Political Roundtable Part XII

[AFM]

Nate trolling with the trump avi

[nate33]

TRUMP IS A BIG FAT LIAR rawr rawr gnash teeth!!!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/30/the-number-of-people-affected-by-trumps-travel-ban-about-90000/?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_factchecker-645a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.ca00f1397b85

Trump's spokesman clearly said that 109 people out of 325,000 traveling during that day were detained due to the travel ban. Other sources cite as much as 200 or 250, but we're in the right ball park. It all depends on your definition of detained. But there is no lie there whatsoever.

What's a BIG FAT LIE is the Washington Post saying that Trump said only 109 total visa holders were "affected" by the ban. That's ridiculous. Trump said or implied no such thing. Of course the number of visa holders from 7 different countries is going to amount to much more than 109. Trump clearly was implying that only 109 people were unduly detained during the chaos over the weekend.

Some fact checker. Insert a straw man argument that was never made by Trump and then shoot it down.

[dckingsfan]

Indu - the point is we should condemn all of these acts. No?

Of course, no sane person cheers civilian death.

Exactly.

[Zonkerbl]

To focus simply on the numbers detained is a big fat lie. The effects of the ban are not limited to just detentions.

[Ruzious]

TRUMP IS A BIG FAT LIAR rawr rawr gnash teeth!!!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/30/the-number-of-people-affected-by-trumps-travel-ban-about-90000/?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_factchecker-645a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.ca00f1397b85

Trump's spokesman clearly said that 109 people out of 325,000 traveling during that day were detained due to the travel ban. Other sources cite as much as 200 or 250, but we're in the right ball park. It all depends on your definition of detained. But there is no lie there whatsoever.

What's a BIG FAT LIE is the Washington Post saying that Trump said only 109 total visa holders were "affected" by the ban. That's ridiculous. Trump said or implied no such thing. Of course the number of visa holders from 7 different countries is going to amount to much more than 109. Trump clearly was implying that only 109 people were unduly detained during the chaos over the weekend.

Some fact checker. Insert a straw man argument that was never made by Trump and then shoot it down.

Whatever the correct number is, it would almost certainly have been a lot more if lawyers hadn't gone out in droves to airports making sure peoples' rights weren't getting trampled on. The US was depending on the goodwill of lawyers...

[dckingsfan]

I'm anxiously awaiting all the condemnation from the media of the physical assaults on Trump supporters. After all, Hillary campaigned on his supporters being deplorable and Trump himself being the incarnation of Hitler.

This really bothers me - there seems (I only have anecdotal evidence) to be an open season on folks that protest for Trump. It just makes that silent group more silent.

If you want them to vote your way, you don't beat them and call them deplorable. You shouldn't beat anyone.

[nate33]

I don't know that I blame Trump for the mosque attack. But it was big news here and should be condemned by the President. You know he'd be all over it if it was a Muslim man that made the attack on a Christian church.

It looks like the attack doesn't fit Trump's anit-muslim narrative

Trump should condemn them. He probably will today. It's worth noting that the circumstances of the attack and the identity of the attacker weren't really figured out until late in the evening last night.

[Ruzious]

In 2015 there were 78 attacks on mosques in America. Hundreds in Europe.

Placing even partial blame on a Trump administration in power for all of 10 days is intellectually dishonest at best.

Really? Even though he campaigned on a platform of hate for Muslims for the past 18 months?

People who yell "fire" in a crowded theater are guilty of any deaths that result, this seems like a similar situation.

There have been over 4000 civilian Muslim casualties in east Africa and the Middle East via US government drone strikes in the past decade. Dozens involved mosques.

How does Trump factor into that? Or is that not included as it doesn't fit the Trump/anti-Muslim rage narrative?

Innocents dying due to fallout from the seemingly eternal middle eastern conflicts is awful. But to attempt to blame Trump for a foreign mosque attack is ridiculous.

Is the bolded part a typo?

[nate33]

To focus simply on the numbers detained is a big fat lie. The effects of the ban are not limited to just detentions.

It is not a lie. The issue being discussed was the chaos on the announcement and the inconvenience it caused to travelers. The prudence of the policy is a completely different discussion, one that was discussed in detail prior to the election and settled on election night (and was accepted as legal and reasonable when Obama did the same damn thing in 2011 with Iraq). There was no surprise in the formulation of the policy, only the abrupt timing.

[Zonkerbl]

Quit repeating the lie that Obama did the "same damn thing." He did nothing of the sort. Can't take you seriously when every other sentence contains a lie Nate.

The "chaos of the announcement" is not limited to the chaos at the airports, although that is the part that is unconstitutional and the most serious. The chaos of the announcement also extends to everyone who suddenly has to change their travel plans because their visa status was arbitrarily and capriciously changed. That's 70,000 people.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Trump should condemn them. He probably will today. It's worth noting that the circumstances of the attack and the identity of the attacker weren't really figured out until late in the evening last night.

Ah, yes, it totally matters whether or not he jumped to conclusions that validated his pre-existing beliefs without worrying about the facts would or wouldn't say as opposed to just making up the facts entirely. Or maybe it doesn't.

[tontoz]

Really? Even though he campaigned on a platform of hate for Muslims for the past 18 months?

People who yell "fire" in a crowded theater are guilty of any deaths that result, this seems like a similar situation.

There have been over 4000 civilian Muslim casualties in east Africa and the Middle East via US government drone strikes in the past decade. Dozens involved mosques.

How does Trump factor into that? Or is that not included as it doesn't fit the Trump/anti-Muslim rage narrative?

Innocents dying due to fallout from the seemingly eternal middle eastern conflicts is awful. But to attempt to blame Trump for a foreign mosque attack is ridiculous.

Is the bolded part a typo?

No. The CIA routinely kills people in the Middle East with drone strikes while giving no evidence against those killed. The CIA reports to the President, not the military whose equipment and personnel they use to carry out the killings.

[nate33]

Quit repeating the lie that Obama did the "same damn thing." He did nothing of the sort. Can't take you seriously when every other sentence contains a lie Nate.

The "chaos of the announcement" is not limited to the chaos at the airports, although that is the part that is unconstitutional and the most serious. The chaos of the announcement also extends to everyone who suddenly has to change their travel plans because their visa status was arbitrarily and capriciously changed. That's 70,000 people.

There are around 90,000 TOTAL visa holders from those countries, but not all of them were planning to travel that day. They're not having to suddenly change their travel plans.

Trump clearly wasn't referring to them when he came up with the 109 number. He in no way implied that there were only 109 total visa holders who would be inconvenienced. You are conflating two different things. There is no lie.

[nate33]

Trump should condemn them. He probably will today. It's worth noting that the circumstances of the attack and the identity of the attacker weren't really figured out until late in the evening last night.

Ah, yes, it totally matters whether or not he jumped to conclusions that validated his pre-existing beliefs without worrying about the facts would or wouldn't say as opposed to just making up the facts entirely. Or maybe it doesn't.

So far, his instincts have been right. When he "jumped to conclusions" during events like San Bernadino, and Nice, he was right in concluding that it was Muslim terrorism. He judiciously refrained from jumping to conclusions in Canada back when there was reason to believe that it was Muslim terrorism. Turns out he was right again. Even when he is right, he can't win with you people. You don't want him to jump to conclusions when he is accurate about Muslim terrorism. And you do want him to jump to conclusions when he would have been wrong in assuming Muslim terrorism.

[montestewart]

There have been over 4000 civilian Muslim casualties in east Africa and the Middle East via US government drone strikes in the past decade. Dozens involved mosques.

How does Trump factor into that? Or is that not included as it doesn't fit the Trump/anti-Muslim rage narrative?

1) An attack made by an individual upon a mosque and the people in a mosque is clearly distinguishable from a US military attack in which a mosque was a casualty of war (and I'm not necessarily defending such attacks); 2) the fact of ongoing attacks on US mosques doesn't disprove a connection between Trump rhetoric/actions and a recent attack on a mosque; and 3) Trump has only been in power for 10 days, but he has been running for president for a long time, with probably the most high profile presidential campaign in US history, and he's been influencing political discourse for a much longer time, going back at least to 2011, when he began his relentless, high-profile campaign questioning Obama's citizenship.

I don't know enough about what was behind the attack to blame it on Trump, so disagreeing with jumping to that conclusion seems a defensible position, but calling any connection between Trump and an attack "intellectually dishonest at best" is a little extreme and ignores at least the points mentioned above, if not other factors.

Islamic Extremist organizations slaughtering people, then advertising their intentional over-the-top barbaric acts via social media campaigns created the disgusting motivation for these type of equally crazed/vile Islamophobes.

OK

[nate33]

I'm anxiously awaiting all the condemnation from the media of the physical assaults on Trump supporters. After all, Hillary campaigned on his supporters being deplorable and Trump himself being the incarnation of Hitler.

This really bothers me - there seems (I only have anecdotal evidence) to be an open season on folks that protest for Trump. It just makes that silent group more silent.

If you want them to vote your way, you don't beat them and call them deplorable. You shouldn't beat anyone.

I'll add that when a man tried to rush the stage to harm or kill Trump during his campaign, CNN gave him a platform on national TV the very next day to justify his actions. Could you imagine the outrage if Fox News granted an interview to someone who just tried to assassinate Obama? The universe would implode!

[doclinkin]

I'd love to know how you wound up with your current political stances, nate. I.e. what your history is in politics. How deep your actual interest is. I'm not suggesting it isn't quite deep, btw, but participating in an online message board obviously wouldn't convey that.

Honestly, my interest isn't in finding another way to argue with you. I just really really don't understand how folks get to where you are politically. I.e. unless they were raised around these beliefs & commitments. Doesn't mean there aren't routes to it that could be understood (e.g. discussed), but at present I truly don't understand.

I'm really curious about this too. From nate in particular since he seems the sort to be able to forensically deconstruct the history of his prejudices, but really from anybody. Seems an interesting question.

[montestewart]

I'm anxiously awaiting all the condemnation from the media of the physical assaults on Trump supporters. After all, Hillary campaigned on his supporters being deplorable and Trump himself being the incarnation of Hitler.

This really bothers me - there seems (I only have anecdotal evidence) to be an open season on folks that protest for Trump. It just makes that silent group more silent.

If you want them to vote your way, you don't beat them and call them deplorable. You shouldn't beat anyone.

I'll add that when a man tried to rush the stage to harm or kill Trump during his campaign, CNN gave him a platform on national TV the very next day to justify his actions. Could you imagine the outrage if Fox News granted an interview to someone who just tried to assassinate Obama? The universe would implode!

Other than rushing the stage, what evidence was there that he intended "to harm or kill Trump"? His stated intent was to grab the mike and disrupt the event, and he was appropriately arrested. He was given one year of probation, a $250 fine, and ordered to stay away from the Republican National Convention in Cleveland. Maybe he shouldn't have been on the news, but from what you're saying, it sounds like there's still a pretty wide disparity of views regarding his intent, so it seems reasonable to go to a primary source to get some information. Perhaps there was another incident I haven't heard about?

[Doug_Blew]

Ah, yes, it totally matters whether or not he jumped to conclusions that validated his pre-existing beliefs without worrying about the facts would or wouldn't say as opposed to just making up the facts entirely. Or maybe it doesn't.

So far, his instincts have been right. When he "jumped to conclusions" during events like San Bernadino, and Nice, he was right in concluding that it was Muslim terrorism. He judiciously refrained from jumping to conclusions in Canada back when there was reason to believe that it was Muslim terrorism. Turns out he was right again. Even when he is right, he can't win with you people. You don't want him to jump to conclusions when he is accurate about Muslim terrorism. And you do want him to jump to conclusions when he would have been wrong in assuming Muslim terrorism.

Really, the bar is that low for Trump?

Trump on San Bernadino... says neighbors saw bombs all over the place
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-debate-san-bernardino-20161009-snap-story.html

Not sure which incident in Canada you're referring to. If you're referring to the latest, that didn't seem like Muslim Terrorism.

It didn't take a genius to figure out ISIS was behind Nice.

As for what i want. i don't want Trump tweeting about the attacks and congratulating himself for predicting attacks hours after they occur as he did with the Orlando night club shooting.

[nate33]

This really bothers me - there seems (I only have anecdotal evidence) to be an open season on folks that protest for Trump. It just makes that silent group more silent.

If you want them to vote your way, you don't beat them and call them deplorable. You shouldn't beat anyone.

I'll add that when a man tried to rush the stage to harm or kill Trump during his campaign, CNN gave him a platform on national TV the very next day to justify his actions. Could you imagine the outrage if Fox News granted an interview to someone who just tried to assassinate Obama? The universe would implode!

Other than rushing the stage, what evidence was there that he intended "to harm or kill Trump"? His stated intent was to grab the mike and disrupt the event, and he was appropriately arrested. He was given one year of probation, a $250 fine, and ordered to stay away from the Republican National Convention in Cleveland. Maybe he shouldn't have been on the news, but from what you're saying, it sounds like there's still a pretty wide disparity of views regarding his intent, so it seems reasonable to go to a primary source to get some information. Perhaps there was another incident I haven't heard about?

He absolutely should not have been in the news. If the same thing had happened with Obama, there would be never-ending condemnation of Fox News giving him a platform.