'defer' legal process in order to get rid of the bad hombres and that anyone that is unfairly deported etc can reapply. The problem, of course, is that that persons whole life is basically destroyed until the whole process is over. And you can bet that there won't be any rush to deal with the reapplications.

Even in the way he talks (his latest Swedish mistake) points to him being a shoot first then deal with the blow back later. So whilst I agree with many of the points you made, I think you are making them on the basis of a rational and law abiding authority being in place to ensure it is handled correctly. Far from assuming this about Trump, I think it safe to say that the exact opposite is true.

demfad

Manic Moran wrote: »

More like "I accept it as a legitimate course of action", one of many.

Only the State governor could conceivably deploy the National Guard in this way. It would be illegal and therefore illegitimate to deploy them this way.

I'm not sure if it's the best course of action, but there is nothing inherently wrong with it either.

See above.

Don't respond to the below with emotional appeals and 'slippery slope' arguments, give me rational, logical assessments. You know, the things that government policies are supposed to be based on. I mean, look at your leap: " The National Guard being deployed on US streets to round up anyone deemed to be illegal is a scary and new precedent. I wouldn't want to be Hispanic and walking around a southern state without my ID." Under what proposal or law would that situation be permitted? I've not seen one. If someone proposes a law permitting hispanic-looking folks to be detained for looking hispanic by anybody, military or police, or mandating that immigrants carry ID at all times, then come back to me, and I think we'll have a point of agreement on the matter of civil liberties.

It has been widely reported that ICE has been following children/their buses home from school based on appearance as a means of locating where 'suspects' live.

Youre assumption that legal and illegal is all that matters (wrong in this case in any event) is misplaced in another way.
Trump has already shown that he cares little for the legality of his actions as the muslim ban has shown. He will always test what he can get away with, and who will be prepared to defy the law if he commands it. During the ban the border guards and US marshalls were loyal to Trumps orders to ignore local courts and take further orders from WH. ICE have shown this also.

If you based you're analysis on legal/illegal you must also analyse that Trump will test the law at these opportunities. You should also view this in terms of a wider strategy towords authoritarianism.

recedite

demfad wrote: »

Only the State governor could conceivably deploy the National Guard in this way. It would be illegal and therefore illegitimate to deploy them this way.

You must have missed the earlier examples given in this thread of a) Nat Guard already being used in this way for border duties and b) Nat Guard being federalised and turned against a wayward state governor.

demfad

https://medium.com/join-scout/the-rise-of-the-weaponized-ai-propaganda-machine-86dac61668b#.yksv7vo0e

This is a propaganda machine. It’s targeting people individually to recruit them to an idea. It’s a level of social engineering that I’ve never seen before. They’re capturing people and then keeping them on an emotional leash and never letting them go,” said professor Jonathan Albright.
Albright, an assistant professor and data scientist at Elon University, started digging into fake news sites after Donald Trump was elected president. ....it became clear to Scout that this phenomenon was about much more than just a few fake news stories. It was a piece of a much bigger and darker puzzle — a Weaponized AI Propaganda Machine being used to manipulate our opinions and behavior to advance specific political agendas.
By leveraging automated emotional manipulation alongside swarms of bots, Facebook dark posts, A/B testing, and fake news networks, a company called Cambridge Analytica has activated an invisible machine that preys on the personalities of individual voters to create large shifts in public opinion. Many of these technologies have been used individually to some effect before, but together they make up a nearly impenetrable voter manipulation machine that is quickly becoming the new deciding factor in elections around the world.

(Cambridge Analytica also used in Brexit for leave.eu campaign)

Part 1: Big Data Surveillance Meets Computational Psychology
Any company can aggregate and purchase big data, but Cambridge Analytica has developed a model to translate that data into a personality profile used to predict, then ultimately change your behavior.
Part 2: Automated Engagement Scripts that Prey on Your Emotions
Using those dossiers, or psychographic profiles as Analytica calls them, Cambridge Analytica not only identifies which voters are most likely to swing for their causes or candidates; they use that information to predict and then change their future behavior.
Part 3: A Propaganda Network to Accelerate Ideas in Minutes
(re Trump election) Albright scraped 306 fake news sites to determine how exactly they were all connected to each other and the mainstream news ecosystem. What he found was unprecedented — a network of 23,000 pages and 1.3 million hyperlinks.
Part 4: A Bot Gestapo to Police Public Debate
If fake news created the scaffolding for this new automated political propaganda machine, bots, or fake social media profiles, have become its foot soldiers — an army of political robots used to control conversations on social media and silence and intimidate journalists and others who might undermine their messaging.

This is a very worthwhile albeit unsettling read.

It concludes:

Cambridge Analytica may be slated to secure more federal contracts and is likely about to begin managing White House digital communications for the rest of the Trump Administration. What new predictive-personality targeting becomes possible with potential access to data on U.S. voters from the IRS, Department of Homeland Security, or the NSA?
“Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal, too. I want to bring everything crashing down and destroy all of today’s establishment,” Bannon said in 2013. We know that Steve Bannon subscribes to a theory of history where a messianic ‘Grey Warrior’ consolidates power and remakes the global order. Bolstered by the success of Brexit and the Trump victory, Breitbart (which Bannon owns) and Cambridge Analytica (which Bannon sits on the board of) are now bringing fake news and automated propaganda to support far-right parties in at least Germany, France, Hungary, and India as well as parts of South America.
Never has such a radical, international political movement had the precision and power of this kind of propaganda technology. Whether or not leaders, engineers, designers, and investors in the technology community respond to this threat will shape major aspects of global politics for the foreseeable future.
The future of politics will not be a war of candidates or even cash on hand. And it’s not even about big data, as some have argued. Everyone will have access to big data — as Hillary did in the 2016 election.
From now on, the distinguishing factor between those who win elections and those who lose them will be how a candidate uses that data to refine their machine learning algorithms and automated engagement tactics. Elections in 2018 and 2020 won’t be a contest of ideas, but a battle of automated behavior change.

demfad

recedite wrote: »

You must have missed the earlier examples given in this thread of a) Nat Guard already being used in this way for border duties and b) Nat Guard being federalised and turned against a wayward state governor.

As long as I didn't miss it being used to round up immigrants as that would be illegal unless directed by that State's governor.

Kermit.de.frog

It is a about time the media started calling this out!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxiUISLfsR8

*I have no argument* so "fake news!"

Hopefully it becomes a broader media policy to cut them off when they use this as an excuse.

Harika

demfad wrote: »

<-snip->

(Cambridge Analytica also used in Brexit for leave.eu campaign)

<-snip->

To sleep better, a rebuttal on it: https://www.buzzfeed.com/kendalltaggart/the-truth-about-the-trump-data-team-that-people-are-freaking?utm_term=.itN8Ya2Zm#.xwB8bEO9v

I tested one of those "scanners" from a data scientist, that analyses your facebook to verify you. And according to this I would be conservative and possible Trump voter as I have Fox news in my feed, while in reality I have it to get an overall view and so on. IMO Cambridge Analytica used Trump and Brexit as viral marketing campaign as they have no proof of any sort.

robinph

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Hopefully it becomes a broader media policy to cut them off when they use this as an excuse.

Unfortunately, they will just claim they are being censored then and use that as "proof" that the world is out to get them. That guy did need cutting off though as he didn't actually have anything to say.

When talking about crowd sizes, massacres and disasters in Sweden they need to be left to talk about it and the fake news that they are creating, but without letting them meander off onto a different topic about how well everything is running.

recedite

demfad wrote: »

https://medium.com/join-scout/the-rise-of-the-weaponized-ai-propaganda-machine-86dac61668b#.yksv7vo0e

Weaponized AI Propaganda Machine?
This is possibly your best CT yet on this thread.
The robots are coming to get us!

Memnoch

recedite wrote: »

Weaponized AI Propaganda Machine?
This is possibly your best CT yet on this thread.
The robots are coming to get us!

A bit far fetched but perhaps not far from being possible. I wouldn't be too concerned about this being done by Trump. But I would be concerned in 4-5 years time in terms of the like of Zukerberg or other more mainstream politicians with serious money and backing.

'Alternative facts' were fiction too, once upon a time.

swampgas

recedite wrote: »

Weaponized AI Propaganda Machine?
This is possibly your best CT yet on this thread.
The robots are coming to get us!

It's not that far-fetched. Facebook and Google are already using sophisticated algorithms (might as well call it AI) to analyse user behaviour and filter the data presented. You're naive if you don't think that the technology is already available, whether someone has the skills and resources to use it effectively right now is another question entirely.

*edit* Memnoch beat me too it, snap!

recedite

robinph wrote: »

That guy did need cutting off though as he didn't actually have anything to say.

Well no, just before he was cut off, he was speaking very slowly and clearly, to give a concise rebuttal to the rant by the CNN hack, which the sane guy had just listened to very patiently.

This is a classic example of a very biased media corp. pushing their own agenda, and refusing to air any dissenting opinion.

So do you think the "news" that the hack was bringing to the public was valid news?
Of course it costs a lot of money to maintain the secret service, and "the beast" (armoured limo) the motorcade, the helicopter, Air Force One etc...
Is this really news? Why wasn't it news when Obama was President? Or was it all free then?

recedite

swampgas wrote: »

It's not that far-fetched. Facebook and Google are already using sophisticated algorithms (might as well call it AI) to analyse user behaviour and filter the data presented. You're naive if you don't think that the technology is already available..

I know that, and the "echo chamber" effect that results is an interesting phenomenon. But Facebook is hardly an example of a "Weaponized AI Propaganda Machine".

Also, its only an effect; nobody lives entirely in a bubble. This thread is itself an example of people willingly exposing themselves to alternative viewpoints.
I doubt that either Zuckerberg or Bannon are scheming up ways to shut it down.

PopePalpatine

Oh noes, those mean hacks at CNN are reporting the news! Maybe he can ask his buddy Vlad for advice on how to turn his country's media into his own safe space.

Harika

For the interviews, there is an interesting video from vox, how Conway is derailing discussions, after you watch this video you can spot her technique very easily.

Or in short: She takes words from the question, repeats them in her answer, even if this is not an answer to the question, but it seems like she is doing it.

robinph

recedite wrote: »

Well no, just before he was cut off, he was speaking very slowly and clearly, to give a concise rebuttal to the rant by the CNN hack, which the sane guy had just listened to very patiently.

This is a classic example of a very biased media corp. pushing their own agenda, and refusing to air any dissenting opinion.

So do you think the "news" that the hack was bringing to the public was valid news?
Of course it costs a lot of money to maintain the secret service, and "the beast" (armoured limo) the motorcade, the helicopter, Air Force One etc...
Is this really news? Why wasn't it news when Obama was President? Or was it all free then?

He wasn't giving a rebuttal, he was trying to change the topic to just ranting about everything on the media being fake, unless it's Fox talking about Sweden I guess in which case it's genuine?!?

It is a relevant thing to discuss the cost of keeping the president safe. It is a relevant thing to discuss where that money goes, such as the president being paid by the state for hotel rooms for the security people in his own hotel etc.

The cost of such things was brought up regarding Obama. Guess who was complaining about it then:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-here-are-some-of-the-times-trump-1487449739-htmlstory.html
Why is it not a story now Trump is the one spending the money? Why is it not a story that Trump is also the one earning money from it?

I don't believe that Obama owned any hotels that he went and stayed in as president

Christy42

recedite wrote: »

Well no, just before he was cut off, he was speaking very slowly and clearly, to give a concise rebuttal to the rant by the CNN hack, which the sane guy had just listened to very patiently.

This is a classic example of a very biased media corp. pushing their own agenda, and refusing to air any dissenting opinion.

So do you think the "news" that the hack was bringing to the public was valid news?
Of course it costs a lot of money to maintain the secret service, and "the beast" (armoured limo) the motorcade, the helicopter, Air Force One etc...
Is this really news? Why wasn't it news when Obama was President? Or was it all free then?

Talking slowly does not imply a concise rebuttal.

They were talking about the price of hosting secret service agents in various places when the Trump family goes on holiday various places.

This price exists and can be debated. Therefore calling it fake news is a lie or a complete lack of the required intellegence to understand the term fake news. The man was not coming up with a coherent response as he started with it is fake news because... when it is quite clearly not fake news.

As to why it is interesting news (your second paragraph argues it is uninteresting news as opposed to fake news). Trump has already spent in a month what Obama did in a year. It is interesting because the cost has gone up several orders of magnitude since Trump became president. It is also news because Donald Trump thought it was news when he complained about Obama spending money on holidays. Now Trump is president and is far worse in this regard his hypocrisy is worth pointing out.

demfad

Harika wrote: »

To sleep better, a rebuttal on it: https://www.buzzfeed.com/kendalltaggart/the-truth-about-the-trump-data-team-that-people-are-freaking?utm_term=.itN8Ya2Zm#.xwB8bEO9v

I tested one of those "scanners" from a data scientist, that analyses your facebook to verify you. And according to this I would be conservative and possible Trump voter as I have Fox news in my feed, while in reality I have it to get an overall view and so on. IMO Cambridge Analytica used Trump and Brexit as viral marketing campaign as they have no proof of any sort.

Cambridge is nothing like the 'scanner' you suggest. Please read the article before posting misleadingly.

Harika

demfad wrote: »

Cambridge is nothing like the 'scanner' you suggest. Please read the article before posting misleadingly.

All they do is afterwards claiming that they did it, there is no proof that whatever they did, happened or had any measurable effect. Or that they were hired by anyone to do it. There is a new TV show, called "Bull" that basically claims to do the same, just in a court to manipulate the outcome of a trial. Both have the same credibility.

demfad

Harika wrote: »

All they do is afterwards claiming that they did it, there is no proof that whatever they did, happened or had any measurable effect. Or that they were hired by anyone to do it. There is a new TV show, called "Bull" that basically claims to do the same, just in a court to manipulate the outcome of a trial. Both have the same credibility.

Read the article and comment on it please. The money behind CA is the hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer. Mercer made his billions creating algorithms used in the Finance industry with Renaissance technologies.
Mercers were the money behind Trump.

Peter Thiel is also on the WH group looking at taking this on.

I notice the Trump/Putin posters are very quick to pour scorn on this without apparently reading it.

When 'Moscow denies', it generally means a very strong confirmation!!!!