The Trump Presidency Discussion Thread (Non-Meme version)

[theblue]

@JayS

It’s really sad what the media is allowed to get away with using “unnamed White House source” as their proof.

I could say I have an unnamed source that says theblue blows donkeys in his spare time. Good luck to theblue proving otherwise because the shield laws mean I don’t have to reveal who that source is so no one can even vet his claims.

what do you think the effective method of whistle-blowing should be here?

[JayS]

@theblue

what do you think the effective method of whistle-blowing should be here?

I think we should have laws in place that protect the whistle blower, but they have to make their accusations publicly. The current system is a joke. Great hypothetical. I’m an Obama leftover and work at the White House. I’m gonna “resist”. So I call CNN and say I work at the White House and have access to some damaging classified info but have to stay anonymous. I can now make up what ever I want. Good luck proving I’m lying when you don’t know who I am. The best way to prove something classified is false without actually giving up that classified information is to prove the person who fake leaked it didn’t have access to it in the first place. That’s the best case. Worse case this “anonymous source” doesn’t even exist and the story is totally fabricated by a corrupt media pushing an agenda. Again, when you don’t have to name the source, good luck proving it.

[boardjnky4]

@theblue

what do you think the effective method of whistle-blowing should be here?

If it’s a criminal allegation, you report it to the FBI and let the justice department do their jobs.

[JayS]

@boardjnky4

If it’s a criminal allegation, you report it to the FBI and let the justice department do their jobs.

Yep, at which point justice will offer you immunity and protection if what you’re saying is true because you’ll have to go on record instead of being an anonymous source.

[snowracer101]

@LZ

People need to get off running on the platform that half of America is a racist/gay bashing/hates the poor/etc if they voted for or agree with anything Trump says…

I always wondered why those people never have a comment for this photo:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]37201[/ATTACH]

• • • Updated - - -

@LZ

How about that travel ban?

I just hate how the lower courts are making ASSUMPTIONS about Trump’s reasoning for the “ban”… aren’t courts supposed to work off facts, and determine the constitutionality of it? Granted, most of the backlash is coming from courts in the 9th district, which is generally FUBAR’d

cough…cough… 8 USC 1182

[Paulo]

@snowracer101

cough…cough… 8 USC 1182

I’m assuming the argument is for sub-section (f) - Suspension of Entry or Impositions of Restrictions by President.

Out of curiosity, and considering that Travel Ban 1.0 was a roundabout way of keeping Muslims out, is it contradictory to any other laws? Especially since it’s basically a religious test?

[JayS]

@Paulo

Out of curiosity, and considering that Travel Ban 1.0 was a roundabout way of keeping Muslims out, is it contradictory to any other laws? Especially since it’s basically a religious test?

If it was really about keeping Muslims out why weren’t all the other predominantly Muslim nations included?

Islam by country

[Paulo]

That’s a great question as well. Perhaps you can answer? Why wouldn’t SA be included when they are known for funding terrorism? I can only guess that it was due to the state of those 7 nations at the time.

Either way, I’m not arguing what The Donald’s intentions were, but in practice the first EO was a Muslim ban for the countries it had listed.

[JayS]

It’s real simple, IT WASN’T A FUCKING MUSLIM BAN. That was a term invented by #CNNISISIS . It was a ban on travel from 7 countries we know aren’t capable of properly vetting people because they’re in turmoil. If it was a Muslim ban we certainly would have started with the nations that almost entirely Muslim… (third column is percent of population that is Muslim)

[TABLE=“class: wikitable sortable jquery-tablesorter”]

Maldives
309,000
100
<0.1

Mauritania
4,171,633
100[SUP][80][/SUP]
0.2

Afghanistan
29,047,100
99.8
1.8

Tunisia
11,190,000
99.8
0.6

Iran
74,819,000
99.7
4.6

Western Sahara
528,000
99.6
< 0.1

Iraq
31,108,000
99
1.9

Morocco
32,381,000
99[SUP][84][/SUP]
2.0

Yemen
24,023,000
99.0
1.5

Somalia
9,231,000
98.9[SUP][99][/SUP][SUP][100][/SUP][SUP][101][/SUP][SUP][102][/SUP]
0.6

[/TABLE]

[Paulo]

You’re not paying attention. When applied, the first EO was a Muslim ban on those 7 countries. I’m not saying that was the intent, it’s just how it was going to work if enforced.

[LZ1]

@Paulo

You’re not paying attention. When applied, the first EO was a Muslim ban on those 7 countries. I’m not saying that was the intent, it’s just how it was going to work if enforced.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

I don’t see the word Muslim in there anywhere…

[JayS]

@Paulo

You’re not paying attention. When applied, the first EO was a Muslim ban on those 7 countries. I’m not saying that was the intent, it’s just how it was going to work if enforced.

No, you’re simply buying into #fakenews . At no point was it ever a Muslim ban.

[Blue_Eyed_Devil]

In all fairness I do remember Rudy Guilliani saying Trump asked how to make it look like it was not a Muslim ban. lol

[Paulo]

@LZ

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states

I don’t see the word Muslim in there anywhere…

@JayS

No, you’re simply buying into #fakenews . At no point was it ever a Muslim ban.

:picard: We’ve been through this already…

@Paulo

…MSM is using the fact that the list of effected countries are predominantly Muslim to drive that narrative, which is bullshit.

[However,] The EO does in fact mention religion. It gives priority to individuals under religious-based persecution but ONLY IF your religion is ‘the minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.’ So it may not TECHNICALLY be a muslim ban, it PRACTICALLY is because; Guess what the most widespread religion is in the 7 countries in the ban?

Here’s a good article that goes over the ban. Although the words ‘Muslim-ban’ appear in the headline by asking if it is one, it does not state that it is.

Again, I’m not trying to say that Trump was simply trying to ban Muslims. You guys are so sensitive about your dear leader.

[snowracer101]

@Paulo

I’m assuming the argument is for sub-section (f) - Suspension of Entry or Impositions of Restrictions by President.

Out of curiosity, and considering that Travel Ban 1.0 was a roundabout way of keeping Muslims out, is it contradictory to any other laws? Especially since it’s basically a religious test?

Roundabout way… that’s a pretty huge assumption…

Our neighbors to the North, assuming they are not convicted criminals, can enter into the US and stay for up to 6 months… Our neighbors to the South… some can enter the US but can not travel further than 25 miles from the border (75 in AZ)… some, with proper visas, can visit for business related travel etc etc…

So, in a roundabout way, is this above policy written to “keep the Mexicans out”?

The EO was a roundabout way to keep terrorists out.

[Paulo]

That’s not a good comparison at all.

Refer to the post above yours; It’s not an assumption. It’s using the wording of the EO itself to show how it would have been enforced.

[theblue]

It like saying “we should allow all users of nyspeed to remain on here unless the person posted right before me in this thread”

I didn’t say ban Paulo.

[Paulo]

Exactly.

Also, @snowracer101. Thoughts on whether or not that application would violate other laws? (You’d have to assume religious test in this case.)

[boxxa]

It is a libertarian based blog but some interesting data on the Obamacare thing.

Did Obamacare Really Save Lives? | Robert P. Murphy

[theblue]

all that really matters is coverage and quality of coverage. a lot more people got insurance and a lot of people now stand to lose it.

the most non-partisan thing is that we need to get to single payer. but can it be passed in America? so much money is being made in the chaos or our current system