Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Leroy42

Obvious Otter wrote: »

That's not true. Obama, Clinton, Schumer and all the top democrats voted for it. It's not one person making a small mistake.

Who are you trying to blame this on by suggesting this is the mistake of one person?

The wall is not really the issue though is it. Nobody is arguing against a well thought out and functioning immigration service. There already are border patrols. US is built on immigration. Apart from the native Americans everyone is a 3rd/4th generation.

What Trump has done is label all Mexicans as illegals, in fact all foreigners are to be viewed with suspicion. The Wall is a simple, easy to talk about 'thing' that people can identify with. The fact that it is enormously expensive and will actually do very little to deal with the problem that Trump apparently wants to deal with. It is much harder to get across a well thought out and functioning immigration policy with both physical and legal barriers.

At present, there are special courts that handle deportation orders. They currently have something like 800,000 backlog of cases. From the moment of arrest, it can take up to 6 years before the case is heard and only then can a deportation order be served.

Part of Trumps plan is to simply do away with this legal process. A person can be picked up, for pretty much no reason, and unless they can prove themselves to to US citizen, they can be deported. The idea seems to be that if they want to challenge it they can do so from Mexico. Whether you agree with the current legal process or not (6 years is crazy IMO) the answer simply cannot be to avoid the legal process.

Most illegals do not walk across the border. They are made up of people coming in legally and overstaying the visa. There is the sheer cost of it. The massive structural and engineering issues with building it in the first place coupled with the costs of maintaining it.

Will people have their land compulsory purchased and now have a hugh wall at the end of the garden? What about those families who may lose their father/mother to deportation and this now need state aid instead of the parents income?

The real issue is that Trump hasn't even thought about any of this. The wall was a throw away remark that went down well and so they ran with it. His base loved it as it was simple to understand. The fact that recently he came out with his solar panel plan and even during the campaign admitted that he would build the wall so high nobody could get over it, well except it they had a long rope! So even Trump can seen how futile the plan is.

Christy42

Obvious Otter wrote: »

That's not true. Obama, Clinton, Schumer and all the top democrats voted for it. It's not one person making a small mistake.

Who are you trying to blame this on by suggesting this is the mistake of one person?

Sorry people making a small mistake 11 years ago is not an excuse for making a far bigger mistake now. I was thinking of the main proposer (granted I am unsure who it was) but you are right in that multiple people voted for it.

My main point stands. The wall idea is dumb and pointing out something vaguely similar was done on a much smaller scale over a decade ago when we don't even have agreement that that was a good idea is not going to change that.

Billy86

Christy42 wrote: »

(granted I am unsure who it was)

As best I can tell it was this lad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_Hunter

Obvious Otter

Christy42 wrote: »

Sorry people making a small mistake 11 years ago is not an excuse for making a far bigger mistake now. I was thinking of the main proposer (granted I am unsure who it was) but you are right in that multiple people voted for it.

My main point stands. The wall idea is dumb and pointing out something vaguely similar was done on a much smaller scale over a decade ago when we don't even have agreement that that was a good idea is not going to change that.

I'm not saying it is an excuse to build it now. I think the wall is an incredibly poor idea. Trump wants Mexico to stop sending illegals across the border while at the same time dissentivising companies from setting up in Mexico to keep the people there in the first place.

Depending on the mood of the electorate and their bases both parties change tact as they see fit which doesn't really help the problem. Also, illegal Mexicans and South Americans provide low cost labour to keep the agriculture sector moving in the southern states.

Neither party really has a plan to tackle the problem. Illegals are treated like pawns from both sides. On one hand the GOP wants to use the removal of illegals as a tactic to gain votes while the Dems seem happy to leave the illegals as are but with none of the social security benefits or any possibly of naturalisation becuase some of them are also able to illegally vote too for the Democrats, which is why they don't want to ID voters.

Building a wall is a terrible solution to the problem and the negative impact of illegals in America is vastly overstated.

demfad

Obvious Otter wrote: »

Neither party really has a plan to tackle the problem. Illegals are treated like pawns from both sides. On one hand the GOP wants to use the removal of illegals as a tactic to gain votes while the Dems seem happy to leave the illegals as are but with none of the social security benefits or any possibly of naturalisation becuase some of them are also able to illegally vote too for the Democrats, which is why they don't want to ID voters.

The bolded part was claimed by Trump and appears to be completely unfounded. Can you substantiate this claim please?

Peregrinus

The claim is not only unfounded but makes no sense. If the Democrats are seen to leave undocumented aliens in limbo with no possibility of naturalisation and no social security benefits, even if the aliens are voting, which is unproven, they would have no reason to favour a Democratic party which treated them so shabbily. If the Democrats were pursuing their own electoral advantage here, a far better strategy would be to push for naturalisation opportunities, so that the aliens (a) could be naturalised and could vote legally and in greater numbers, and (b) would have a reason to vote for the Democrats.

The demand to ID voters has nothing to do with preventing illegal aliens from voting - lots of illegal aliens have valid IDs, such as driving licences - and everything to do with disenfranchising economically and socially disadvantaged citizens, which is why the push to ID voters tends to come from Republicans and to be opposed by Democrats.

Billy86

Roger Stone throwing around thinly veiled death threats to anyone in Congress who might vote in favour of impeachment - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-roger-stone-impeach-vote-endanger-life-congress-house-senate-white-house-russia-meeting-a7911691.html

Something something violent leftists something something.

Obvious Otter

Peregrinus wrote: »

The claim is not only unfounded but makes no sense. If the Democrats are seen to leave undocumented aliens in limbo with no possibility of naturalisation and no social security benefits, even if the aliens are voting, which is unproven, they would have no reason to favour a Democratic party which treated them so shabbily. If the Democrats were pursuing their own electoral advantage here, a far better strategy would be to push for naturalisation opportunities, so that the aliens (a) could be naturalised and could vote legally and in greater numbers, and (b) would have a reason to vote for the Democrats.

The demand to ID voters has nothing to do with preventing illegal aliens from voting - lots of illegal aliens have valid IDs, such as driving licences - and everything to do with disenfranchising economically and socially disadvantaged citizens, which is why the push to ID voters tends to come from Republicans and to be opposed by Democrats.

Your post makes no sense as illegals are the most socially disadvantaged group in the US. The Democrats have seen their share of the 'white vote' fall since 1992, with some exceptions.

You're attempting to apply logic and reason to a flip flopping of positions from the Democrats. It's blantaly obvious why an illegal would vote for the Democrats becuase they aren't the ones actively campaigning to remove them from the US despite Obama removing unpreceded levels of illegals during his presidency.

Obvious Otter

demfad wrote: »

The bolded part was claimed by Trump and appears to be completely unfounded. Can you substantiate this claim please?

It's impossible to substantiate any claim of voter fraud becuase the checks and balances in the US voting system are incredibly poor.

Water John

I think it was Joe Biden said; Cruz was the most miserable b*****d he'd ever come across.

Captain_Crash

Obvious Otter wrote: »

despite Obama removing unpreceded levels of illegals during his presidency.

In the interest of clarity, the numbers from Obama's presidency weren't all it would seem. His administration included people turned away at the border and people sent back after being caught trying to enter via the Mexican border... numbers previous administrations didn't include as "deportations/removals".

In fact, more than twice as many were removed during the Bush administration, and Clinton removed even more still.

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/obama-record-deportations-deporter-chief-or-not

oscarBravo

Obvious Otter wrote: »

It's impossible to substantiate any claim of voter fraud becuase the checks and balances in the US voting system are incredibly poor.

But you're happy to make a claim that you know you can't substantiate?

Igotadose

Obvious Otter wrote: »

It's impossible to substantiate any claim of voter fraud becuase the checks and balances in the US voting system are incredibly poor.

Is that why there are so few cases of voter fraud that actually are prosecuted despite the hundreds of millions of votes cast?

I think your position is indefensible. Care to defend it? What facts have you got that the 'checks and balances in the US voting system are incredibly poor?'

Billy86

Illegal immigrants also tend to stay away from places like airports, government buildings, police stations like the absolute plague for obvious reasons.

BabyCheeses

Obvious Otter wrote: »

It's impossible to substantiate any claim of voter fraud becuase the checks and balances in the US voting system are incredibly poor.

Why make a claim you can't substantiate? Where did you learn that this was happening in the first place if it can't be substantiated?

There are people who get arrested over voter fraud, how can that happen?

demfad

Water John wrote: »

I think it was Joe Biden said; Cruz was the most miserable b*****d he'd ever come across.

In case people don't know. Cruz was backed by Robert and Rebekah Mercer who switched to Donald Trump after the GOP primary. Bannon, Conway and Bossie are their people and all are likely members of the Council for National Policy (also DeVos and here brother Erik Prince), a powerful religious Statist group who are deep in this US administration. Mercers and Bannons' Breitbart and Canbridge analytica was heavily involved in Trump's election with CA also connected to All 5 leave campaigns.
The recent Facebook/Russian trolls revelations cast even more light on CAs role in bringing Russian Fake news to the microtargetted social media profiles of voters in swing States.
The Mercers with the Koch brothers give Trump and GOP puppets legislation.
Rebekah Mercer runs the Heritage foundation. The larger foundation controlled by the Kochs was involved with a mirror UK foundation involving Liam Fox eventually leading to his firing by Cameron. This foundation was anti-regulation pro-Brexit or any way to reduce European/British regulations to allow the fatcats to make more $. Fox is only a minsiter for the US deal, no other reason.
Russia skillfully pushed, pulled and split societies using overt and covert methods to make these takovers possible. They aided with propaganda big time, but manipulating and moving the players sowed the pending catastrophies.

Billy86

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't care how informed the poster is, no reputable expert is going to make a psychological assessment of that nature without actually engaging the subject in question. Want a flaw in the position? It's that there is such a position. He can make reasoned argument without resorting to hyperbole and ad hominems.

I disagree with the lack of empathy statement anyway. If he had no empathy, why would he not just stop DACA effective immediately? His emotion after the Syrian chemical strike seemed pretty genuine to me as well.

A little late getting back to this, but using children as hostages and a bargaining chip is not a sign of empathy.

Here is a reputable expert making a psychological assessment of that nature on Trump.

Harvard psychiatrist Lance Dodes: Donald Trump is a “sociopath” and “a very sick individual”
"Clinically, if we were to look at the checklist for sociopathy, what are some of the indicators that Trump is presenting?"
"It is people who lie and cheat. Everybody lies some of the time, but in this instance we mean people who lie as a way of being in the world, to manage relationships and also to manage your feelings about yourself. People who cheat and steal from others. People who lack empathy … the lack of empathy is a critical aspect of it. People who are narcissistic.

Trump’s case of narcissism is particularly severe because he also is out of touch with reality whenever he becomes upset. When he says, “I had the largest crowd at an inauguration in history,” it does not matter that you can tell him that it is not true, he still insists on it. Well, that is very troublesome because what it means is that he needs to believe it. He is able to give up reality in exchange for his wished-for belief. Sometimes we call that a delusion. We have not used that word much with Donald Trump because that does get confused with people who think that they are Napoleon. But Trump has a fluid sense of reality, which is a sign of a very sick individual.

Sociopathy itself is a sign of a very sick individual, someone with a lying, cheating and emotional disorder. The intersection of those two occurs in sociopathy. It is not just bad behavior that people have to lie and cheat the way he does, it is an incapacity to treat other people as full human beings. That is why his focus is on humiliating others to aggrandize himself, as he did in the Republican primaries when he was debating and calling people names. The same thing applies to Hispanic immigrants and separating the children from their parents. That is a very, very serious mental and emotional problem. Normal people have normal empathy. It is part of being a human being. Lying and cheating and humiliating others and grinding them into dust in order to triumph is not just bad behavior. It is a serious mental illness.

...

The best diagnosis for Trump is that he is a malignant narcissist. It contains the narcissistic part which is no big deal alone — lots of people are narcissistic — but the malignant part is the sociopathy dimension. These terms suggest that Trump is a very primitive man. He is also a man who has a fundamental, deep psychological defect. It is expressed in his inability to empathize with others and his lack of genuine loyalty to anyone. You will notice that Trump wants everyone to be loyal to him, but he is loyal to nobody.

...

You know, I have known lots of people like that and none of them are as evil or dangerous as Donald Trump because they do not have the sociopathy part. They may be oriented towards themselves, they may be self-centered, they may care mostly about themselves. But when it comes right down to it, they have some compassion, they have a conscience. But not Donald Trump. That is the malignant part. So yes, you want to say he is narcissistic personality, yes. Malignant narcissism? Yes. Sociopathy? Yes. Antisocial personality? Yes. Paranoia? Absolutely. He is quite paranoid but again, if you look at it from underneath, it all fits together.

...

If rising to the top is a sign of anything positive, then you have to put Adolf Hitler in that group. Trump is successful in business for the last of your reasons. Because if you are willing to trample on other people, you have a great chance of rising to the top. If he is willing to lie, for example, and cheat people and use that to his personal advantage no matter what the consequences are for them, well, one of two things happens to people like that. If they fail enough, they are in jail. These are the sociopaths who end up as chronic criminals. But if they have the gift of gathering people around them like a cult leader and demagogue, then they rise to the top. It is not that unusual at all. It happens throughout history. Trump does not care. Lots of schmucks rise to the top."

Obvious Otter

oscarBravo wrote: »

But you're happy to make a claim that you know you can't substantiate?

Yes I am. The Dems have been losing the white vote for some time. Just becuase you can't quantify something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Obvious Otter

Igotadose wrote: »

Is that why there are so few cases of voter fraud that actually are prosecuted despite the hundreds of millions of votes cast?

I think your position is indefensible. Care to defend it? What facts have you got that the 'checks and balances in the US voting system are incredibly poor?'

You think my position is indefensible yet you have provided no contrary evidence on how that is the case. How did you manage to come to that conclusion when your basis for that is 'well there are so few cases so it doesn't happen'???!

You have a dose all right

Really Interested

Obvious Otter wrote: »

You think my position is indefensible yet you have provided no contrary evidence on how that is the case. How did you manage to come to that conclusion when your basis for that is 'well there are so few cases so it doesn't happen'???!

You have a dose all right

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth

A study published by a Columbia University political scientist tracked incidence rates for voter fraud for two years, and found that the rare fraud that was reported generally could be traced to “false claims by the loser of a close race, mischief and administrative or voter error.”

A review of the 2016 election found four documented cases of voter fraud.

A 2014 paper concluded that “the likely percent of non-citizen voters in recent US elections is 0.”

So your evidence is?

I have 1 4ft penis i dont want to provide any evidence though.

Leroy42

But is it 5 million or 5? Thats the point.

Has voter fraud ever occurred? Yes. The latest research says that very few instances have ever been found. You dismiss this based on your opinion that there is a lack of checks and balances. And that might be the case. But it might also be the case that millions that did vote were counted wrong. Or lost. Or those that didn't vote actually wanted to but there is a conspiracy to keep them from voting.

Based on your reasoning Clinton might actually have won.

We can all just make whatever we want up to suit our own agenda. We can all find somebody else to blame for everything. But you need to have some basis on which to plant your opinion.

Your opinion is, seemingly, based on your belief of a well documented liar, a lack of trust in the system (without any actual evidence to base that mistrust) and a desire for it to be true.

Manic Moran

Billy86 wrote: »

A little late getting back to this, but using children as hostages and a bargaining chip is not a sign of empathy.

I beg to differ. There was no requirement for him to put a delay on the cessation of the implementation of the program. If he did not care about the effect on them, there was no reason for him not to terminate the program with immediate effect.

Here is a reputable expert making a psychological assessment of that nature on Trump.

On the other hand, you have...
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-mental-health-disorder-personality-doctors-yale-psychiatrist-investigation-a7874586.html

Speculation from afar is not good evidence. It is at best well-meaning concern or badly meant conjecture.[...]Speculation is only useful when teamed with an investigation. Satellite diagnosis is a poor diagnosis[...]I do not agree that speculative diagnosis is correct or fair

Or, better yet, the American Psychiatric Association's own rules:
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/08/13/489807468/psychiatrists-reminded-to-refrain-from-armchair-analysis-of-public-figures

The unique atmosphere of this year's election cycle may lead some to want to psychoanalyze the candidates, but to do so would not only be unethical, it would be irresponsible[...]The rule states that despite the shiny diagnostic T-ball Trump has propped in front of them — his volatility, his grandiosity, his entitlement — professional code holds that if they haven't performed an in-person evaluation, psychiatrists should keep quiet on the mental character of public figures (unless of course they have that person's permission to speak out).[...]"I think offering semi-psychological interpretations is a poor idea for psychologists and psychiatrists," said Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at New York University's Langone Medical Center. "How can anyone give an in-depth character analysis on psychological or mental health grounds without knowing or examining the person at all?"

Or simple raw disagreement.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/opinion/an-eminent-psychiatrist-demurs-on-trumps-mental-state.html?mcubz=0

Most amateur diagnosticians have mislabeled President Trump with the diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder. I wrote the criteria that define this disorder, and Mr. Trump doesn’t meet them. He may be a world-class narcissist, but this doesn’t make him mentally ill, because he does not suffer from the distress and impairment required to diagnose mental disorder.

Igotadose

Obvious Otter wrote: »

You think my position is indefensible yet you have provided no contrary evidence on how that is the case. How did you manage to come to that conclusion when your basis for that is 'well there are so few cases so it doesn't happen'???!

You have a dose all right

Yes, of reality. And as was separately pointed out, there are vanishingly small amounts of voter fraud cases in the US.

So, where are the facts to back up your claim of, quote, "It's impossible to substantiate any claim of voter fraud becuase the checks and balances in the US voting system are incredibly poor."

If you have no facts, fine, you're just expressing an opinion. Is that correct?

Leroy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

I beg to differ. There was no requirement for him to put a delay on the cessation of the implementation of the program. If he did not care about the effect on them, there was no reason for him not to terminate the program with immediate effect.

He is only delaying it to serve himself, he wants the funding for the border wall.

He is prepared to put these peoples lives on hold for his own ends. He is far from having any empathy for them, he is doing the exact opposite.

B0jangles

Manic Moran wrote: »

Or simple raw disagreement.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/opinion/an-eminent-psychiatrist-demurs-on-trumps-mental-state.html?mcubz=0

Most amateur diagnosticians have mislabeled President Trump with the diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder. I wrote the criteria that define this disorder, and Mr. Trump doesn’t meet them. He may be a world-class narcissist, but this doesn’t make him mentally ill, because he does not suffer from the distress and impairment required to diagnose mental disorder.

Why did you leave out the next couple of lines in that letter?

Mr. Trump causes severe distress rather than experiencing it and has been richly rewarded, rather than punished, for his grandiosity, self-absorption and lack of empathy. It is a stigmatizing insult to the mentally ill (who are mostly well behaved and well meaning) to be lumped with Mr. Trump (who is neither).
Bad behavior is rarely a sign of mental illness, and the mentally ill behave badly only rarely. Psychiatric name-calling is a misguided way of countering Mr. Trump’s attack on democracy. He can, and should, be appropriately denounced for his ignorance, incompetence, impulsivity and pursuit of dictatorial powers.

He wasn't saying Trump does not exhibit all of the negative traits given above, he just doesn't suffer any personal ill effects from them.

He is saying it is an insult to the mentally ill to put Trump among their number.

oscarBravo

Obvious Otter wrote: »

Yes I am.

Fair enough, but that just puts you in the camp of people who make stuff up and try to pass it off as fact.

The Dems have been losing the white vote for some time.

That's a non-sequitur.

Just becuase you can't quantify something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

That may be so, but you introduced this particular fiction as an attack on the Democrats, and now you admit that you have no evidence to back it up.

Professor Moriarty

Manic Moran wrote: »

I beg to differ. There was no requirement for him to put a delay on the cessation of the implementation of the program. If he did not care about the effect on them, there was no reason for him not to terminate the program with immediate effect.



On the other hand, you have...
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-mental-health-disorder-personality-doctors-yale-psychiatrist-investigation-a7874586.html



Or, better yet, the American Psychiatric Association's own rules:
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/08/13/489807468/psychiatrists-reminded-to-refrain-from-armchair-analysis-of-public-figures


Or simple raw disagreement.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/opinion/an-eminent-psychiatrist-demurs-on-trumps-mental-state.html?mcubz=0

Indeed. Doctors differ and patients die. According to the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, these are the criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for
admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and
present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the
following:

1. A grandiose logic of self-importance
2. A fixation with fantasies of infinite success, control, brilliance, beauty, or idyllic love
3. A credence that he or she is extraordinary and exceptional and can only be understood by, or should connect with, other extraordinary or important people or institutions
4. A desire for unwarranted admiration
5. A sense of entitlement
6. Interpersonally oppressive behavior
7. No form of empathy
8. Resentment of others or a conviction that others are resentful of him or her
9. A display of egotistical and conceited behaviors or attitudes

I'll just leave that here and let people make their own minds up.

Igotadose

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Indeed. Doctors differ and patients die. According to the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, these are the criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

<snippage of good stuff>
I'll just leave that here and let people make their own minds up.

But an alternative psychoanalytic organization in the US has said the POTUS has issues. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/07/a-crack-in-psychoanalytic-standards-courtesy-of-the-president/534825/

And one of their members has opined in the LA Times that, according to the US Army's manual on leader development, that Trump isn't fit to lead. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-gourguechon-25th-amendment-leadership-mental-capacities-checklist-20170616-story.html

Short of invoking article 25, which isn't going to happen unless the POTUS is completely incapacitated like through a stroke or whatever, debating Trump and NPD is pretty pointless. He's the POTUS. More important to keep an eye on the shenanigans he and his festering swamp of a cabinet are up to. Like Betsy DeVos, worst cabinet member since Teapot Dome, bringing in the former head of DeVry to oversee for-profit colleges. Wolf, henhouse, ... http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/30/julian-schmoke-jr-trump-education-department-college-enforcement-242176

Igotadose

USA Today's done a piece about what's going on at Trump's golf courses. Seems like he gets lobbyists and execs to join up in order to get face time, so I expect we won't see any reduction in the President's golf weekends - he's got too much money riding on it:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/09/06/trump-gets-millions-golf-members-ceos-and-lobbyists-get-access-president/632505001/

Lead: "Dozens of lobbyists, contractors and others who make their living influencing the government pay President Trump’s companies for membership in his private golf clubs, a status that can put them in close contact with the president, a USA TODAY investigation found."

Good job by USA today to find this out. Trump's is by far and away the most secretive administration in history, I'm sure as word of this article spreads they'll find ways to bottle up the sources USA today used.

Manic Moran

Why did you leave out the next couple of lines in that letter?

I left it out because it wasn't relevant to the question of whether it is appropriate to conducting a psychological assessment on someone without actually assessing them.

He wasn't saying Trump does not exhibit all of the negative traits given above, he just doesn't suffer any personal ill effects from them

With respect, there is a difference between saying someone is mentally unhinged, and is exhibiting unfortunate traits. I have certainly not said that Trump is a model human being. I have not even said that he's a nice person. What started this all off was the question of if he has empathy.

Leroy42 wrote: »

He is only delaying it to serve himself, he wants the funding for the border wall.

He is prepared to put these peoples lives on hold for his own ends. He is far from having any empathy for them, he is doing the exact opposite.

With respect, the two are not mutually exclusive. I've shot at people, doesn't mean to say I don't have empathy for them. My empathy doesn't exactly help their position or make them feel better about themselves, nor does it stop me from doing my job, but doesn't mean I don't feel anything for their position (or that of their next of kin).

Neither is the idea of holding them 'hostage' for a border wall exclusive to the concept. I agree with you in that he is using them as a bargaining chip. They would be an even stronger bargaining chip if he terminated the program with immediate effect, in which case until Congress sorted itself out, there would be a period of time with no protections for them at all. By delaying the implementation, he is likely to get a similar end result, but without necessarily putting the DACA folks in a period of jeopardy. If it were not for concern for the position of the DACA persons, why delay implementation?

spacecoyote

Quote from an interview about 9/11 from Trump pre presidency. Seems in line with peoples analysis of him as a narcissist lacking empathy

https://twitter.com/theforcefuI/status/907312110920720385

aloyisious

Manic Moran wrote: »

I left it out because it wasn't relevant to the question of whether it is appropriate to conducting a psychological assessment on someone without actually assessing them.



With respect, there is a difference between saying someone is mentally unhinged, and is exhibiting unfortunate traits. I have certainly not said that Trump is a model human being. I have not even said that he's a nice person. What started this all off was the question of if he has empathy.



With respect, the two are not mutually exclusive. I've shot at people, doesn't mean to say I don't have empathy for them. My empathy doesn't exactly help their position or make them feel better about themselves, nor does it stop me from doing my job, but doesn't mean I don't feel anything for their position (or that of their next of kin).

Neither is the idea of holding them 'hostage' for a border wall exclusive to the concept. I agree with you in that he is using them as a bargaining chip. They would be an even stronger bargaining chip if he terminated the program with immediate effect, in which case until Congress sorted itself out, there would be a period of time with no protections for them at all. By delaying the implementation, he is likely to get a similar end result, but without necessarily putting the DACA folks in a period of jeopardy. If it were not for concern for the position of the DACA persons, why delay implementation?

Is the answer to your last in this report? https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiPrdqqupvWAhWkJcAKHZWzBocQFghgMAs&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vox.com%2Fpolicy-and-politics%2F2017%2F9%2F8%2F16275902%2Fdonald-trump-nancy-pelosi-tweet&usg=AFQjCNFVZWXrlpRsFp8X9a-2ncjrCF5eEA

aloyisious

spacecoyote wrote: »

Quote from an interview about 9/11 from Trump pre presidency. Seems in line with peoples analysis of him as a narcissist lacking empathy

https://twitter.com/theforcefuI/status/907312110920720385

He has a crass way in describing what he sees [brutally and without any apparent or visible empathy] as factual. I suppose the best people to relate whether he has empathy would be his family [ex and present] members.

Obvious Otter

Really Interested wrote: »

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth

A study published by a Columbia University political scientist tracked incidence rates for voter fraud for two years, and found that the rare fraud that was reported generally could be traced to “false claims by the loser of a close race, mischief and administrative or voter error.”

A review of the 2016 election found four documented cases of voter fraud.

A 2014 paper concluded that “the likely percent of non-citizen voters in recent US elections is 0.”

So your evidence is?

I have 1 4ft penis i dont want to provide any evidence though.

Why is Alex Padilla refusing to comply will all requests to ascertain how California has more votes than eligible voters in 11 counties? If the White House can't get access to voter registration data then how can the above studies back up any of your points? Here's a clue.. they can't! None of the above can possibly come to any sort of conclusion on voter fraud.

California has apparently combined both active and inactive voters to skew the numbers and is in breach of the National Voter Registration Act in doing so.

If there is nothing to hide why won't Padilla hand over the voter data? Please ensure to inform yourself before using poor models of study to back up a claim. If they don't have access to the registration data then they cannot come to any conclusion on electroal fraud. Its not rocket science.

Billy86

Obvious Otter wrote: »

Why is Alex Padilla refusing to comply will all requests to ascertain how California has more votes than eligible voters in 11 counties?

If the White House can't get access to voter registration data then how can the above studies back up any of your points? Here's a clue.. they can't! None of the above can possibly come to any sort of conclusion on voter fraud.

California has apparently combined both active and inactive voters to skew the numbers and is in breach of the National Voter Registration Act in doing so.

I hadn't heard about that so I looked it up, and after skipping by various links to Breitbart, Infowars and Zero Hedge (the trifecta!) it appears that not only isn't the case, but it isn't even what is being asserted. Conservative group Judicial Watch (known in some circles for over 20 attempts to sue the Clintons) are claiming that there are more people listed as eligible voters than there are over 18 living in those counties. A massive (and hardly accidental) flaw in their logic however, is that JW are including inactive voters who's ballots (sent by mail) were returned as undeliverable - typically people who have moved or died in the last year or so.

The equivalent would be if I moved to Wicklow, got sent a ballot for an election not long after my move to my (current) Dublin South West address which was then returned as undeliverable, and in response the likes of TheLiberal.ie tried to stir it up as proof that Dublin County Council is big into voter fraud. And the same for if I didn't move but my elderly neighbour passed away, thus making her mail undeliverable.

For example Santa Cruz County has a population of 274,000 (so let's say maybe 200-225,000 over 18)... and had 44,172 inactive voters so around 20% of the over 18 population in the county... of those 44,172, a grand total 12 were listed as having voted. Twelve as a percentage of 225,000 comes to 00.005%, and even then we don't know if those were random odd cases of extenuating circumstances or actual voter fraud.

Article on the subject here - http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-california-more-voters-than-eligible-adults-claim-20170809-htmlstory.html
Judicial Watch’s claim rests on its inclusion of “inactive voters” – people who have been removed from active rolls after a mail ballot, voter guide or other official document was returned as undeliverable – usually as a result of moving. They aren’t reflected in turnout tallies or signature-gathering requirements, don’t receive election materials, and are ignored by campaigns.



If you can link us to a reputable source about there being more votes cast in these counties than eligible voters, I think we would all appreciate it.

Really Interested

Billy86 wrote: »

I hadn't heard about that so I looked it up, and after skipping by various links to Breitbart, Infowars and Zero Hedge (the trifecta!) it appears that not only isn't the case, but it isn't even what is being asserted. Conservative group Judicial Watch (known in some circles for over 20 attempts to sue the Clintons) are claiming that there are more people listed as eligible voters than there are over 18 living in those counties. A massive (and hardly accidental) flaw in their logic however, is that JW are including inactive voters who's ballots (sent by mail) were returned as undeliverable - typically people who have moved or died in the last year or so.

The equivalent would be if I moved to Wicklow, got sent a ballot for an election not long after my move to my (current) Dublin South West address which was then returned as undeliverable, and in response the likes of TheLiberal.ie tried to stir it up as proof that Dublin County Council is big into voter fraud. And the same for if I didn't move but my elderly neighbour passed away, thus making her mail undeliverable.

For example Santa Cruz County has a population of 274,000 (so let's say maybe 200-225,000 over 18)... and had 44,172 inactive voters so around 20% of the over 18 population in the county... of those 44,172, a grand total 12 were listed as having voted. Twelve as a percentage of 225,000 comes to 00.005%, and even then we don't know if those were random odd cases of extenuating circumstances or actual voter fraud.

Article on the subject here - http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-california-more-voters-than-eligible-adults-claim-20170809-htmlstory.html
Judicial Watch’s claim rests on its inclusion of “inactive voters” – people who have been removed from active rolls after a mail ballot, voter guide or other official document was returned as undeliverable – usually as a result of moving. They aren’t reflected in turnout tallies or signature-gathering requirements, don’t receive election materials, and are ignored by campaigns.



If you can link us to a reputable source about there being more votes cast in these counties than eligible voters, I think we would all appreciate it.

Asking some of these guys to link to a reputable source is like asking Trump to be nice to Muslims.

Leroy42

Obvious Otter wrote: »

Why is Alex Padilla refusing to comply will all requests to ascertain how California has more votes than eligible voters in 11 counties? If the White House can't get access to voter registration data then how can the above studies back up any of your points? Here's a clue.. they can't! None of the above can possibly come to any sort of conclusion on voter fraud.

California has apparently combined both active and inactive voters to skew the numbers and is in breach of the National Voter Registration Act in doing so.

If there is nothing to hide why won't Padilla hand over the voter data? Please ensure to inform yourself before using poor models of study to back up a claim. If they don't have access to the registration data then they cannot come to any conclusion on electroal fraud. Its not rocket science.

Based on this logic Trump is guilty of collusion and tax fraud. I mean, why withhold anything if he has nothing to hide.

Do you know why Padilla is withholding the info, or have you just taken the refusal and used it to backup your opinion that it is voter fraud. What information have they been asked for? I know that some other states are not happy with the extent of the information that the federal government is looking for. Remember that each state is independent as usually is quite protective of its own, the federal government needs to be pretty clear why they want something.

Plenty of evidence, posted here, have shown that there is no material fraud within the voting system, if anything US should be looking a the incredibly low rates of voting rather than worrying about the immaterial amounts of voter fraud.

You are putting out the theory that voter fraud is a thing. You have posted nothing to back up the claim. All you have done is say that it is possible, but even then you have not actually provided a clear working how how this would manifest itself and what levels we are talking about.

You can't simply make something up and then demand that others disprove you. You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you to back it up.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

. . . Plenty of evidence, posted here, have shown that there is no material fraud within the voting system, if anything US should be looking a the incredibly low rates of voting rather than worrying about the immaterial amounts of voter fraud.

You are putting out the theory that voter fraud is a thing. You have posted nothing to back up the claim. All you have done is say that it is possible, but even then you have not actually provided a clear working how how this would manifest itself and what levels we are talking about.

You can't simply make something up and then demand that others disprove you. You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you to back it up.

What Leroy said.

There's no evidence of significant voter fraud in the US; there's abundant evidence of voter disengagement, and that's a far bigger threat to democracy.

Time enough to worry about voter fraud when you know you have a voter fraud problem. In the meantime Americans have two problems that they definitely know they have and that they definitely need to worry about.

The first is that their electoral machinery is absolutely crapulous (which, possibly, is why they don't know if voter fraud is happening). Trumpians seem unbothered by this. But, then, ignorance is a state of affairs that they are generally comfortable with.

The second is that typically half of US voters see no reason to vote. They don't feel able to make a meaningful choice from among the candidates offered. This might be because the range of policy positions offered by the candidates is very narrow, and they think it makes little difference which candidate they pick, or because the electoral system is such that they do not think their vote has a significant chance of affecting the outcome, or both.

Again, people concerned about democracy should be seriously bothered by this, but Trumpians don't seem to be. Trump himself clearly thinks that too many people are voting, when the plain fact is that too few people are voting.

Obvious Otter

Billy86 wrote: »

I hadn't heard about that so I looked it up, and after skipping by various links to Breitbart, Infowars and Zero Hedge (the trifecta!) it appears that not only isn't the case, but it isn't even what is being asserted. Conservative group Judicial Watch (known in some circles for over 20 attempts to sue the Clintons) are claiming that there are more people listed as eligible voters than there are over 18 living in those counties. A massive (and hardly accidental) flaw in their logic however, is that JW are including inactive voters who's ballots (sent by mail) were returned as undeliverable - typically people who have moved or died in the last year or so.

The equivalent would be if I moved to Wicklow, got sent a ballot for an election not long after my move to my (current) Dublin South West address which was then returned as undeliverable, and in response the likes of TheLiberal.ie tried to stir it up as proof that Dublin County Council is big into voter fraud. And the same for if I didn't move but my elderly neighbour passed away, thus making her mail undeliverable.

For example Santa Cruz County has a population of 274,000 (so let's say maybe 200-225,000 over 18)... and had 44,172 inactive voters so around 20% of the over 18 population in the county... of those 44,172, a grand total 12 were listed as having voted. Twelve as a percentage of 225,000 comes to 00.005%, and even then we don't know if those were random odd cases of extenuating circumstances or actual voter fraud.

Article on the subject here - http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-california-more-voters-than-eligible-adults-claim-20170809-htmlstory.html
Judicial Watch’s claim rests on its inclusion of “inactive voters” – people who have been removed from active rolls after a mail ballot, voter guide or other official document was returned as undeliverable – usually as a result of moving. They aren’t reflected in turnout tallies or signature-gathering requirements, don’t receive election materials, and are ignored by campaigns.



If you can link us to a reputable source about there being more votes cast in these counties than eligible voters, I think we would all appreciate it.

You have blatantly ignored the main point of the post which was that we cannot say voter fraud isn't happeneing when they aren't willing to hand of the voter registration data. Why won't Padilla hand over the registration data if there is nothing to hide?

Peregrinus

Obvious Otter wrote: »

You have blatantly ignored the main point of the post which was that we cannot say voter fraud isn't happeneing when they aren't willing to hand of the voter registration data. Why won't Padilla hand over the registration data if there is nothing to hide?

Because he doesn't want to dignify Trump's desperate attempts to persuade himself that he is popular by lending them any kind of credibility? Because he doesn't want to do anything that might suggest he accepts that groundless scaremongering about massive voter fraud needs to be taken seriously? Because there is absolutely no reason to think that the request for registration data has anything to do with a genuine attempt to uphold democratic standards in American elections?

Seriously, why would he hand over this data? Trump has already prejudged that "serious voter fraud" took place in California. No process set up by the current administration is an attempt to establish whether any voter fraud took place; it's simply an attempt to lend credibility to this claim. Padilla, predictably, does not want to assist or lend credibility to this attempt.

Leroy42

Obvious Otter wrote: »

You have blatantly ignored the main point of the post which was that we cannot say voter fraud isn't happeneing when they aren't willing to hand of the voter registration data. Why won't Padilla hand over the registration data if there is nothing to hide?

I don't know, why is he not handing it over? You seem to be suggesting that it is to hide voter fraud, but could there be other reasons? What information have the federal government asked for and is it required that they hand it over?

Obvious Otter

Peregrinus wrote: »

What Leroy said.

There's no evidence of significant voter fraud in the US; there's abundant evidence of voter disengagement, and that's a far bigger threat to democracy.

Time enough to worry about voter fraud when you know you have a voter fraud problem. In the meantime Americans have two problems that they definitely know they have and that they definitely need to worry about.

The first is that their electoral machinery is absolutely crapulous (which, possibly, is why they don't know if voter fraud is happening). Trumpians seem unbothered by this. But, then, ignorance is a state of affairs that they are generally comfortable with.

The second is that typically half of US voters see no reason to vote. They don't feel able to make a meaningful choice from among the candidates offered. This might be because the range of policy positions offered by the candidates is very narrow, and they think it makes little difference which candidate they pick, or because the electoral system is such that they do not think their vote has a significant chance of affecting the outcome, or both.

Again, people concerned about democracy should be seriously bothered by this, but Trumpians don't seem to be. Trump himself clearly thinks that too many people are voting, when the plain fact is that too few people are voting.

The whole point is that the don't know if they have a voter fraud problem becuase they won't release the registration data. The only people who have been caught casting an illegal vote have been people who have tried to vote twice or vote on behalf of someone is already dead. If they don't have the registration data they cannot say that voter fraud isn't an issue.

The biggest threat to democracy in the US is the emergence of radical left and right wing ideology and their mobs such as the Antifa.

Leroy42

Obvious Otter wrote: »

The whole point is that the don't know if they have a voter fraud problem becuase they won't release the registration data. The only people who have been caught casting an illegal vote have been people who have tried to vote twice or vote on behalf of someone is already dead. If they don't have the registration data they cannot say that voter fraud isn't an issue.

The biggest threat to democracy in the US is the emergence of radical left and right wing ideology and their mobs such as the Antifa.

The US has a voter registration system and that system is used to ensure that only correctly registered voters can vote.

What part of the system is failing? They don't need to release the registration data. They already have plenty of evidence to suggest that only the smallest amount of voter fraud is taking place (as it would in any large system).

You have a opinion that massive voter fraud has taken place. All the current evidence points to this being incorrect, yet you seem to be suggesting that we are simply looking in the wrong place.

Have you any evidence of any large voter fraud taking place? I mean, 5 million is quite a lot, surely someone would have noticed a large amount of foreigners coming in to polling stations.

Peregrinus

Obvious Otter wrote: »

The whole point is that the don't know if they have a voter fraud problem becuase they won't release the registration data. The only people who have been caught casting an illegal vote have been people who have tried to vote twice or vote on behalf of someone is already dead. If they don't have the registration data they cannot say that voter fraud isn't an issue.

But if Trump isn't concerned about the issues that he knows about, his pretended concern about an issue that he doesn't and can't know about is hard to take seriously. This whole voter fraud beat-up is partly to gratify Trump's ego, partly to secure partisan advantage for the Republicans, and partly to distract attention from real problems with the US electoral system. And there's three reasons right there why patriotic and public-spirited Americans will have nothing to do with it.

Obvious Otter wrote: »

The biggest threat to democracy in the US is the emergence of radical left and right wing ideology and their mobs such as the Antifa.

Another problem that Trump seems unbothered about; in fact he does all he can to exacerbate it.

Obvious Otter

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't know, why is he not handing it over? You seem to be suggesting that it is to hide voter fraud, but could there be other reasons? What information have the federal government asked for and is it required that they hand it over?

They have asked for the voter registration data and have been refused. There is no requirement to provide this data but if there is nothing to hide then why aren't they providing it? It's really not rocket science.

This is the kind of place where it's ok to make a mental diagnosis on the internet but questioning voter fraud is met with sheer hostilely. I'll leave you gents to continue your Trump bashing thread. Have fun

Really Interested

Obvious Otter wrote: »

The whole point is that the don't know if they have a voter fraud problem becuase they won't release the registration data. The only people who have been caught casting an illegal vote have been people who have tried to vote twice or vote on behalf of someone is already dead. If they don't have the registration data they cannot say that voter fraud isn't an issue.

The biggest threat to democracy in the US is the emergence of radical left and right wing ideology and their mobs such as the Antifa.

And there it is, the threat to democracy is always that you disagree with.

In relation to data many states believe that the Federal Goverement is overstepping its power, if necessary the court will decide.

But the one thing I find funny is often those that shout about voter fraud without evidence are also the first to scream just as loudly about no evidence against trump for a multitude of issues despite real evidence of same. Mental.

The GOP have twisted district after district to get far more seats in government, that is a real issue and the GOP are twisting democracy.

Leroy42

It wasn't met with hostility. It was met with questions. This is a place where people post their opinions and are quite rightly called to back them up.

You posted that voter fraud is an issue. You then used the fact that one Governor refused to give over the information as proof that voter fraud must be taking place.

Unfortunately you then agreed that he was quite entitled to reject the request, just as I am quite within my rights to refuse a police search of my house without just cause. He knows that it is nothing more than a fishing expedition, but dealing with sensitive and valuable voter information. Information that he as governor, has a duty to protect.

And your are quite correct that people have made mental diagnosis on here, and they have been called up o nit and asked to provide evidence. Their opinions have been questioned.

Really Interested

Obvious Otter wrote: »

Why is Alex Padilla refusing to comply will all requests to ascertain how California has more votes than eligible voters in 11 counties? If the White House can't get access to voter registration data then how can the above studies back up any of your points? Here's a clue.. they can't! None of the above can possibly come to any sort of conclusion on voter fraud.

California has apparently combined both active and inactive voters to skew the numbers and is in breach of the National Voter Registration Act in doing so.

If there is nothing to hide why won't Padilla hand over the voter data? Please ensure to inform yourself before using poor models of study to back up a claim. If they don't have access to the registration data then they cannot come to any conclusion on electroal fraud. Its not rocket science.

You never produce any evidence of your claims so understand why I think you are either stupid or a liar you pick.

Professor Moriarty

This is a silly strawman argument. At least 17 states have refused to comply or are undecided. Of those who have agreed to 'comply', all are doing so under protest, are withholding as much information as possible and are making it as difficult as possible for Trump's nasty little committee. The implication that there is meaningful voter fraud has been dismissed by every single state. Just more evidence of Trump's disregard for the office of POTUS and democracy. You would need to be grossly uninformed or very disingenuous to defend this rubbish.

Obvious Otter

Really Interested wrote: »

You never produce any evidence of your claims so understand why I think you are either stupid or a liar you pick.

I think you're doing an excellent job of missing the point; if the voter registration data isn't being provided then how can we know what is actually happening?

You do realise you cannot provide evidence when no external party has access to the voter data? I'm not sure why you're finding that so difficult to comprehend.

Like I said; sheer hostility and now name calling too.

-Trump won't release his tax returns; he must have something to hide.

-California won't release their voter registration data; they don't have to as it's not required and they believe the federal government is over stepping the mark by asking to check the integrity of the US election process.

It's great being able to pick and choose how you want the story to fit your narrative.

Like I said; I'll leave you all to it.