Anyone else becoming terrified of Liberals.

MightyMandarin

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The complaint within the US is not that Hollywood is critical of Donald J Trump it is that many conservatives are pressured to agree with the consensus that Trump is a travesty to the Nation and will usher in a fascist dictatorship. Their views are being distorted by the media and the negative traits of Trump are being emphasized over and over again to the point that liberal operators are exploiting the situation and generating fear and hatred across the world not just in America. The liberals have become what the conservatives were like when Pres Obama was in office.

You don't think that a conservative can denounce Trump through their own personal convictions alone? Anyone who calls themself a 'fiscal conservative' has to denounce a man who plans to spend billions on a useless wall or whose wife is costing the taxpayer a million a day while living in NY.

KingBrian2

MightyMandarin wrote: »

You don't think that a conservative can denounce Trump through their own personal convictions alone? Anyone who calls themself a 'fiscal conservative' has to denounce a man who plans to spend billions on a useless wall or whose wife is costing the taxpayer a million a day while living in NY.

It is worth pointing and this is important that despite all this talk the back and forte. The heated conversations and that we still have not seen a vote in the Congress yet on raft of legislation. As far as i understand the executive signs the laws and is involved in drafting the laws but ultimately it has to be approved by Congress and of course the Judiciary play their part. No such controversial votes have yet reached Congress like so many Presidents so will Congress finally get stuck in and start making the law of the land.

demfad

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The complaint within the US is not that Hollywood is critical of Donald J Trump it is that many conservatives are pressured to agree with the consensus that Trump is a travesty to the Nation and will usher in a fascist dictatorship. Their views are being distorted by the media and the negative traits of Trump are being emphasized over and over again to the point that liberal operators are exploiting the situation and generating fear and hatred across the world not just in America. The liberals have become what the conservatives were like when Pres Obama was in office.

Sorry but that is complete and utter rubbish. It is president Trump who has generated fear with his threats in words and deeds to people who are not white, american and male.
Youre argument seems to be that people complaining about Nazi symbols painted on schools is worse than painting Nazi symbols on schools.

jooksavage

MightyMandarin wrote: »

You don't think that a conservative can denounce Trump through their own personal convictions alone? Anyone who calls themself a 'fiscal conservative' has to denounce a man who plans to spend billions on a useless wall or whose wife is costing the taxpayer a million a day while living in NY.

This x 10000.

Trump is not a conservative, either socially or fiscally. Plenty of self-proclaiming conservatives hitched their wagon to him because he wasn't Clinton. We'll get to see how true they are to their ideals when the prospect of trade tarriffs becomes a reality and the bill for the Wall arrives in the post.

KingBrian2

demfad wrote: »

Sorry but that is complete and utter rubbish. It is president Trump who has generated fear with his threats in words and deeds to people who are not white, american and male.
Youre argument seems to be that people complaining about Nazi symbols painted on schools is worse than painting Nazi symbols on schools.

Is it really the fear was already out there. The immigration and Jihadi crisis was manufactured to some extent in Washington and Trump is a natural reaction to politicians not working together but essentially doing what the media want of them. Not surprised really that it was a Judge that actually defied Trump as we see very little opposition in Congress. I can take this to mean that Congress still has no unified or coherent position on immigration control and the two parties are still too far apart. Take Obamacare Trump signed the repeal of that law following years of outbursts and growing disenfranchisement of the Republican base. A very popular move by Pres Trump.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Take Obamacare Trump signed the repeal of that law following years of outbursts and growing disenfranchisement of the Republican base. A very popular move by Pres Trump.

Not according to Pew: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/02/01/us/politics/obamacare-approval-poll.html

Nor the Kaiser Family Foundation: https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-02-01/republicans-rebrand-obamacare-strategy-from-repeal-to-repair

demfad

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Is it really the fear was already out there. The immigration and Jihadi crisis was manufactured to some extent in Washington and Trump is a natural reaction to politicians not working together but essentially doing what the media want of them. Not surprised really that it was a Judge that actually defied Trump as we see very little opposition in Congress. I can take this to mean that Congress still has no unified or coherent position on immigration control and the two parties are still too far apart. Take Obamacare Trump signed the repeal of that law following years of outbursts and growing disenfranchisement of the Republican base. A very popular move by Pres Trump.

The judiciary are obliged to uphold the law. Nothing to do with media.
Trump's ban was a sectarian ban on Muslims, that will be upheld by the court. No citizen of any banned country has killed an American citizen in 20 years on US soil.
Obamacare has seen it's highest popularity since the election. I guess when you try and take something away people realise its value. Even though Republicans still calling it Obamacare, people now realise it is = Affordable Care. Trump has lowest popularity of any president at thsi time since records began despite what you say.

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

Not according to Pew: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/02/01/us/politics/obamacare-approval-poll.html

Nor the Kaiser Family Foundation: https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-02-01/republicans-rebrand-obamacare-strategy-from-repeal-to-repair

49- 47 against i'd say we have a slim majority against Pres Obama's transformation program.

Qs

FA Hayek wrote: »

Ah, so no engagement then on the over arching point about how self proclaimed progressive liberals, especially holloywood, are no longer liberals.

Maybe the people of Hollywood aren't the hivemind monolith you imagine them to be.

KingBrian2

demfad wrote: »

The judiciary are obliged to uphold the law. Nothing to do with media.
Trump's ban was a sectarian ban on Muslims, that will be upheld by the court. No citizen of any banned country has killed an American citizen in 20 years on US soil.
Obamacare has seen it's highest popularity since the election. I guess when you try and take something away people realise its value. Even though Republicans still calling it Obamacare, people now realise it is = Affordable Care. Trump has lowest popularity of any president at thsi time since records began despite what you say.

Are those entering the US from those Muslim countries even citizens in their homeland. The US is offering amnesty to certain Muslims in certain parts of the world this is bound to stoke up tensions at home. Jews, Christians make up a huge percentage of the US population and by letting in large numbers of Muslims in like this without restrictions or background documents you are merely adding to the suspicion and disorder.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

49- 47 against i'd say we have a slim majority against Pres Obama's transformation program.

I'm seeing 20% supportive of Trump's repeal approach.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Jews, Christians make up a huge percentage of the US population and by letting in large numbers of Muslims in like this without restrictions or background documents you are merely adding to the suspicion and disorder.

Nobody (Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or whatever) is getting refugee status in the US without background documents. What exactly do you think is taking so long in the current refugee processing arrangements?

http://time.com/4116619/syrian-refugees-screening-process/

listermint

alastair wrote: »

Nobody (Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or whatever) is getting refugee status in the US without background documents. What exactly do you think is taking so long in the current refugee processing arrangements?

You'll notice trump as changed tack from originally proclaiming there is no vetting non existent checks to now using terminology extreme vetting.

He must have found out about all of the existing vetting in place already. Perhaps from a tv program or the back of a cornflakes box

A Primal Nut

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

She is using her fame to reach an audience in order to call for violence. She has something like 10 million Twitter followers and she is calling for violence. Is that acceptable?

Totally acceptable. Most peaceful democracies were started by violent revolution. France didn't politely ask Louis XVI for equality. George Washington and Michael Collins didn't politely ask the British for independence. They used violence and are celebrated as heroes for doing so.

When you've got a leader in power who is willing to use violence, his opponents are entitled to respond in kind. What the alt-right want is to have a leader who can encourage violence as much as he wants, but his opponents are not allowed to defend themselves.

Plenty of videos have emerged in the last few years of unarmed African Americans being shot in the back while running away by police officers, and Trump supported the police officers. Yet his supporters insist African Americans should protest peacefully? Why should they?

Widdershins

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Totally acceptable. Most peaceful democracies were started by violent revolution. France didn't politely ask Louis XVI for equality. George Washington and Michael Collins didn't politely ask the British for independence. They used violence and are celebrated as heroes for doing so.

When you've got a leader in power who is willing to use violence, his opponents are entitled to respond in kind. What the alt-right want is to have a leader who can encourage violence as much as he wants, but his opponents are not allowed to defend themselves.

Plenty of videos have emerged in the last few years of unarmed African Americans being shot in the back while running away by police officers, and Trump supported the police officers. Yet his supporters insist African Americans should protest peacefully? Why should they?

I knew it was only a matter of time before someone praised the French Revolution. Celebrated as Heroes on what planet?

Telpis!

Please don't lets go down that road..think Mahatma Gandhi, not guillotines

WinnyThePoo

The hatred of celebrities who have a big audience is hilarious.

If only big names would come out in support of trump!

We have a poster giving out about free speech whilst promoting a pol pot style solution to dissenters.

Utterly fascinating reading. When the masks falls. It falls hard.

demfad

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Are those entering the US from those Muslim countries even citizens in their homeland. The US is offering amnesty to certain Muslims in certain parts of the world this is bound to stoke up tensions at home. Jews, Christians make up a huge percentage of the US population and by letting in large numbers of Muslims in like this without restrictions or background documents you are merely adding to the suspicion and disorder.

What disorder? By creating ridiculous bans you are adding suspicion.

These are not restrictions, these are outright bans on people from certain countries including refugees. Individuals from these countries haven't killed anyone in America in decades. Individuals from countries not in the banned list have. It is not strenghtening security.

red ears

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

The hatred of celebrities who have a big audience is hilarious.

If only big names would come out in support of trump!

We have a poster giving out about free speech whilst promoting a pol pot style solution to dissenters.

Utterly fascinating reading. When the masks falls. It falls hard.

Nobody seems to listen to them preaching. One of the guys from special things or whatever its called came across as completely unhinged roaring and shouting and threatening violence at an awards ceremony.

KingBrian2

demfad wrote: »

What disorder? By creating ridiculous bans you are adding suspicion.

These are not restrictions, these are outright bans on people from certain countries including refugees. Individuals from these countries haven't killed anyone in America in decades. Individuals from countries not in the banned list have. It is not strenghtening security.

The media has characterized it as a ban and in doing so they are fanning the flames of discrimination. If a conservative recommended any restrictions on travel from a Muslim country the liberals or persons speaking in the name of liberalism would claim that policy is un American or inhuman. What is really screwed up here is the polarization between liberalism and conservatism and both sides feel they need to take a hardline just to get their position across.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The media has characterized it as a ban and in doing so they are fanning the flames of discrimination.

They've characterised it as a ban, because it is a ban. Ask this man:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826060143825666051?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

They've characterised it as a ban, because it is a ban. Ask this man:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826060143825666051?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

It would be great to have details of the ban instead of the cherry picked bullet points. Media personality number 1. "Does it have Muslim on the front page title?" "Why yes it does as well as....." "Yeah were good."

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It would be great to have details of the ban instead of the cherry picked bullet points.

So, just to confirm - when you say the media is fanning the flames of discrimination by calling a ban a ban, and that ban has been introduced by the man who said he was going to stop Muslims entering the country, and his sidekick says that the current ban is a mechanism to attempt a legal ban of Muslims, it's a problem on account of the media, and not the source of the actual discrimination?

Zubeneschamali

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It would be great to have details of the ban

20 minutes ago you were giving out that the media were calling it a ban, and now (after seeing that Trump called it a ban) you call it a ban yourself?

From December:

“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on,” he said in the statement. He added later, “It is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension.”

Rudy Giuliani on what Trump asked him to do:
So when he first announced it he said “Muslim ban.” He called me up, he said, “Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.” I put a commission together with judge Mukasey, with congressman McCaul , Pete King, a whole group of other very expert lawyers on this, and what we did is we focused on, instead of religion, danger—areas of the world that create danger for us. Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that’s what the ban is based on. It’s not based on religion, it’s based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.

So Trump asked Giuliani to devise a Muslim ban that somehow would be legal, and this was what they came up with.

lawred2

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Im worried that everybody seems to be put into a narrowly defined box these days. Express an opinion and you are either a bleeding heart liberal or an alt-right fascist. Its us against them and you are one or the other. It drowns most of the actual debate.

It's the refuge of the simpleton... incapable of nuance

It's boring in the extreme

And dangerous

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

So, just to confirm - when you say the media is fanning the flames of discrimination by calling a ban a ban, and that ban has been introduced by the man who said he was going to stop Muslims entering the country, and his sidekick says that the current ban is a mechanism to attempt a legal ban of Muslims, it's a problem on account of the media, and not the source of the actual discrimination?

Yes exactly the media is fanning the flames of discrimination. The media interacts with the Presidents spokespersons and when they provide inaccurate or lacking detail on important legislation brought in by the executive it is on the media to inform the public and provide the full picture. Many media outlets do not chose to do this and the result is confusion for the public.

KingBrian2

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

20 minutes ago you were giving out that the media were calling it a ban, and now (after seeing that Trump called it a ban) you call it a ban yourself?

From December:

“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on,” he said in the statement. He added later, “It is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension.”

Rudy Giuliani on what Trump asked him to do:
So when he first announced it he said “Muslim ban.” He called me up, he said, “Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.” I put a commission together with judge Mukasey, with congressman McCaul , Pete King, a whole group of other very expert lawyers on this, and what we did is we focused on, instead of religion, danger—areas of the world that create danger for us. Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that’s what the ban is based on. It’s not based on religion, it’s based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.

So Trump asked Giuliani to devise a Muslim ban that somehow would be legal, and this was what they came up with.

I call it a ban because the media tell me it is a ban. The media tell me the President of the United States of America is behaving unconstitutionally. The media is telling me Muslims are on the war path so you see we know very little the media provides soundbites and that is all.

alastair

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Yes exactly the media is fanning the flames of discrimination.

By reporting the administrations actions. Gotcha.

And by reporting crime, they're presumably fanning the flames of criminality in general?

Zubeneschamali

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Many media outlets do not chose to do this and the result is confusion for the public.

Most of us are very clear - Trump wanted to ban Muslims, was told that was illegal, so attempted a disguised ban on some Muslims. So far, the courts are not fooled.

Zubeneschamali

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I call it a ban because the media tell me it is a ban.

You denied it was a ban, you said the media were wrong to call it a ban until someone quoted Trump himself calling it a ban, and then you suddenly started calling it a ban.

But somehow it is still the media's fault.

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

By reporting the administrations actions. Gotcha.

And by reporting crime, they're presumably fanning the flames of criminality in general?

Up to this point the media did not even accept the result of the election. We have seen very little stability in D.C. at this stage and clearly the media is exploiting the chaos of the campaign season to tear down this administration before it even gets up and running. I want to see transparent politics but i also know that broadcasting hostile views while politicians are trying to make important decisions will sew tensions among communities.