Political Roundtable Part XII

[sfam]

I'm going to judge him by his results, not his demeanor. If he can bully his way to better trade deals, better treaties, better immigration rules and a better economy, then I don't care about his demeanor.

I disagree Nate. IF you are the President of the USA, you represent the country both at home and abroad. He comes off as a nasty boob, it makes the USA look bad. It's like excusing Nixon and Clinton for their dishonesty and sleaze because you agree with some of the other stuff they are credited with. Yet, the office of the President and the confidence in the government of the USA was hurt by both and they should be held accountable for it.

This is a fair point, penbeast0. I agree that sustained nastiness to the rest of the world would be a bad thing. But I don't see Trump as the President for the next 30 years. I see him as a corrective President suitable for the necessary tasks ahead of us in the short term. Future presidents can blame Trump the individual for his bullying tactics, while privately appreciating Trump's accomplishments in putting America in a better position on the world stage.

I'm honestly curious about this. How are you hoping Trump will put the US in a better position on the World's stage?

Does this include partnering with a brutal dictator? Does this include cancelling a trade deal that overtly is designed to block China from controlling the Asian sphere? We've already discussed the swing and a miss on his ISIS policy, so I won't rehash that.

I could ask a series of these, but in your own terms, how do you expect the world will look like after 4 years of a Trump administration in terms of reputation, stability and economic growth? How exactly do you see us in a better position?

[nate33]

Not that it will matter, but a few facts. There are more than 700 languages spoken in Indonesia. This is NOT a homogenious society. Only one province, Aceh, on the northern side of the Island of Java has Sharia law. The rest of Indonesia does not. I've been to Jakarta and Bali - nothing in either place resembles anything like that. Just the opposite in fact.

But again, I'm pretty sure this will fall on deaf ears. They're all the same, right?

This is a fair point. Indonesia, because of it's geography, is going to have wildly differing cultures and practices in different regions.

[bealwithit]

I'm curious, nate -- you were a strong Trump supporter throughout the election season, I believe. Would you say that the first three weeks of his Presidency have rendered you a bigger supporter of the man? Made you less of a supporter? Made you consider ending your support for him? Or had no effect on your level of support for Trump?

I'm just as strong of a supporter of him now as I was on November 8th. I'm heartened that he still has zero respect for the press and he correctly perceives them as his enemy, and not as a fair arbiter. I'm very happy with his preliminary moves on the Wall, immigration enforcement, law enforcement, and investigation of voter fraud.

I willingly cede that there have been some administrative mistakes so far, particularly with the amount of leaks and the poor way in which his legal team fought the Travel Ban case; but I expected it because he has so few allies among the Democrats and Establishment Republicans so the entrenched bureaucracy is fighting him tooth and nail. It's going to take him time to purge the saboteurs and convince the honest civil servants to work with him. It would also help if he had his cabinet confirmed.

The sad part regarding civil servants is the vast vast majority are honest and non-partisan in their actual duties, regardless who they vote for. This is like well over 90-95%. Unless they see their orders as unlawful, they will implement them.

Most Presidents take a while to figure this out. As an example from the last administration, Obama's Homeland Security choice (Napolitano) was nightmarish in this way - she didn't trust anyone and spent her first few years trying to purge even line civilians from her sphere, which really hurt her performance.

By all accounts at leastfor the Agencies I'm connected with Trump's teams interactions are far far worse. They avidly treat most civilians as democratic plants strategically placed to destroy their agenda. Most Presidents eventually figure this out, which greatly helps in implementing their initiatives. As Trump has brought virtually nobody from Washington, I doubt he ever figures this out.

Its great for visuals to be at war with everyone in Washington, but the end result will be nothing accomplished.

You heard anything else notable? Always interesting to hear from people with a bit of an inside scoop on DC.

[nate33]

I disagree Nate. IF you are the President of the USA, you represent the country both at home and abroad. He comes off as a nasty boob, it makes the USA look bad. It's like excusing Nixon and Clinton for their dishonesty and sleaze because you agree with some of the other stuff they are credited with. Yet, the office of the President and the confidence in the government of the USA was hurt by both and they should be held accountable for it.

This is a fair point, penbeast0. I agree that sustained nastiness to the rest of the world would be a bad thing. But I don't see Trump as the President for the next 30 years. I see him as a corrective President suitable for the necessary tasks ahead of us in the short term. Future presidents can blame Trump the individual for his bullying tactics, while privately appreciating Trump's accomplishments in putting America in a better position on the world stage.

I'm honestly curious about this. How are you hoping Trump will put the US in a better position on the World's stage?

Does this include partnering with a brutal dictator? Does this include cancelling a trade deal that overtly is designed to block China from controlling the Asian sphere? We've already discussed the swing and a miss on his ISIS policy, so I won't rehash that.

I could ask a series of these, but in your own terms, how do you expect the world will look like after 4 years of a Trump administration in terms of reputation, stability and economic growth? How exactly do you see us in a better position?

A better position might mean a fairer trade agreement with China where we offset their currency manipulation with tariffs. A better position might mean that we convince Mexico to take care of their own poor rather than using illegal immigration as their safety valve. A better position might mean that we let Putin back Assad and restore control in Syria, ending the civil war and the refugee crisis.

[gtn130]

I'm curious, nate -- you were a strong Trump supporter throughout the election season, I believe. Would you say that the first three weeks of his Presidency have rendered you a bigger supporter of the man? Made you less of a supporter? Made you consider ending your support for him? Or had no effect on your level of support for Trump?

I'm just as strong of a supporter of him now as I was on November 8th. I'm heartened that he still has zero respect for the press and he correctly perceives them as his enemy, and not as a fair arbiter. I'm very happy with his preliminary moves on the Wall, immigration enforcement, law enforcement, and investigation of voter fraud.

I willingly cede that there have been some administrative mistakes so far, particularly with the amount of leaks and the poor way in which his legal team fought the Travel Ban case; but I expected it because he has so few allies among the Democrats and Establishment Republicans so the entrenched bureaucracy is fighting him tooth and nail. It's going to take him time to purge the saboteurs and convince the honest civil servants to work with him. It would also help if he had his cabinet confirmed.

so much delusion here. it's really amazing.

[nate33]

I'm curious, nate -- you were a strong Trump supporter throughout the election season, I believe. Would you say that the first three weeks of his Presidency have rendered you a bigger supporter of the man? Made you less of a supporter? Made you consider ending your support for him? Or had no effect on your level of support for Trump?

I'm just as strong of a supporter of him now as I was on November 8th. I'm heartened that he still has zero respect for the press and he correctly perceives them as his enemy, and not as a fair arbiter. I'm very happy with his preliminary moves on the Wall, immigration enforcement, law enforcement, and investigation of voter fraud.

I willingly cede that there have been some administrative mistakes so far, particularly with the amount of leaks and the poor way in which his legal team fought the Travel Ban case; but I expected it because he has so few allies among the Democrats and Establishment Republicans so the entrenched bureaucracy is fighting him tooth and nail. It's going to take him time to purge the saboteurs and convince the honest civil servants to work with him. It would also help if he had his cabinet confirmed.

so much delusion here. it's really amazing.

Thanks for the insight. I hold your opinion in the highest esteem.

[gtn130]

I'm just as strong of a supporter of him now as I was on November 8th. I'm heartened that he still has zero respect for the press and he correctly perceives them as his enemy, and not as a fair arbiter. I'm very happy with his preliminary moves on the Wall, immigration enforcement, law enforcement, and investigation of voter fraud.

I willingly cede that there have been some administrative mistakes so far, particularly with the amount of leaks and the poor way in which his legal team fought the Travel Ban case; but I expected it because he has so few allies among the Democrats and Establishment Republicans so the entrenched bureaucracy is fighting him tooth and nail. It's going to take him time to purge the saboteurs and convince the honest civil servants to work with him. It would also help if he had his cabinet confirmed.

so much delusion here. it's really amazing.

Thanks for the insight. I hold your opinion in the highest esteem.

If you think voter fraud is an actual problem in this country, you're either delusional or a complete moron. I was being quite charitable tbh.

[gtn130]

also anyone who thinks the rollout of the muslim ban was GOOD is plainly a moron. literally nobody on this planet except Trump and Sean 'Goebbels' Spicer actually claims that with a straight face. Even if you are a racist authoritarian, you can still see the actual rollout was an unmitigated disaster

[TGW]

also anyone who thinks the rollout of the muslim ban was GOOD is plainly a moron. literally nobody on this planet except Trump and Sean 'Goebbels' Spicer actually claims that with a straight face. Even if you are a racist authoritarian, you can still see the actual rollout was an unmitigated disaster

Not only that, anyone who actually thinks that the SC is going to overturn the ruling is delusional and/or a complete moron.

[bealwithit]

Quite informative article on Stephen Miller, the guy who was on the Sunday shows today.
Enjoy.
http://www.univision.com/univision-news/politics/how-white-house-advisor-stephen-miller-went-from-pestering-hispanic-students-to-designing-trumps-immigration-policy

[nate33]

also anyone who thinks the rollout of the muslim ban was GOOD is plainly a moron. literally nobody on this planet except Trump and Sean 'Goebbels' Spicer actually claims that with a straight face. Even if you are a racist authoritarian, you can still see the actual rollout was an unmitigated disaster

Not only that, anyone who actually thinks that the SC is going to overturn the ruling is delusional and/or a complete moron.

The Supreme Court will indeed overturn the ruling. Mark my words.

[montestewart]

also anyone who thinks the rollout of the muslim ban was GOOD is plainly a moron. literally nobody on this planet except Trump and Sean 'Goebbels' Spicer actually claims that with a straight face. Even if you are a racist authoritarian, you can still see the actual rollout was an unmitigated disaster

Not only that, anyone who actually thinks that the SC is going to overturn the ruling is delusional and/or a complete moron.

As usual, the subject matter is heavy and the conversation a little heated. I know it's difficult sometimes, but can we all please try not to address each other as "moron," "idiot," etc.

[AFM]

also anyone who thinks the rollout of the muslim ban was GOOD is plainly a moron. literally nobody on this planet except Trump and Sean 'Goebbels' Spicer actually claims that with a straight face. Even if you are a racist authoritarian, you can still see the actual rollout was an unmitigated disaster

Not only that, anyone who actually thinks that the SC is going to overturn the ruling is delusional and/or a complete moron.

The Supreme Court will indeed overturn the ruling. Mark my words.

I think you are probably right, actually. Not that I think the EO is a good idea, but it is probably constitutional, based on my limited understanding (I'm an idiot).

[DCZards]

I'm going to judge him by his results, not his demeanor. If he can bully his way to better trade deals, better treaties, better immigration rules and a better economy, then I don't care about his demeanor.

Any gains that our nation makes as result of Trump's bullying, lying and bigotry will be short-term at best---and potentially disastrous from a global standpoint.

It could very similar to the gains made by Germany under Hitler when the German people seemingly didn't care about Hitler's demeanor or method of "winning."

[dckingsfan]

also anyone who thinks the rollout of the muslim ban was GOOD is plainly a moron. literally nobody on this planet except Trump and Sean 'Goebbels' Spicer actually claims that with a straight face. Even if you are a racist authoritarian, you can still see the actual rollout was an unmitigated disaster

What is interesting is that you have Angela Merkel who went the opposite way and opened the borders to immigrants.

The far Right in Berlin (our middle - lol) trounced her in the recent elections.

So, it will be interesting to see if Trump gets hurt from going to far the other way.

Fascinating times.

[Doug_Blew]

Report: 72 convicted of terrorism from 'Trump 7' mostly Muslim countries

Since 9/11, 72 individuals from the seven mostly Muslim countries covered by President Trump's "extreme vetting" executive order have been convicted of terrorism, a finding that clashes sharply with claims from an appeals court that there is "no evidence" those countries have produced a terrorist.

According to a report out Saturday, at least 17 claimed to be refugees from those nations, three came in as "students," and 25 eventually became U.S. citizens.

The Center for Immigration Studies calculated the numbers of convicted terrorists from the Trump Seven:

— Somalia: 20
— Yemen: 19
— Iraq: 19
— Syria: 7
— Iran: 4
— Libya: 2
— Sudan: 1

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-72-terrorists-came-from-7-muslim-countries-trump-targeted/article/2614582

We are officially f...'ed. Stephen Miller is now using this same research from the Center of Immigration Studies that 72 terrorists from the 7 banned countries have been convicted. According to Wikipedia, the Center of immigration Studies has ties to racist extremists.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/02/13/stephen-millers-claim-that-72-from-banned-countries-were-implicated-in-terroristic-activity/

How do Trump supporters like Nate so quickly believe research like this but refuse to believe anything from the MSM?

[nate33]

Report: 72 convicted of terrorism from 'Trump 7' mostly Muslim countries

Since 9/11, 72 individuals from the seven mostly Muslim countries covered by President Trump's "extreme vetting" executive order have been convicted of terrorism, a finding that clashes sharply with claims from an appeals court that there is "no evidence" those countries have produced a terrorist.

According to a report out Saturday, at least 17 claimed to be refugees from those nations, three came in as "students," and 25 eventually became U.S. citizens.

The Center for Immigration Studies calculated the numbers of convicted terrorists from the Trump Seven:

— Somalia: 20
— Yemen: 19
— Iraq: 19
— Syria: 7
— Iran: 4
— Libya: 2
— Sudan: 1

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-72-terrorists-came-from-7-muslim-countries-trump-targeted/article/2614582

We are officially f...'ed. Stephen Miller is now using this same research from the Center of Immigration Studies that 72 terrorists from the 7 banned countries have been convicted. According to Wikipedia, the Center of immigration Studies has ties to racist extremists.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/02/13/stephen-millers-claim-that-72-from-banned-countries-were-implicated-in-terroristic-activity/

How do Trump supporters like Nate so quickly believe research like this but refuse to believe anything from the MSM?

First of all, I am completely unmoved by the "ties with racist extremists" tactic. It's a common ploy by the left to discredit anything they don't like; and it doesn't work anymore. We're talking about the same people who call Steve Bannon a Nazi because some random people out of the thousands who participate in the comments section of Breitbart say negative things about Jews.

I dug into one of the references on Wikipedia that claimed that CIS "has ties with racist extremists". The most damning thing I could find is that one of its leaders, Mark Krikorian, 9 years ago, had the audacity to accept an invitation to speak at a conference that also involved Nick Griffon and Jared Taylor. That's a guilt-by-association standard that is never applied to the left. How many Democrats have appeared alongside Al Sharpton, who has made anti-Semitic remarks and championed the Tawana Brawley rape hoax, and never apologized for either?

Now to the actual substance of the fact checker, I think it makes a fair point. It does appear that the CIS went too far in characterizing all 72 of those individuals involved in terroristic activity. It appears that a couple dozen cannot be reasonably linked to terrorism. I appreciate the link to the article. There were still dozens who were linked to terrorism, however. The number is lower than 72, but much higher than 0.

I'd be curious to hear CIS follow up on this.

[sfam]

You heard anything else notable? Always interesting to hear from people with a bit of an inside scoop on DC.

Just that his transition folks were clearly there with the mindset that they were an occupying force. This isn't usually the best tone for getting your agenda successfully implemented.

They've also cut off most last minute hires that didn't fully get through, at least in the agencies I've kept up with. Most of the agencies upon hearing about the hiring freeze tried to fill as many open billets as possible. This is usually the opposite of what happens at the end an administration (aside from burrowing of political types).

[sfam]

This is a fair point, penbeast0. I agree that sustained nastiness to the rest of the world would be a bad thing. But I don't see Trump as the President for the next 30 years. I see him as a corrective President suitable for the necessary tasks ahead of us in the short term. Future presidents can blame Trump the individual for his bullying tactics, while privately appreciating Trump's accomplishments in putting America in a better position on the world stage.

I'm honestly curious about this. How are you hoping Trump will put the US in a better position on the World's stage?

Does this include partnering with a brutal dictator? Does this include cancelling a trade deal that overtly is designed to block China from controlling the Asian sphere? We've already discussed the swing and a miss on his ISIS policy, so I won't rehash that.

I could ask a series of these, but in your own terms, how do you expect the world will look like after 4 years of a Trump administration in terms of reputation, stability and economic growth? How exactly do you see us in a better position?

A better position might mean a fairer trade agreement with China where we offset their currency manipulation with tariffs. A better position might mean that we convince Mexico to take care of their own poor rather than using illegal immigration as their safety valve. A better position might mean that we let Putin back Assad and restore control in Syria, ending the civil war and the refugee crisis.

I would just point out attempting to create new bilateral agreements in a multi-lateral world leads to loss of control of the marketplace. Its no longer the 1950s. Assuming Trump actually enacted good trade agreements (we will agree to disagree on this), the bilateral approach takes far more resources and coordination.

Its very likely, for instance, that China will enact their own TPP now that the US has wasted everyone's time. Many countries will sign on to that.

Regarding the Assad comment, I'm not sure you understand the implications of that in terms of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of innocents dying. Does that concern you? Putin is already backing Assad. He virtually never targets ISIS positions - he targets Assad's resistance. There will be no end of the civil war - that policy makes the refugee crisis worse, as we have already seen. The long term implications of this policy will be lots more exported terror. I consider that an unstable outcome.

[Induveca]

https://news.vice.com/story/france-fears-that-russia-is-trying-to-push-marine-le-pen-to-victory

There comes a point where the globalists need to look in the mirror and realize their own policies are the reason why Trump won, LePen is leading and even Wilders has a chance to win.

Brexit? London media was awash in "Russian hacking"
http://news.sky.com/story/russian-hackers-probably-swayed-brexit-vote-says-ben-bradshaw-mp-10694779

Trump wins, blame Russia for everything.

LePen in the lead, must be Russian hackers and spies (top link).

Wilders in the Netherlands? It's Russia!

https://southfront.org/netherlands-preparing-to-remove-anti-russian-sanctions/

Blame everything on Russia seems to be the order of the day, anywhere where the far left/globalism is called into question or defeated.

I'll call it what it is, a bizarre combination of willful delusion, purposeful propaganda and selfish rage on the far left and mainstream liberal media.