Jump to content

Trump Watch

CHAPEL END CHARLIE

By CHAPEL END CHARLIE,
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

washsaint

washsaint

Posted
Posted

Sure the p***k will whine about something else. The turnout in this election was quite low - quite surprising when you think what was at stake. The stay aways cost the Democrats this election. Two deeply flawed candidates and the most flawed won - not a great feeling.

 

Can't help thinking that Trump may actually end up being more liberal than many Democrats. Now that would be fun to watch to see the Republicans implode....or maybe that is just wishful thinking!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deano6

Deano6

Posted
Posted
Lol , what's Timmys response to that?

 

The protestors themselves explained why they didn't cast a vote in that very article:

 

"I did not (vote) and the reason why is because we know that the electoral college is really what matters the most. And I think that we need to change that because your vote doesn’t matter if you don’t have enough electoral college points.," said Grigsby.

 

To explain his point, Oregon gets 7 votes in the electoral college, out of 538 total. These go to the winner of the state, whether they win by 1 vote or a million. Oregon is decidedly democrat and ended up voting for Hillary by over 10%. So casting a vote is really not going to make much of a difference, even in a block, and leads to greater deal of voter apathy in those regions. Of course it's certainly "not in the spirit" of being active in the political system, and it would break down if everyone followed suit, but it does explain why people are less motivated to go to the polls - and they are right in what they say. It's similar where I am in New York which was always going to vote Hillary. I know some people who said they would have voted if they were in a closer state, but in New York it's so far leaning blue it's not going to matter.

 

I'm not sure who's side I'm supporting here, if anyone's, as I didn't go back and read whatever arguments above led to this bickering, but just wanted to point out that article isn't as shocking as it would like to think it is.

 

 

 

FYI - Oregon is one of a number of states trying to actively change the election process to reflect the popular vote rather than the electoral college system, but they are some way off getting it agreed nationally.

 

http://www.opb.org/news/series/election-2016/electoral-college-oregon-trump-president-clinton/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted (edited)
The protestors themselves explained why they didn't cast a vote in that very article:

 

 

 

To explain his point, Oregon gets 7 votes in the electoral college, out of 538 total. These go to the winner of the state, whether they win by 1 vote or a million. Oregon is decidedly democrat and ended up voting for Hillary by over 10%. So casting a vote is really not going to make much of a difference, even in a block, and leads to greater deal of voter apathy in those regions. Of course it's certainly "not in the spirit" of being active in the political system, and it would break down if everyone followed suit, but it does explain why people are less motivated to go to the polls - and they are right in what they say. It's similar where I am in New York which was always going to vote Hillary. I know some people who said they would have voted if they were in a closer state, but in New York it's so far leaning blue it's not going to matter.

 

I'm not sure who's side I'm supporting here, if anyone's, as I didn't go back and read whatever arguments above led to this bickering, but just wanted to point out that article isn't as shocking as it would like to think it is.

 

 

 

FYI - Oregon is one of a number of states trying to actively change the election process to reflect the popular vote rather than the electoral college system, but they are some way off getting it agreed nationally.

 

http://www.opb.org/news/series/election-2016/electoral-college-oregon-trump-president-clinton/

 

The EC ensures that each state is important and that policies broadly help the whole country. If you just elected Presidents on the popular vote, you can win with the large urban areas meaning certain groups and areas get screwed, long term this is unsustainable as the "left behinds" will get even more left behind. It's the exact same reason I'm against FPTP. Had we had a pure PR system the past 100 years , I doubt we'd have ended up with a Scottish Parliament . 5 million voters is nothing whereas 50+ parliamentary seats can bring real pressure to bare.

Edited by Lord Duckhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Verbal

Verbal

Posted
Posted
The EC ensures that each state is important and that policies broadly help the whole country. If you just elected Presidents on the popular vote, you can win with the large urban areas meaning certain groups and areas get screwed, long term this is unsustainable as the "left behinds" will get even more left behind.

 

All of which has absolutely nothing to do with why the electoral college exists. Read up on your Madison, Hamilton and Tocqueville. Or try this on the justification for the electoral college's not accepting electoral vote winners, from Alexander Hamilton:

 

"Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States"

 

It was designed, in other words, to keep out Trumps of the day - which is why constitutionally none of the electors in the electoral college is bound to vote for the state-by-state or indeed the popular winner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ART

ART

Posted
Posted

Money raised for recounts in key stateshttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3966868/Jill-Stein-raises-2-2m-challenge-Trump-s-victories-Wisconsin-Michigan-Pennsylvania-poll-hacking-claims.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&google_editors_picks=true

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Picard

Picard

Posted
Posted

 

Obama would not be keen on doing this

 

[video=youtube;ZPpt7-QOGKc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPpt7-QOGKc

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Ludwig

Ludwig

Posted
Posted
Sanctimonious little pr!ck - You haven't posted for nearly three months.

 

Sorry I'm not addicted like you. In the last three months what have you said that is of any value? **** all, because I just read three pages of your posts. So as an active poster who keeps up to date with this thread, why did you not feel it was important enough to comment on until I posted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stug76

stug76

Posted
Posted
I can't stand Trump however he is not doing anything that he didn't say he'd do. Most thought he wouldn't

 

Orwell never been more relevant. Shame majority of his supporters don't actually care that he is habitual liar.

 

Trump not a liar.

Trump is a liar.

 

Nice argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Noodles34

Noodles34

Posted
Posted
Apologies, didnt mean to make you angry.

 

Nice observation.

 

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

ha-ha, he's quite articulate when it comes to personal insults, if he doesn't like it (you) he resorts to swearing and call people cvunts or fcks, bit chavvy really, but then....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mystic Force

Mystic Force

Posted
Posted

Ok first a confession, I was wrong. I said on this thread he had no chance here in Iowa, based on sign count, well a few days later I visited rural south east Iowa, and trump signs were everywhere, I knew that my prediction was in trouble, but didn't want to come on here and admit it. In fact the election played out exactly as the sign information I had seen suggested, but didn't want to believe. Trump got more support in rural areas than previous elections had for republicans, therefore all the polling models were wrong. They are all based on if this is the same as the past then this set of data indicates this... The problem with big data, you can only predict the past...

 

Anyway, I cant say that anything that has happened has not been telegraphed, he is doing exactly what he said he would do, in a way politicians don't normally do, mainly because the type of thing that fired up those rural voters in SE Iowa are the kinds of things normally not considered a good idea. All those liberals, of which I am one, out complaining (not me), all they are doing is making those people who voted for Trump think they are right, about their world view. Ultimately this experiment will play out. I just hope we are still standing.

 

I wonder how this effects me on the local scale, as I work for a foreign company that exports a product all over the world, but they could move somewhere else if they wanted, would not make much difference. We make 2 products that we are the only commercial scale producers of in the world and one also made in China. There is no particular need to be here, at a certain point do companies just say US is too much hassle?

 

It seems that the policy is not so much America first as F you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Bognor

Johnny Bognor

Posted
Posted

 

Past presidents have banned the Chinese (Arthur), Jews (Roosevelt), Anarchists (Roosevelt), Communists (Truman), Iranians (Carter), HIV+ Persons (Reagan)… and that was before Obama had a go...

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/01/times-banned-immigrants-170128183528941.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted
Past presidents have banned the Chinese (Arthur), Jews (Roosevelt), Anarchists (Roosevelt), Communists (Truman), Iranians (Carter), HIV+ Persons (Reagan)… and that was before Obama had a go...

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/01/times-banned-immigrants-170128183528941.html

 

Baldrick, you're citing al jazeera. You maverick :lol: Others might just call you lazy and disingenuous.

 

As for dim rightwingers who are prone to comparing apples and pears and have a more tenuous grasp of historical context than a gnat, this might be useful.

 

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

 

Sorry, Mr. President: The Obama Administration Did Nothing Similar to Your Immigration Ban

 

 

There are so many reasons to detest the Donald Trump administration’s executive order on “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” that it’s hard to know where to start.

 

Others have already argued eloquently about its cruelty in singling out the most vulnerable in society; its strategic folly in insulting countries and individuals the United States needs to help it fight terrorism (the ostensible purpose of the order in the first place); its cynical incoherence in using the September 11 attacks as a rationale and then exempting the attackers’ countries of origin; its ham-handed implementation and ever-shifting explanations for how, and to whom, it applies; and, thankfully, its legal vulnerability on a slew of soon-to-be-litigated grounds, including that it may violate the Establishment and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

 

In light of all that, and particular in light of the new White House’s acknowledged aversion to facts, it may seem like a minor point that President Donald Trump and his advisors, in seeking to justify and normalize the executive order, have made a series of false or misleading claims about steps taken five years earlier by the Barack Obama administration. In case you missed it, a statement from the president published Sunday afternoon read:

 

“My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months. The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror.”

 

Leaving aside the unusual nature of team Trump looking to his predecessors’ policies for cover, it seems worth pointing out this statement obscures at least five enormous differences between the executive order the White House issued on Friday and what the Obama administration did.

 

1. Much narrower focus: The Obama administration conducted a review in 2011 of the vetting procedures applied to citizens of a single country (Iraq) and then only to refugees and applicants for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), created by Congress to help Iraqis (and later Afghans) who supported the United States in those conflicts. The Trump executive order, on the other hand, applies to seven countries with total population more than 130 million, and to virtually every category of immigrant other than diplomats, including tourists and business travelers.

 

2. Not a ban: Contrary to Trump’s Sunday statement and the repeated claims of his defenders, the Obama administration did not “ban visas for refugees from Iraq for six months.” For one thing, refugees don’t travel on visas. More importantly, while the flow of Iraqi refugees slowed significantly during the Obama administration’s review, refugees continued to be admitted to the United States during that time, and there was not a single month in which no Iraqis arrived here. In other words, while there were delays in processing, there was no outright ban.

 

3. Grounded in specific threat: The Obama administration’s 2011 review came in response to specific threat information, including the arrest in Kentucky of two Iraqi refugees, still the only terrorism-related arrests out of about 130,000 Iraqi refugees and SIV holders admitted to the United States. Thus far, the Trump administration has provided no evidence, nor even asserted, that any specific information or intelligence has led to its draconian order.

 

4. Orderly, organized process: The Obama administration’s review was conducted over roughly a dozen deputies and principals committee meetings, involving Cabinet and deputy Cabinet-level officials from all of the relevant departments and agencies — including the State, Homeland Security and Justice Departments — and the intelligence community. The Trump executive order was reportedly drafted by White House political officials and then presented to the implementing agencies a fait accompli. This is not just bad policymaking practice, it led directly to the confusion, bordering on chaos, that has attended implementation of the order by agencies that could only start asking questions (such as: “does this apply to green card holders?”) once the train had left the station.

 

5. Far stronger vetting today: Much has been made of Trump’s call for “extreme vetting” for citizens of certain countries. The entire purpose of the Obama administration’s 2011 review was to enhance the already stringent vetting to which refugees and SIV applicants were subjected. While many of the details are classified, those rigorous procedures, which lead to waiting times of 18-24 months for many Iraqi and Syrian refugees, remain in place today and are continually reviewed by interagency officials. The Trump administration is, therefore, taking on a problem that has already been (and is continually being) addressed.

 

*Bonus: Obama’s “seven countries” taken out of context: Trump’s claim that the seven countries listed in the executive order came from the Obama administration is conveniently left unexplained. A bit of background: soon after the December 2015 terror attack in San Bernadino, President Obama signed an amendment to the Visa Waiver Program, a law that allows citizens of 38 countries to travel to the United States without obtaining visas (and gives Americans reciprocal privileges in those countries). The amendment removed from the Visa Waiver Program dual nationals who were citizens of four countries (Iraq, Iran, Sudan, and Syria), or anyone who had recently traveled to those countries. The Obama administration added three more to the list (Libya, Somalia, and Yemen), bringing the total to seven. But this law did not bar anyone from coming to the United States. It only required a relatively small percentage of people to obtain a visa first. And to avoid punishing people who clearly had good reasons to travel to the relevant countries, the Obama administration used a waiver provided by Congress for certain travelers, including journalists, aid workers, and officials from international organizations like the United Nations.

 

Bottom line: No immigration vetting system is perfect, no matter how “extreme.” President Obama often said that his highest priority was keeping Americans safe. In keeping with America’s tradition and ideals, he also worked to establish a vetting system that worked more fairly and efficiently, particularly for refugees who are, by definition, in harm’s way. President Trump should defend his approach on the merits, if he can. He should not compare it to his predecessor’s.

This post has been updated.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aintforever

aintforever

Posted
Posted

I don't agree with his policy on immigration but that's no reason for all this over-reaction over his visit. I don't agree with many policies of many other countries but that's no reason not to have their heads of state visit. In fact the opposite is true, the more people talk the better.

 

All this fuss is just some left wing anti Trump nobheads using any excuse to knock him. Who the USA let in their country is completely up to them and makes no difference to me whatsoever. Also ****ing America off is the very last thing we need to do with Brexit coming up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted

The reaction to this extreme vetting is pathetic, as is liberals calling for him to be refused a state visit. He's the elected president of America and as such he should be allowed to come here and his policies are free to be debated while he does so. We've had all sorts of leaders here who I wouldn't agree with at all but they were allowed to come here all the same. I don't agree with this immigration policy in its current form but it isn't illegal and he is entirely free to implement what he said he was going to do and what the American people voted for. Some people would prefer that we cut off all ties during his presidency which would mean that the UK suffers but they can feel good about themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Batman

Batman

Posted
Posted

Trump protests in the UK! What are they actually protesting about? Utter waste of time.

Why not protest that portsmouth is a toilet.. Or that we have traffic lights and speed cameras every 100 yds?

Protest about **** bin men, protest about sending millions of pounds in 'aid' to countries with nuclear weapons, protest that Sgt Blackman is still doing porridge.

Protesting that democracy (elsewhere) hasnt given mummy's little soldier the president he wanted is just ****ing childish.

The last few years has really shown the snowflakes up for being a pretty nasty bunch of people

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted (edited)
Can't understand why lefties are complaining about his America first policy. What do they want a Pres who puts America second ?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You mean protectionism and mercantilism, based on thoroughly discredited thinking?

Edited by shurlock
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
Trump protests in the UK! What are they actually protesting about? Utter waste of time.

Why not protest that portsmouth is a toilet.. Or that we have traffic lights and speed cameras every 100 yds?

Protest about **** bin men, protest about sending millions of pounds in 'aid' to countries with nuclear weapons, protest that Sgt Blackman is still doing porridge.

Protesting that democracy (elsewhere) hasnt given mummy's little soldier the president he wanted is just ****ing childish.

The last few years has really shown the snowflakes up for being a pretty nasty bunch of people

Indeed. It's incredibly sad and entitled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Bognor

Johnny Bognor

Posted
Posted
Baldrick, you're citing al jazeera. You maverick[emoji38] Others might just call you lazy and disingenuous.

 

As for dim rightwingers who are prone to comparing apples and pears and have a more tenuous grasp of historical context than a gnat, this might be useful.

 

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

What about the others... Carter, reagan???

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted
Trump protests in the UK! What are they actually protesting about? Utter waste of time.

Why not protest that portsmouth is a toilet.. Or that we have traffic lights and speed cameras every 100 yds?

Protest about **** bin men, protest about sending millions of pounds in 'aid' to countries with nuclear weapons, protest that Sgt Blackman is still doing porridge.

Protesting that democracy (elsewhere) hasnt given mummy's little soldier the president he wanted is just ****ing childish.

The last few years has really shown the snowflakes up for being a pretty nasty bunch of people

 

I'm going to join linekar, Little Owen Jones, & other assorted snowflakes on their protest march against the countries that ban Israelis. Can someone let me know when it is?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sour Mash

Sour Mash

Posted
Posted
Trump protests in the UK! What are they actually protesting about? Utter waste of time.

Why not protest that portsmouth is a toilet.. Or that we have traffic lights and speed cameras every 100 yds?

Protest about **** bin men, protest about sending millions of pounds in 'aid' to countries with nuclear weapons, protest that Sgt Blackman is still doing porridge.

Protesting that democracy (elsewhere) hasnt given mummy's little soldier the president he wanted is just ****ing childish.

The last few years has really shown the snowflakes up for being a pretty nasty bunch of people

What's weird is they don't seem to realise how few members of the ordinary public really support these marchs. Rather than having learnt from Brexit, it's just made them worse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
Indeed. It's incredibly sad and entitled.

 

What is sad is seeing nothing wrong with this arsehat in charge and his capability of creating so much carnage. I like the fact that people are protesting - regardless of cause it's good to see people care - better than everyone being apathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
whelk

whelk

Posted
Posted
ha-ha, he's quite articulate when it comes to personal insults, if he doesn't like it (you) he resorts to swearing and call people cvunts or fcks, bit chavvy really, but then....

 

You seem a little obsessed with me Nick. You need to forgive and move on or the bitterness will consume you. I say this as a friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Batman

Batman

Posted
Posted (edited)
What's weird is they don't seem to realise how few members of the ordinary public really support these marchs. Rather than having learnt from Brexit, it's just made them worse.

 

Just all a bit weird. I guess gone of the days that the liberal elitist left held the moral high ground, they are now down in the gutter with the worst of them.

they used to challenge people they disagreed with an argument. Now, they just want most things that are not on their radar just banned.

 

BREXIT - Stop it

Farage/UKIP - Ban them

Trump - Ban it

Daily Mail - Ban it

disagree with the main snowflake Owen Jones on Twitter - Blocked

 

 

however, dislike Israel, no regard for Gay/Woman/civil liberties - freedom of speech.

Look at the mess some of them got in when the Calais Camp was closed down.....just ridiculous

 

I wonder if when protesting in London, they will pop by the Saudi Embassy, or Finsbury Park Mosque to show a bit of displeasure? nah, didnt think so

 

 

Trump has obviously seen what a complete mess large parts of the EU has become and thought, fuk that. Afterall, he was voted IN on saying he would do these things. These people in Europe against him are the mainly the sort that are not too keen on democracy of the side they do not agree with. So just want it banned!

 

with the way voting trends are happening in large parts of the EU, seems many agree with Trump to various degrees.

Edited by Batman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
What is sad is seeing nothing wrong with this arsehat in charge and his capability of creating so much carnage. I like the fact that people are protesting - regardless of cause it's good to see people care - better than everyone being apathetic.

What would be better is to stop continuously calling people racist and sexist and all manner of other things because they voted for Trump over Clinton. If they worked on a more effective message and were maybe a bit more humble next time then maybe they would have a better chance in 4 years rather than protesting at the drop of a hat something that the American people voted for (and which the majority support) and which Trump has a mandate to implement. I don't agree with it in its current form by the way but he is perfectly entitled to implement the ban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted (edited)
What would be better is to stop continuously calling people racist and sexist and all manner of other things because they voted for Trump over Clinton. If they worked on a more effective message and were maybe a bit more humble next time then maybe they would have a better chance in 4 years rather than protesting at the drop of a hat something that the American people voted for (and which the majority support) and which Trump has a mandate to implement. I don't agree with it in its current form by the way but he is perfectly entitled to implement the ban.

 

So you're in favour of protests as long as Trump supporters aren't called racist or sexist? You're conflating very different things. Sounds like a fudge to me.

 

Explain drop of a hat. Guess in principle the travel ban would hit your inlaws. Can never be too careful, can you pal.

Edited by shurlock
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
So you're in favour of protests as long as Trump supporters aren't called racist or sexist? You're conflating very different things. Sounds like a fudge to me.

 

Explain drop of a hat. Guess in principle the travel ban would hit your inlaws. Can never be too careful, can you pal.

I don't agree with the travel ban and I've said that three times now. However, Trump has been given a mandate by the people to do this sort of thing so he is perfectly within his rights to do it. It isn't me conflating very different things, it was Caroline lucas calling for Trump to be banned from the UK yesterday because he is a racist and sexist and because of his "Muslim ban" (which isn't a Muslim ban.) People are turning this into a massive thing because they despise Trump and because they can't stand that he won the election and is doing what he said he would do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted (edited)
I don't agree with the travel ban and I've said that three times now. However, Trump has been given a mandate by the people to do this sort of thing so he is perfectly within his rights to do it. It isn't me conflating very different things, it was Caroline lucas calling for Trump to be banned from the UK yesterday because he is a racist and sexist and because of his "Muslim ban" (which isn't a Muslim ban.) People are turning this into a massive thing because they despise Trump and because they can't stand that he won the election and is doing what he said he would do.

 

You mentioned attacks on Trump supporters. I have no idea why the nonentity Caroline Lucas is suddenly relevant to the discussion but her statement made no reference to Trump supporters.

 

It's quite possible to accept that Trump has a democratic mandate to "do this sort of thing" while disagreeing with his policies and challenging them through legal means. Very odd you keep banging on about his mandate as if there's some sort of tension between the two.

 

You never said you were against the ban - you said you were against it in its current form. Very different things unless you elaborate what you actually mean. But I understand your reluctance to do so given your need to play both sides while insisting on your right to be outraged. You have more in common with the 'lefties' than you think.

Edited by shurlock
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SKD

SKD

Posted
Posted
What's weird is they don't seem to realise how few members of the ordinary public really support these marchs. Rather than having learnt from Brexit, it's just made them worse.

 

Agree - Unfortunately it appears the lefts mentality is 'if we don't get our own way, we will shout and scream about it'.

 

When presented with any actual facts they generally don't have an answer. Strange bunch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...