American Politics

[shionoro]

Damn, this vid is too savage not to showcase, Anonymous view on trump and how will Us be in the following years possibilities (also election things mentioned):

But anonymous is not a credible source for anything.
Where were those guys when he was elected, anyway?
Oh wait, bashing clinton.

 

[xi0]

But anonymous is not a credible source for anything.
Where were those guys when he was elected, anyway?
Oh wait, bashing clinton.

They still do that later in the video by bringing up her campaign's effort to Pied-Piper Trump through the media.

I don't think them speaking the truth about Trump's impulsiveness means that they've changed their tune. Well, I mean, not like there's a reason to believe they aren't some nebulous collective with no real official platform. There's dozens of Anonymous channels on Youtube.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

Damn, this vid is too savage not to showcase, Anonymous view on trump and how will Us be in the following years possibilities (also election things mentioned):

Well, they're not wrong. Their "prediction" seems likely to happen in the next 4 years (if not, 8 assuming the Democrats don't learn from anything), but the thought about what they say is quite scary.

 

[Aonori]

But anonymous is not a credible source for anything.
Where were those guys when he was elected, anyway?
Oh wait, bashing clinton.

Anonymous as had a lot of controversy regarding this lol, but their points, are legit, trump is too much of a wild-card here, which is the most risky result of this election, at least with Hillary you knew what you were signing up for when you voted, with trump you only know a part of what you are getting and not even the costs.

Also another funny thing, some of the conservative channels are bashing trump on "approving torture", it took them a while, to disagree with him lol.

 

[SharkBait]

Trump is delivering on his campaign promises, for that I am glad. He could have been like some other candidates and changed their promises once they were sworn in.

 

[Aonori]

Well, they're not wrong. Their "prediction" seems likely to happen in the next 4 years (if not, 8 assuming the Democrats don't learn from anything), but the thought about what they say is quite scary.

Yeah and when it comes to the police risks they are absolutely correct.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 30, 2017, Original Post Date: Jan 30, 2017 ---

Trump is delivering on his campaign promises, for that I am glad. He could have been like some other candidates and changed their promises once they were sworn in.

I´m glad on that too.

 

[Onyx Darkmatter]

Trump is delivering on his campaign promises

Pretty much the only thing I can praise Trump for, because at least he's trying to fulfill his words (be it great policies or super shitty ones).

 

[M3J]

I never said Muslims shouldnt be allowed to come in to the country. I said people from countries harboring anti American terrorists ought not come here. A ban on such individuals is very sensible as it enables us to remain in a secure homeland. There is much less risk of people remaining in their terrorist ridden countries causing harm on us than if they were actually here on American soil. Youre kind of limited in what you can do to Americans in America if youre physically in Libya for example. No one is saying it is a ban on a certain religion, I mean, theres no way to even prove that the person is a follower of such religion, they could just lie when they are being vetted. A country ban is easily more practical.

Wouldnt people fleeing persecution be on a refugee vetting multi year long process anyway?

Would that include Christians as well? Or are they okay just because they're not Muslims? That's a ridiculous and dumb view. If Muslims and Christians need to seek asylum here, then they should be allowed to. Same goes for any religion. We are in more danger from Christians and homegrown citizens than we are from refugees, who are vetted very well, and anyone else. More Americans have died by white Christian men's hands than Muslims' or radical Islamists'. Does that mean we should ban white men or Christians?

Instead of making up stuff, share proof that refugees are dangerous, or more dangerous than Americans. It's a ban on Muslims, and it's obvious.

And no, you are not limited. What stops North Korea from dropping a bomb on us? What stops Nazis from hijacking a plane and throwing it straight at a US skyscraper?

Yes it is, which is why we're very safe from refugees and why we need not fear anything. No terrorist would ever think about entering this country as a refugee, it's easier to do so on visas. Refugees themselves can tell you how hard it is to get an entry, and why no terrorist would ever choose a path where they're most likely to fail. If we had this kind of vetting process for people who want to buy guns, we'd be safer.

How is it not a preventative measure? It certainly isn't one based on something that has already happened in the US. I feel like we're arguing over semantics here because you think I'm somehow justifying it. I'm not, I'm merely stating what it exist(ed) to do, prevent a terrorist act. I was never arguing over whether it made any sense or not. It's obviously clear now that the White House didn't even bother conferring with the State Department before signing it.

The countries mentioned in the ban are either poorer and less influential predominantly muslim countries and/or countries the US has very little political or economic ties to. The ones notably absent are also ones that Trump has business ties to, but the same could be said of a dozen other 1%ers. The only notable exception is probably Egypt. So a Trump supporter could see this and think "ah, he's finally doing something!", when in reality the policy here is rather status quo in regards to who our allies are and who aren't. The glaring weakness of it is the chaos it created, because the people in the White House are negligent and inept, and that could have been predicted months and months ago. The fact that it didn't hold up to legal scrutiny either isn't surprising either.

We already have a preventative measure in vetting, and it's been 99% effective, at the very least. I'm disagreeing that the goal was to serve as a preventative measure.

The countries mentioned in the ban are also the countries that saw little to no violence towards Americans, if sources are correct.

Saudi Arabia gets special treatment just like Israel, standard US foreign policy nothing to see here.

Forgot the specifics, but they say it's not the same at all.

But yesterday there was a terror strike in North American soil by someone from one of the countries in that region.

IF you're talking about the Quebec mosque attack, that was done by a white Canadian nationalist. Once again proving that white people and Christians can be just as much terrorist as Muslims. If you were aware, you'd also realize far more white people have committed acts of terrorism than Muslims.

 

[SharkBait]

Once again democrats are all talk & no action. Republicans always put their words into action.

 

[xi0]

https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/a-few-thoughts-on-the-muslim-ban

A pretty fair and balanced approach to this entire ban nonsense IMO.

 

[James Rye]

Heard a five-year old was hold for five hours in handcuffs in an airport in Washington due the ban. And when Sean Spiver was questioned why a young boy was arrested because of that ban, he said it is stupid to assume because of somebody's age and gender he or she is harmless. I mean, we are talking about a five year old boy here, not a 25 year old known terrorists. And then later it was found out that the boy was actually an US-american citizen.

And now Trump fired the commissary Justice minister for not having the same opinion as him. That seems very chaotic so far what is happening in the White House.

 

[shionoro]

´m glad on that too.

How can you be glad about trump destroying civil rights?

 

[GrySun]

And now Trump fired the commissary Justice minister for not having the same opinion as him. That seems very chaotic so far what is happening in the White House.

Fired for not doing her job you mean.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 31, 2017, Original Post Date: Jan 31, 2017 ---

How can you be glad about trump destroying civil rights?

What civil rights has he destroyed exactly?

 

[shionoro]

What civil rights has he destroyed exactly?

Genova Convention aside?

https://newrepublic.com/article/138854/trump-era-already-disaster-civil-rights

Read about Jeff Sessions, who is going to be attorney general now and tell me that this will be good for civil rights.
After Trump already thought loudly about overturning Roe Wade, that is.

 

[GrySun]

Genova Convention aside?

https://newrepublic.com/article/138854/trump-era-already-disaster-civil-rights

Read about Jeff Sessions, who is going to be attorney general now and tell me that this will be good for civil rights.
After Trump already thought loudly about overturning Roe Wade, that is.

So because Jeff Sessions scares you you say Trump is destroying civil rights? And here I thought something actually happened, silly me..

 

[shionoro]

So because Jeff Sessions scares you you say Trump is destroying civil rights? And here I thought something actually happened, silly me..

Something happened.
The president appointed a person who wants to destroy civil rights and did so whenever it was in his power.
Or is appointing such a man no action?
Here i thought that a president is responsible for who he appoints, silly me.
Obviously trump is not responsible for anything he does and we should give him a chance until he silenced all journalists and purged the government of everyone daring to oppose him.

 

[GrySun]

Something happened.
The president appointed a person who wants to destroy civil rights and did so whenever it was in his power.
Or is appointing such a man no action?
Here i thought that a president is responsible for who he appoints, silly me.
Obviously trump is not responsible for anything he does and we should give him a chance until he silenced all journalists and purged the government of everyone daring to oppose him.

I'm really not sure what you're arguing here. Of course Trump is responsible for the people he appoints. And you can criticize those people and his choices and talk about what could happen.
But what you're doing is already calling him out for destroying civil rights before anything even happened. That's quite a lot of misinformation you're saying here and confusing people like me. Can't you contain your hate until something actually happens?

 

[shionoro]

I'm really not sure what you're arguing here. Of course Trump is responsible for the people he appoints. And you can criticize those people and his choices and talk about what could happen.
But what you're doing is already calling him out for destroying civil rights before anything even happened. That's quite a lot of misinformation you're saying here and confusing people like me. Can't you contain your hate until something actually happens?

I am talking about what will happen if you appoint a guy like that, or at least what you and he intend to do with that.

Should i wait until the press is dead like in germany back then?
There are things happening, appointing nazis. Actual nazis. That is something that happens.
I don't have to wait whether they will really try to further their agenda if they finally get power. And doing so would be ridicoulus.

The bullshit muslim ban already happened.
Trump declaring war on the media already happened.
Trump and Tillerson escalating relations with china already happened.
Trump giving israel a freepass to build more settlements already happened.
Trump Trying to defund planned parenthood already happened.

How long should i wait really? Give me some point.
Should i wait until it is too late and then feel rightous in my powerlessness?

That is really silly.

 

[GrySun]

How long should you wait...for what exactly? There's nothing you can do about who Trump appoints. You can voice your disdain all you like, but saying Trump is destroying civil rights is simply wrong right now. I'm telling you not to spread false information and confusing people.

And btw that's a ban on nationalities not a muslim ban. You can read the actual executive order if you want.

 

[shionoro]

How long should you wait...for what exactly? There's nothing you can do about who Trump appoints. You can voice your disdain all you like, but saying Trump is destroying civil rights is simply wrong right now. I'm telling you not to spread false information and confusing people.

And btw that's a ban on nationalities not a muslim ban. You can read the actual executive order if you want.

Of course there are things you can do.
I donate to ACLU, for example, who succesfully oppose the Muslim ban so far.

Trump destroying civil rights is not wrong.
He is already taking steps to take power from the press, he appoints someone who is deadset on taking away civil rights and he appoints neonazis who similarly are set on taking rights away from muslim groups and so on.

And it is a muslim ban. Trump himself called it one. Please don't delude yourself there.
If it was a ban on certain nationalities they wouldnt suddenly think about maybe letting christians in.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 31, 2017, Original Post Date: Jan 31, 2017 ---

And obviously another thing you can do is not being silent about the insanity that trump pulls out now by his muslim ban and his war on press.

Now is the time to speak up and point to all the nonsense he intends to do or already did.
It is time to be vocal for anyone opposed to this madness because when else would be the time, i ask you again?

When things get even worse than now?