Anyone else becoming terrified of Liberals.

psinno wrote: »

I haven't paid much attention to what is happening in Sudan these days but most of the countries on the list seem like failed states with weak or non existent central governments. Except Iran , I think Americans are still upset about the hostage crisis there in the 70s. So more weighted against people from failing states.

What failing/failed states do you think are missing?

Stop deflecting to countries which aren't included, although I could talk about how Saudi Arabia isn't included despite all the terrorists and money originating from there.

This order is specifically designed to discriminate muslims from the countries included. That is religious discrimination plain and simple.

Carlos Orange

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Obama was against gay marriage too until he wasn't. He also wanted to renegotiate NAFTA. According to him anyway.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

We say Trump is a fascist/autocrat/racist/kleptocrat based on his campaign rhetoric, his actual policies and his autocratic and kleptocratic actions as president.
If you can point out where Clinton's campaign promises or previous actions in Government points towards fascism then please do.
Your hearsay about unknown reports about groups who might have made mild claims amount to nothing. Please show integrity of argument.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

"You're completely right, but instead of admitting that, I'm just gonna bring up Hillary for the bazillionth time to throw some smoke in the air so we can end up discussing the candidate who lost instead of the person who's clearly far more relevant". That's basically what you're saying.

And yet one of these is termed a "liberal" and the other is termed a "proto-fascist," largely because of partisan politics. This shows that these kinds of labels are often emotive and not based on a thorough investigation of fact.

I didn't see him term Hillary a liberal and yes that term is incorrect, as she's been proven to swing her policies whichever way the wind blows. But again, Hillary is not relevant, and neither is Mitt Romney (who's a republican who I could bring up to compare to her). The labels given to Trump however are true imo, and I don't any attempt her to disprove this.

I don't personally see how any proponent of big-government solutions can genuinely be called "liberal." Even if a politician genuinely believes that she is using the power of the state for good, she is still relying on an authoritarian and coercive structure to accomplish her allegedly noble goals, which is de facto illiberal.

Oh...Hillary...again. Yeah, what you're saying is correct, but it's just another attempt to distract and divert from the point. Care to disprove the 'proto fascist' label been given to Trump? Or do you just want to make it a Hillary thread?

demfad wrote: »

We say Trump is a fascist/autocrat/racist/kleptocrat based on his campaign rhetoric, his actual policies and his autocratic and kleptocratic actions as president.
If you can point out where Clinton's campaign promises or previous actions in Government points towards fascism then please do.
Your hearsay about unknown reports about groups who might have made mild claims amount to nothing. Please show integrity of argument.

Obama and Bill Clinton said the exact same things about deporting illegals and removing benefits. They also specifically talked about increasing border security.

Would you describe going into foreign nations and executing their leaders a trait of fascism out of interest?

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Obama and Bill Clinton said the exact same things about deporting illegals and removing benefits. They also specifically talked about increasing border security.

16years of office between them and yet not a muslim ban or a wall with Mexico between them. Shouldn't we judge politicians on what they do, not just what they say?

MightyMandarin wrote: »

16years of office between them and yet not a muslim ban or a wall with Mexico between them. Shouldn't we judge politicians on what they do, not just what they say?

Exactly, they both failed on their illegal immigration and border security promises.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Exactly, they both failed on their illegal immigration and border security promises.

Well what exactly counts as success in your opinion? Zero illegal immigrants in the country? Is there a country on the planet that has zero illegal immigrants?

donal na gealla

Well...that escalated pretty quickly. I live in North Cork. Can't move here for scary liberals. * Sarcasm alert :-)

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Well what exactly counts as success in your opinion? Zero illegal immigrants in the country? Is there a country on the planet that has zero illegal immigrants?

Whatever success is, it isn't this.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Whatever success is, it isn't this.

... I figured I'd get an absolute nonsense answer. I shouldn't have expected anything more from you.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

... I figured I'd get an absolute nonsense answer. I shouldn't have expected anything more from you.

My answer is perfectly reasonable. They promised to cut funding and stop/deport illegals and the Country went in the opposite direction. You won't stop asking questions or drag things off topic to point score, not going to be dragged down by that anymore. Ta Ta.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Why are you bringing up Hillary? I don't think anyone is here is claiming she was a liberal. She was just less right wing than Trump on social and immigration issues.

Trump is an authoritarian on social and immigration issues and an economic protectionist. As a libertarian I'm surprised you have any common ground with him. Or maybe you don't?

Calling a Trump a fascist may be hyperbole, but his right hand man is actually a fascist IMO. Steve Bannon is a "white nationalist" and a horrible human being. By surrounding himself with people like this Trump is inviting the fascist label IMO.

Brian?

psinno wrote: »

I haven't paid much attention to what is happening in Sudan these days but most of the countries on the list seem like failed states with weak or non existent central governments. Except Iran , I think Americans are still upset about the hostage crisis there in the 70s. So more weighted against people from failing states.

What failing/failed states do you think are missing?

I don't think any are missing. I don't think the ban should exist. What's your point?

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Obama and Bill Clinton said the exact same things about deporting illegals and removing benefits. They also specifically talked about increasing border security.

I'm not interested in what you said they said. I am interested in what they DID.

Did they promise and bring in a Muslim ban?
Did they take away protections for domestic violence?
Did they withdraw white supremacist terror groups as official terorist organisations only looking now at Islamist groups?
Did they put in a white supremacist as most powerful advisor to the president?
Did they put in an AG who lost previous attempts at federal posts due to racist comments?

Would you describe going into foreign nations and executing their leaders a trait of fascism out of interest?

This type of comment is the reason why Politics on boards should raise standards on posting and substantiation. Can you give solid substantiation that an American president executed a foreign leader?

demfad wrote: »

I'm not interested in what you said they said. I am interested in what they DID.

They failed in what they promised to do with regards illegal immigration/federal funding/border security and Trump might succeed, and you're using that to attack Trump. That is bad really screwed up logic.

You also asked for an example of supposed Fascism from a previous administration and I pointed out Obama/Bill Clinton ( probably others don't have time to check ) spouted the exact same things Trump said about illegal immigration solutions.

I didn't say I agreed with everything Trump has done, but as the usual when I answer a question I get met with another 5.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

marienbad

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Is that really true though Permabear ? every losing party since the year dot has complained about the other side misusing power . And then they get on with governing as best they can , or at least they used to .

But have we ever seen the like of the total opposition for its own sake and at every level during Obama's presidency ?

demfad wrote: »

I'm not interested in what you said they said. I am interested in what they DID.

1-Did they promise and bring in a Muslim ban?
2-Did they take away protections for domestic violence?
3-Did they withdraw white supremacist terror groups as official terorist organisations only looking now at Islamist groups?
4-Did they put in a white supremacist as most powerful advisor to the president?
5-Did they put in an AG who lost previous attempts at federal posts due to racist comments?

I'll answer your questions because some of the things mentioned I haven't see before and I'm interested in seeing proof.

1. It's not a Muslim ban because the vast majority of Muslims won't be effected and it's temporary. I don't necessarily agree with the Countries chosen. Polls show in Europe 55% of people are in favor of an outright Muslim ban, and a recent Politico poll shows 55% of people in the US agree with his EO.

2- Link? I don't see a thing about this anywhere.

3- http://www.snopes.com/trump-terror-watch-program/ According to this you're wrong

4 - Do you have any examples of Bannon of being a White supremacist besides being involved with Breitbart? I think he's hard right for sure, but I've never seen any actual evidence of White supremacy.

5 - What racist comments did Sessions make? I know he was a major player in taking down the Klan.

Can you give solid substantiation that an American president executed a foreign leader?

WMD, overthrowing Saddam

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jimmycrackcorm

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

There's a significant difference in raising EOs in the knowledge that they may not come to fruition due to being blocked by the courts, vs expecting that the courts should not be allowed to rule against them as lawful.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

They failed in what they promised to do with regards illegal immigration/federal funding/border security and Trump might succeed, and you're using that to attack Trump. That is bad really screwed up logic.

You also asked for an example of supposed Fascism from a previous administration and I pointed out Obama/Bill Clinton ( probably others don't have time to check ) spouted the exact same things Trump said about illegal immigration solutions.

I didn't say I agreed with everything Trump has done, but as the usual when I answer a question I get met with another 5.

Please quote exactly what Obama/Clinton said about illegal immigration. I am not willing to take your word that they are fascists. If you dont, then best not to reply.

Suryavarman

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Hillary's positions have nothing to do with why Trump is a proto-fascist. But I'll humour your obsession with her nonetheless.

Authoritarian: there is no evidence to suggest that, as President, Clinton would use the power of the presidency to constantly attack judges and the free press. Trump has already begun using his position of power to begin peddling propaganda by deleting papers that disagree with his world view from the White House website and making baseless claims such as millions of fraudulent votes being cast in the election.

Nationalistic: Wikileaks revealed Clinton to be in favour of a hemispheric open border. Trump ran on a campaign of reducing immigration, increasing tariffs and ripping up trade deals.

Coporatist: Trump has already begun using his power to enrich himself and his family. He's also seen fit to intervene in the affairs of individual businesses and heavily criticised any business that opposes him.

Then of course the icing on the cake is that he's incredibly popular among the actual fascists that constitute the alt right. He's also hugely supportive of a number of authoritarian strongmen.

And yet one of these is termed a "liberal" and the other is termed a "proto-fascist," largely because of partisan politics. This shows that these kinds of labels are often emotive and not based on a thorough investigation of fact.

We could be here all day explaining why Trump is a proto-fascist, if you can't accept that he is then I have no intention of wasting my time trying to explain to you why that is the case.

I don't personally see how any proponent of big-government solutions can genuinely be called "liberal." Even if a politician genuinely believes that she is using the power of the state for good, she is still relying on an authoritarian and coercive structure to accomplish her allegedly noble goals, which is de facto illiberal.

That's because you use a 200 year old definition of liberal that few others use.

Suryavarman

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Obama enacted Executive orders at a lower rate than any President since Grover Cleveland.

executive-orders_logo2-2.png&w=480

http://www.refinery29.com/2017/01/137406/trump-violence-against-women-grants-cut

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

1. It's not a Muslim ban because the vast majority of Muslims won't be effected and it's temporary. I don't necessarily agree with the Countries chosen. Polls show in Europe 55% of people are in favor of an outright Muslim ban, and a recent Politico poll shows 55% of people in the US agree with his EO.

It is a Muslim ban because only majority Muslim countries are affected, because Trump campaigned on bringing in a Muslim ban, and because his close associate Rudy Giuliani said that Trump had asked him how to make a 'Muslim ban look legal'. Also, the ban does not make America more secure.

2- Link? I don't see a thing about this anywhere.

3- http://www.snopes.com/trump-terror-watch-program/ According to this you're wrong

Yes, he has planned this: not implemented yet.

4 - Do you have any examples of Bannon of being a White supremacist besides being involved with Breitbart? I think he's hard right for sure, but I've never seen any actual evidence of White supremacy.

Why would you exclude deliberately hosting the biggest platform for white supremacists, KKK, Nazis etc. in the US? Why would you omit a full section of BN entitled 'Black crime'?

Recently he omitted that Jewish people were targetted in Trumps holocaust speech. His wife reported that he went spare with her for trying to enrol his estranged kids in a school with Jewish children etc.

5 - What racist comments did Sessions make? I know he was a major player in taking down the Klan.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-attorney-general-jeff-sessions-racist-remarks_us_582cd73ae4b099512f80c0c2

The man who President-elect Donald Trump will nominate as the 84th attorney general of the United States was once rejected as a federal judge over allegations he called a black attorney “boy,” suggested a white lawyer working for black clients was a race traitor, joked that the only issue he had with the Ku Klux Klan was their drug use

WMD, overthrowing Saddam

So you have no evidence that an American president executed a foreign leader. It was waffle.

demfad wrote: »

Please quote exactly what Obama/Clinton said about illegal immigration. I am not willing to take your word that they are fascists. If you dont, then best not to reply.

Now will you answer the 5 questions I replied to? Because most of what you said appears to be untrue.

demfad wrote: »

I'll answer your questions because some of the things mentioned I haven't see before and I'm interested in seeing proof.

It is a Muslim ban because only majority Muslim countries are affected, because Trump campaigned on bringing in a Muslim ban, and because his close associate Rudy Giuliani said that Trump had asked him how to make a 'Muslim ban look legal'.

It's a ban on certain Muslim majority countries, it's not a Muslim ban. You're twisting it. The vast majority of Muslims are still allowed to enter the Country.

http://www.refinery29.com/2017/01/137406/trump-violence-against-women-grants-cut

This is the headline

"Donald Trump Might Cut Violence-Against-Women Programs"

So you're wrong claiming that and it's pure speculation.

3- http://www.snopes.com/trump-terror-watch-program/ According to this you're wrong

Yes, he has planned this: not implemented yet

So more speculation then.

Why would you exclude deliberately hosting the biggest platform for white supremacists, KKK, Nazis etc. in the US? Why would you omit a full section of BN entitled 'Black crime'?

Recently he omitted that Jewish people were targetted in Trumps holocaust speech. His wife reported that he went spare with her for trying to enrol his estranged kids in a school with Jewish children etc.

So no actual proof and just more speculation? Breitbart is far right, it's not a nazi or kkk site.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-attorney-general-jeff-sessions-racist-remarks_us_582cd73ae4b099512f80c0c2

Sessions you're right he lost a position because of remarks I'll concede that. He has a checkered past.

The rest of your points are garbage. The US are responsible for Iraq and Hussein and it was all based on one big fat lie. The "We came, we saw, he died" spiel with Gaddafi isn't far behind.

Zubeneschamali

Suryavarman wrote: »

Obama enacted Executive orders at a lower rate than any President since Grover Cleveland.

Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Now will you answer the 5 questions I replied to? Because most of what you said appears to be untrue.

You said this demonstrates that Obama/Bill Clinton are Fascists. This says that they talked about deporting criminals who are also illegal immigrants. I did not see any reference to a muslim ban, banning green card holders, or stopping refugees. Please stop wasting my time with nonsense.