The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

That is more about the question why people can become inhumane monsters. An interesting topic, but not the topic at hand. The question at hand is "how do groups like ISIS get new members".
Even in a place full of people with the potential to be a monster ISIS still needs to convince them of all that jihad-stuff. What arguments are used for that?

Disclaimer: Before I move on, I was groggy last post, and put "first 300 days". It's "first 100 days". My bad. On that note.

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

Also, alt-facts Tatsu. Liberal alt-facts, but alt-facts nonetheless.

"Back in 2009, for example, Obama signed nine executive orders in his first 10 days and 16 total in January and February." ~Washington Post

10/365=36.5
(36.5)*9= 328.5

"Obama signed 328.5 executive orders per year, on average, as calculated within his first week and a half in office. This is a 10% increase compared to acting president, Donald Trump, and quite frankly, makes all of us question Obama and his follower's stability, with their fascist tendencies." ~Me, just for funzies.

so I can laugh at obamas first hundred days but I can't laugh at trump's ? Who died and made you king?

So is the amount of EOs a president signs in his first week now somehow the only metric by which one would judge them?
Does the content not matter anymore?

Most likely answer revolves around some in group out group bias and human sin(moral view not religious). I could ask "why we do bad things." At a certain point you realize its because of flaws in the human psyche.

You can say a recruiter for isis will uses this ban as propaganda but if the individual wasn't already interested in Isis then they would not be willing to take this as a serious argument.

For example if Africa banned Americans from entering Africa bc of the KKK. The KKK may use this as propaganda but it's not a major selling point for them. The major selling point for them is white supremacy, white political power, and white purity.

That said I still oppose the ban on moral grounds... I support the free movement of people around the world. I think this is a good principle and one that needs defending.

According to liberals, and even conservatives for that matter, yes, executive orders are graded by quantity, not quality.

But just to be fair, that is buuuuull, and every ******* president signs roughly the same amount, based on circumstance (war, reform, ect, FDR signed literal thousands).

However, Trump, signed 7 executive orders, as well as some memoranda (don't count toward official executive order count, and generally just guides those directly in the enforcement chain, rather than enforcement of the country or a separate section of government).

1) An order instructing agencies that whenever they introduce a regulation, they must first abolish two others. I am 100% for this, laws need to be reduced, not snowballed. As of now, the common person can never hope to read all the legal code, it makes a programmer want to vomit.

2) A memorandum to restructure the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council. Standard Operating Procedure, nobody uses the last person's saliva-riddled agencies, oft not even same-party politicians.

3) A memorandum directing the Secretary of Defense to draw up a plan within 30 days to defeat ISIS. Again, directing his own agencies.

4) An order to lengthen the ban on administration officials working as lobbyists. There is now a 5 year-ban on officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government, and a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government. He was anti-lobbyist. On that note, it's striking how he is anti-foreign-lobbyist. Really starting to think he has no official ties to Russia, he just happens to have the Kremlin in his social network. How about them Saudi donations to the democrats though?

5) An executive order imposing a 120-day suspension of the refugee program and a 90-day ban on travel to the U.S. from citizens of seven terror hot spots: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan. Technically, he is enforcing, a law passed in 2015, that is redundant to a law used in the 80s and 40s. Something along the lines of "the president can limit immigration based on threat to national security". The targets are ****, because using the 2015 law specified these **** targets.

6) Two multi-pronged orders on border security and immigration enforcement including: the authorization of a U.S.-Mexico border wall; the stripping of federal grant money to sanctuary cities; hiring 5,000 more Border Patrol agents; ending “catch-and-release” policies for illegal immigrants; and reinstating local and state immigration enforcement partnerships. Basic B̷i̷t̷c̷h̷ Conservative 101. Asking if I agree? Hell no, not at this extreme anyway. Wasn't entirely happy with the entirely hands-off method of doing things either. It should be enforced, within sensibility. An expired green card and a family still here doing all the right things, is no cause for concern.

7) A memorandum calling for a 30-day review of military readiness. It's already an expensive military, but a review could only improve it. As a fresh set of eyes, he's not actually reviewed the military before, it's more experience than anything. It's also more "orders directed toward his own joker, the Sec. of Defense".

8) Two orders reviving the Keystone XL pipeline and Dakota Access piplines. He also signed three other related orders that would: expedite the environmental permitting process for infrastructure projects related to the pipelines; direct the Commerce Department to streamline the manufacturing permitting process; and give the Commerce Department 180 days to maximize the use of U.S. steel in the pipeline. Economic related things to him. Ecological to others, but purely economic from his stance. Pipes, fuels, infrastructure, engineering and construction, steelworks, all jobs he's trying to create, though woefully short-term, but it can always be something else 3 years later.

9) An order to reinstate the so-called "Mexico City Policy" – a ban on federal funds to international groups that perform abortions or lobby to legalize or promote abortion. The policy was instituted in 1984 by President Reagan, but has gone into and out of effect depending on the party in power in the White House.. Basic Conservative 101. Also, it's very hard to enforce anyway. It means, the agency itself cannot perform abortions, a tripe of a regulation, but it can be done in any matter that disassociates the paperwork. It's up to the agency, to loophole it on a level that they enforce.

10) A notice that the U.S. will begin withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. Trump called the order "a great thing for the American worker.". TPPExit. Effects to be seen, it really just appeasement toward the industry worker who perceives it as a good thing. That whole "nationalism" vs "globalization" thing. Globalization definitely has it's perks, but has to be regulated because underdeveloped nations are constantly being industrialized one after another, because once industrialized, within years, they want work rights, and then the exploitative labor dries up and they move searching for cheap labor anew. It's not even terribly cost effective to move to Mexico, but companies still do it to try and shave the operating costs, but this might mean there's nothing left to shave, or it might cause stagflation. Time will tell.

11) An order imposing a hiring freeze for some federal government workers as a way to shrink the size of government. This excludes the military, as Trump noted at the signing.. As someone who sees the military as a chance to apply for open-hiring work so the government can pay you if nobody else will, it's only a shame that the military doesn't apply itself more to social works (they do, but could do so much moreso). As far as reducing government staffing, it's money going towards a non-useful salary, we need to shift spending off of that and into production-based work rather than administrative. I'd extend that to congressional salary, presidential salary, benefits, and retirement plans.

12) An order that directs federal agencies to ease the “regulatory burdens” of ObamaCare. It orders agencies to “waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement” of ObamaCare that imposes a “fiscal burden on any State or a cost, fee, tax, penalty, or regulatory burden on individuals, families, healthcare providers, health insurers, patients, recipients of healthcare services, purchasers of health insurance, or makers of medical devices, products, or medications.”. To conservatives, this needs no explanation. To liberals who "liked" the ACA, it fined people and consumed budget, but DESPITE THAT, he waived the costs to states and individuals, but DID keep the federal healthcare-marketplace AND didn't "revoke" the regulations over healthcare providers limiting who they can accept (though in wording it can be used to do so, let's hope the end-practice continues to cover "existing conditions").

Also, he recently re-affirmed for like the umpteenth time, his support of LGBT rights and marriage equality.

Grade of Content: Keeping Promises 9/10, Supporting his Party 8/10, Being Fair with Opposing Party 4/10 (not the worse, I'd give Obama a 3 but in his defense that didn't work for him as congress shifted Republican), Governing with Specific Protections for Individuals: 4/10 (Governing with Specific Protections for Individuals, sans the travel freeze: 6/10, he's not that much an *******)

It's all about the people who were already interested in the first place and needed just a little extra push.

I see no difference in the little push argument or that the ban will prevent terrorism. Both seem false.

The ban basically says "we are not going to help people who are fleeing from war and terror, especially not those from Syria"
Yes it is claimed that it is because of being afraid of terror, but seriously everybody with a sane mind realizes that that risk is so ridiculously small that it is a pretty bad excuse and not more.

I dunno why you can't see that that is a wonderful argument for anybody proposing the western nations are evil.
Not helping refugees is evil and discriminating people based on "you are from the wrong nation" is hypocrisy towards that "freedom"-values stuff the western nations are claiming they stand for.
Wonderful arguments to use in an argument for the jihad: "See they are evil hypocrites. Unlike us, we life by these insane religious rules and we follow them through no matter what."

At least if I were to try and get somebody to fight for the jihad those are the arguments I'd use to paint the US as the big enemy. Not hard, since they really kinda are the bad guy since decades.
Well and then I'd have to bring in some batshit crazy religious stuff somehow. Dunno how they do that, but it seems they manage.

Yes they'll not get me or you to fight for ISIS, but on a person living in a war ravaged nation with a heavy preposition towards religious extremism and no apparent hope to ever find peace these arguments can make the difference between the person trying to get their life together or that person taking a bomb and blowing themselves up somewhere.

It also seems to work on people who lead a life at the bottom of western societies, as some terror attacks in the west committed by brain washed Westerners show.


What is needed is actions by western nations that break the jihad rhetoric. Not actions that reinforce it.

Ok I *tried* to read through the last 3 pages and honestly I can't.

The rhetoric in here is monumental- once a sentence starts with "Liberals think" or "conservatives believe" then I stop there. I just can't fathom everyone's need to "fly the flag" for whats at the end of the day a philosophical position, clinging to it to the extreme. Most sane human beings do not think this black and white.

I'm sorry but it's not fair to say 'all liberals hate Christianity' or 'all conservatives hate Islam'. I think it's fair to say the majority of people have little interest in what faith someone belongs to so long as they keep it *to themselves*. Fanatical preachers from any background are scary. Just like fanatical political activists are.

Oh boy, lets not get carried away. I understand your argument and agree on moral grounds. There should be free movement of people, especially when it comes to refugees from war torn countries. You don't need anything besides the golden rule to be against the ban!!!

The argument fails because your are trying to rationalize the world in a way that fits your narrative. It leaves room for the otherside to say "I think women wearing swim suites is what drives terrorist over the top!!" . Yes, I am sounding dumb, but the point remains, its a "I feel the world should work this way" argument.

Don't try to rationalizing something that isn't rational (terrorism).

If a small 90 day ban on a few countries is going to potentially help in fighting the war on terror, I'm for it. Clearly something is happening in those 90 days (I don't know what, but there's gotta be something secret going on, otherwise I am against this ban entirely), and clearly if trump really hated Islam he would have made that ban permanent.

Both the protests and people vowing for permanent bans are ridiculous. Refugees can go to another country in the mean time.

To be fair, there are several reasons to "rationalize" the ban.

1) Risk. It only takes 1 person to jack a plane and crash it into the NYSE (btw, they're ridiculously out of touch for not being smart enough to hit it in leau of the WTC, if they were trying to do damage to western nation's very foundation). It doesn't have to be all of them, it just has to possibly be one of them. It also doesn't have to be "plane-jacking genocide", it just has to be "crowded urban block where if you walk through then 5 of the bad ones will come heckle you about being a slut and throwing rocks at you". LGBT hate when rednecks act like that, why would we invite more people who could quite possibly do the same? Some might not, I am 100% in support of allowing, the ones who are 100% western culture tolerant. I worked with some in a previous job, they keep to themselves but I was nice and they were nice, there's nothing wrong with them and I respected them.

I am just wondering, if liberal LGBT ever consider the possibility, if a flat of refugee housing was established on 12th street, and they walked down it, and were chased with guys throwing rocks, that they'd change their mind about "open" acceptance of refugees. I'm in favor of at least comprehensive refugee surveying. Otherwise, I'm in favor of the ones that don't pass tolerance exams to be put in a closed off area, an "Internment Camp" if you will, with supplies, and if ever they want to leave, they can return to their country for free. However, the word "internment camp" is scary. So is a city block of guys that'd quite possibly assault you based on skin color. Whether you're black, white, female, lgbt, or indifferent.

2) Economic. It takes resources on a government budget, to help others. Resources already denied on a regular basis when budget comes to vote, to homeless military veterans. Most people, want to catch up on budget, and then go for charities that help citizens domestically, and THEN help other countries in need. You can argue that the homeless veterans are already living a better lifestyle than refugees are, but you can also argue that they commit suicide at an alarming rate, after having given the better years of their life to try and make the world a better place. It's like not only robbing veterans after the fact, it's robbing and murdering them, and that's "one rationale" of the argument.

MY STANCE: On Risk, we need to screen them, if they are tolerant then we should disperse them into mixed cultural areas, not all clumped together. If they don't seem tolerant or are very strict muslim, then they should be in dense areas that civilians are not allowed in and are under military guard. They are SAFER in a peaceful camp full of aid and shelter, than they are in their country, and they aren't a threat to people, they have no actual right or claim or entitlement to a row of apartment complexes in the middle of a civilian area, that's an unacceptable "risk", especially if they are not screened or fail a screening. I don't know why I'm a monster, I thought I was being nice to them, while being nice to myself, by admitting that we PROBABLY SHOULD OFFER THEM SHELTER. I'm merely a monster because I didn't do everything a liberal wanted of me, so execute me and house them, is the George Takei signature logic.

Also, I agree with Kiwi. The ban isn't permanent, it ought to and better be time to decide the best way to screen and establish living for refugees. I hear it was done less-than-happy in European countries, who are themselves complaining about their political division over it, because they too gave their political adversaries very real issues to address that they did poorly on. I guess nobody's constructive about things.

It's not though.

That would be completely unconstitutional. Even the current executive order is quite questionable.

Gross oversimplification.

All these damn riots.
#SendInTheArmy

Speculation. He won the election, it's essentially what the people have decided to do. Some obviously think it's safer.

"As it had been invoked in previous wars, the Alien Enemies Act served as the basis for designating German, Japanese, and Italian nationals as enemy aliens, along with prudential controls during World War II, such as prohibiting enemy alien travel into certain areas, restricting alien property ownership, and internment (not only of Japanese nationals, but other Axis nationals). The 1940 Alien Registration Act resulted in nearly five million foreign nationals registering with the government during World War II."
http://cis.org/HistoryIdeologicalExclusion

We shouldn't open internment camps or limit property ownership for already existing citizens. We technically have apparently never tried "not" limiting travel between hostile areas, but I don't understand how it isn't comprehensive to do so though. Either way, if it was done before, then it's established as "constitutional" unless decided for sure that it's not. You're not the person to do that, the SCOTUS is.

Lastly, you're entirely right, it IS a gross simplification. It's not "black and white", there are more than 2 simple answers. We can decline all of them. We can accept all of them. Both are extremist polar opposites. We can also accept some of them, in any light or dark shade of grey deemed fit. I'd lose (more) respect for Trump if he didn't choose an acceptable shade of gray on the issue within 90 days. Screening, is the same as "firearm background checks". We have "firearm background checks", why are the same people for "increased gun registration", against "refugee screening". Are they both dangerous? Do they both kill 100% of the time? 1% of the time? Does screening help or not help either one? I'm confused where one ends and the other begins, and that makes me such a piece of **** monster so it's irritating that I don't understand.

How do most of those people on those banned countries get to the US anyway?
I think most of them will already have gone through some kind of screening until they reach US soil.
It's not like Syrians can walk to the US like they can in Europe.

It seems to me Trump Administration / Republican Congress have free reign at the moment and they can cause a lot of havoc coming 4 years.
This is totally different then the Obama Administration that had to deal with a Republican Congress that blocked most things.

So yeah you will have "change" but is it the "change" in the good direction?
Previous Congress = Republican / Current Congress = Republican (so I guess changes will be in line with previous Congress or Worse)

So the logical thing to choose for "change" was a Democratic President / Democratic Congress.

So if you don't like the current change the best you can do is to vote in a Democratic Congress in the mid-terms so you have a standstill Government again.

That is only logical. However...

We had a democrat president, we were getting a republican congress either way. You're telling me, another democrat, nay, the exact choice of the last president, would be "change"? You know, the last president campaigned on "change".

If you can't see why people wouldn't buy that same schtick again, you'll never understand how Republicans won anyway.

At the VERY least, you're definitely wrong, factually and not opinion; With a Democratic President & Republican Congress, the next evolution for change, would logically have been "Libertarian President", so we don't get more **** we don't want from the other two idiots. Change = Different, Republican = Same, Democrat = Same.

Healthcare was a flop, there was nothing you could do to convince American voters to give democrats a chance to fix it. Fixing it, under Hillary, would have been "tax and fine them more, but still don't make healthcare access affordable". She had no credibility to convince otherwise. Sanders had better ideas, and he lost the convention for the nomination, which is how Americans know not to trust giving them a chance, if they meant what they said, they'd have put the idea to plate, and not benched it.

I'll honestly vote for liberals, when they offer European social works. The election abridged: "Nah, I'm not paying for that bulls*** I'm financially unable to afford and then pay to use, ever again".

"Oh you're starving, sick and need help now? Maybe our neighbor will help you. We're busy building walls. Come back in 90 days"

Has nobody ever taught you how to be a nice person? Help those in need? Humanitarian values? Are they not part of the school education in the US?

How can somebody talk like that about other humans who just lost basically everything?
It's beyond me. A bit more empathy please.

@Corgiarmy
I dunno. I don't try to rationalize the world to fit my narrative. My narrative comes from the rationalization. I think it is important to never just go "that thing is irrational, let's not try to understand it". Even the biggest insanity has very rational reasons behind it and the failure to understand them has caused all of the problem "terrorism" to grow pretty badly since 2001. I probably don't completely understand it, but judging by the results whatever the current strategy to deal with it is, it is an utter failure.

Yes a travel ban is a pretty benign thing compared to bring war to two countries in the last decade alone. But it's still the wrong direction.
But fine, you think a travel ban isn't going to do all that much. I guess it would be nice if you were right about that. I am just doubtful.

Look. I'm getting mixed signals. My parents, the news, and my other family and friends, tell me of times strangers held them at knifepoint, mugged them, assaulted them, burglarized their home... But we also have to help those in need.

Seriously, do I listen to "Don't trust strangers without some form of security", or do I listen to "Be a nice person, help those in need, humanitarian values"?

Instructions unclear, travel halted for 90 days to figure things out.

Don't get me wrong, the details make it a meaningless gesture. Without Egypt and Saudi in there, and with the very real threat of domestic-recruited terrorists, it doesn't make things much safer. I always said, if anything, it makes us LESS safe, with a false sense of security possibly being the opening to attack something huge with some caucasian muslim extremist who's OFF the radar. Which is why REAL detective work, along with good first-responder citizen training, is important. Which is why I care 100x more for "gun rights and training", than I do "travel bans to/from countries chosen by a random throw of darts".