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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
KingBrian2 wrote: » 49- 47 against i'd say we have a slim majority against Pres Obama's transformation program.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
KingBrian2 wrote: » The media has characterized it as a ban and in doing so they are fanning the flames of discrimination.
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
KingBrian2 wrote: » It would be great to have details of the ban instead of the cherry picked bullet points.
KingBrian2 wrote: » It would be great to have details of the ban
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.
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?
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.
KingBrian2 wrote: » Yes exactly the media is fanning the flames of discrimination.
KingBrian2 wrote: » Many media outlets do not chose to do this and the result is confusion for the public.
KingBrian2 wrote: » I call it a ban because the media tell me it is a ban.
alastair wrote: » By reporting the administrations actions. Gotcha. And by reporting crime, they're presumably fanning the flames of criminality in general?
