• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

President Trump: Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
I get your larger point about barriers to communication but I have my doubts about a "healthy middle". "Middle" compared to what? Given the substantial shift of the Overton window since Reagan, I'm not sure any metric of the political middle in 2017 has much value.

Is the middle on climate change a good place to be? How about torture? What is the middle on those who would privatize our national park system?

My sense is that you are a proponent of living in the reality-based community. Are you sure that that position is congruent with the "middle"?

What I'm saying is that when the discussion isn't fact-based but opinion-based, which is almost always the case when discussing morality or social issues, the best way to find solutions or improvements to our situation is to compromise and work together, not engage in an endless tug-of-war.
 
What I'm saying is that when the discussion isn't fact-based but opinion-based, which is almost always the case when discussing morality or social issues, the best way to find solutions or improvements to our situation is to compromise and work together, not engage in an endless tug-of-war.
So how will you compromise with and work together with Trump's torture squads? The pincers will be only red hot, not white hot?
 
Barack Obama spent the best part of 8 years trying to compromise with conservatives. Didn't work.
 
I don't think Donald Trump has much respect for the law with regard to torture. I fully appreciate that in the UK at the time of James 1 that the rack was used extensively to obtain information. That doesn't mean it was right. George Washington never used torture on British prisoners of war in the American war of Independence, even though the British tortured Americans.

There is a bit of background to this matter in a book called The Rule of Law by a former British judge, Tom Bingham:

Particularly disturbing to proponents of the rule of law is the cynical lack of concern for international legality among some top officials in the Bush administration. Thus in one memorandum the Deputy Assistant Attorney General (John Yoo), writing to the Counsel to the President, advised:

"Thus we conclude that the Bush administration's understanding created a valid and effective reservation to the Torture Convention. Even if if it were otherwise, there is no international court to review the conduct of the United States under the Convention. In an additional reservation, the United States refused to accept the jurisdiction of the (international Court of Justice} (which, in any event, could hear only a case brought by another state, not by an individual) to adjudicate cases under the Convention. Although the Convention creates a Committee to monitor compliance, it can only conduct studies and has no enforcement powers."
 
Last edited:
If Trump does try to impose such a fee and corporations are exempt then buy Western Union stock because they'll be in fat city.

Let's be realistic. Trump HAS to build something on the border because that is what he campaigned on. And Mexico won't pay a dime because any politician who considers it will be dead in 24 hours. Thus, we, the citizen tax payers will end up footing the bill for Trump's Folly. Worse, Trump's Folly will have absolutely zero affect on net cross-border migration. None. Zip. Nada. Zilch.

This statement seems rather odd. Of course a border wall will have a net effect on illegal migration. Making passage more difficult will result in fewer people making it across one way or another. The issue is rather isn't there a better way of spending the money (i.e. a virtual wall, since any wall will have to be well watched anyway and the physical barrier doesn't do enough to be worth it) and whether stopping illegal immigration is worth spending so much money on in the first place. If the money were spent on investment in Mexico or wherever, maybe fewer people would want to cross, solving or at least reducing the scope of the problem and improving a neighboring country at the same time.

Walls do work if you want to stop people from going from one place to another. They just don't work well or efficiently.

McHrozni
 
So how will you compromise with and work together with Trump's torture squads? The pincers will be only red hot, not white hot?

I think you're misunderstanding me. There _is_ no compromise with the extremists, only with other moderates who disagree with you. Left-leaning moderates and right-leaning moderates can reach agreements. Ideologues cannot.
 
I think you're misunderstanding me. There _is_ no compromise with the extremists, only with other moderates who disagree with you. Left-leaning moderates and right-leaning moderates can reach agreements. Ideologues cannot.

I'm not sure there are any right-leaning moderates left. At least on the US left-right scale.
 
He had an interesting interview with David Muir.

That location was given to me. Mike Pence went up before me, paid great homage to the wall. I then went up, paid great homage to the wall. I then spoke to the crowd. I got a standing ovation. In fact, they said it was the biggest standing ovation since Peyton Manning had won the Super Bowl and they said it was equal. I got a standing ovation. It lasted for a long period of time. What you do is take -- take out your tape -- you probably ran it live. I know when I do good speeches. I know when I do bad speeches. That speech was a total home run. They loved it. I could've ...

He's bragging about the claque he brought to the CIA. Also, Peyton Manning never addressed the CIA. He either thinks he got bigger standing ovation in a CIA briefing room than Manning did in a football stadium or Manning spoke to the CIA. Neither of those thoughts are sane. This man should be in an asylum not the White House.
 
The way President Trump tells it, the meandering, falsehood-filled, self-involved speech that he gave at the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters was one of the greatest addresses ever given.

“That speech was a home run,” Trump told ABC News just a few minutes into his first major television interview since moving into the White House. “See what Fox said. They said it was one of the great speeches. They showed the people applauding and screaming. … I got a standing ovation. In fact, they said it was the biggest standing ovation since Peyton Manning had won the Super Bowl, and they said it was equal. I got a standing ovation. It lasted for a long period of time.”

The most powerful man in the world continued: “You probably ran it live. I know when I do good speeches. I know when I do bad speeches. That speech was a total home run. They loved it. … People loved it. They loved it. They gave me a standing ovation for a long period of time. They never even sat down, most of them, during the speech. There was love in the room. You and other networks covered it very inaccurately. … That speech was a good speech. And you and a couple of other networks tried to downplay that speech. And it was very, very unfortunate that you did.”

...

Muir cut him off: “I don't want to compare crowd sizes again.”

But Trump did. As the two toured Trump's new home, the president stopped in front of a framed photo of his inauguration crowd.

“Here's a picture of the crowd,” the president explained to the nation he now leads. “Now, the audience was the biggest ever, but this crowd was massive. Look how far back it goes. This crowd was massive. And I would actually take that camera and take your time [scanning the crowd] if you want to know the truth.”

Then the president took Muir to see another image, a panoramic photo by a local artist who has taken the exact same shot at each inauguration since Reagan was in office. (The other years were not presented for contrast.)

“One thing this shows is how far over they go here,” Trump said, walking up close to the print and pointing as he spoke. “Look. Look how far this is. This goes all the way down here. All the way down. Nobody sees that. You don't see that in the pictures. But when you look at this tremendous sea of love — I call it a sea of love. It's really something special, that all these people traveled here from all parts of the country, maybe the world, but all parts of the country. Hard for them to get here. Many of these people were the forgotten men and women, many of them. And they loved what I had to say. More importantly, they're going to love the result.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...p-is-endlessly-obsessed-about-his-popularity/

This would be the perfect time for those "checks and balances" to kick in.
 
Part of me now wants Morning Joe to do an updated take on The War of the Worlds (radio drama) to see what Trump does in response.

In the middle of high-level meetings he’ll take phone calls from MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, on whose show he recently surprised the world by declaring "let it be an arms race," while Scarborough and co-host Mika Brzezinski sat in their pajamas on a Christmas-themed set, digesting his nuclear rhetoric.

Yet he also deeply cares about The New York Times, calling the paper "a great, great American jewel" hours after calling it "failing." He has forced other world leaders to come to him, yet made rare departures from Trump Tower to visit the Times and Hearst during the transition.

"It’s not just media reporters and media critics are making Trump front and center, it’s that Trump is making the media front and center," said David Folkenflik, the NPR media correspondent. "There has not been much of a transformation in Trump’s impulse at least not discernibly toward the media as he has become president and moved on from being a candidate."
 
He had an interesting interview with David Muir.

He's bragging about the claque he brought to the CIA. Also, Peyton Manning never addressed the CIA. He either thinks he got bigger standing ovation in a CIA briefing room than Manning did in a football stadium or Manning spoke to the CIA. Neither of those thoughts are sane. This man should be in an asylum not the White House.
This sounds pretty much like the mad Roman Emperor Nero, a comparison that has already been noticed.
 
The MIT number of 40B max has been widely quoted, as has the Bernstein number of 25B max. I tend to believe the higher estimates, you know how construction is.

Just as information, Konstantin Kakaes the person who wrote the article in the MIT Review, is not a member of MIT. he is a fellow at the The America Foundation, a non-partisan Washington-based think tank. He describes himself as a journalist. Link Most of his career has been in journalism. (One assignment I found fascinating was, he spent five years as the Mexico City correspondent for The Economist.)

My point being, this is an interesting article but it was not written by an engineer, or builder or a technical person, or someone on the staff at MIT. Kakaes does seem like an interesting guy, though.
 
I'm not sure there are any right-leaning moderates left.

When you put it like that, it sure gives an excuse to avoid compromise yourself, doesn't it?

My point is that there are people who are reasonable on both sides, but you're not going to reach the ones on the right if you treat them all like dangerous lunatics.
 
Last edited:
98f65c02250b102d94d7001438c0f03b.gif

By Bill Watterson
 
Last edited:
He had an interesting interview with David Muir.



He's bragging about the claque he brought to the CIA. Also, Peyton Manning never addressed the CIA. He either thinks he got bigger standing ovation in a CIA briefing room than Manning did in a football stadium or Manning spoke to the CIA. Neither of those thoughts are sane. This man should be in an asylum not the White House.

Oh, no. He's not saying he got a bigger standing ovation. He's saying that there hasn't been a larger one than his since the Manning one. Think about that for a moment. It's even more insane, I think.
 
When you put it like that, it sure gives an excuse to avoid compromise yourself, doesn't it?

My point is that there are people who are reasonable on both sides, but you're not going to reach the ones on the right if you treat them all like dangerous lunatics.

Who are reasonable on the right? Names please.
 
When you put it like that, it sure gives an excuse to avoid compromise yourself, doesn't it?

My point is that there are people who are reasonable on both sides, but you're not going to reach the ones on the right if you treat them all like dangerous lunatics.
You'd better phone up Theresa May. According to the BBC
Theresa May has been "unequivocal" in her position on the use of torture, Downing Street has told lobby journalists. The spokesman insisted that the UK does not condone torture or inhumane treatment in any circumstances.

He made the comments after US President Donald Trump suggested that the use of torture against terrorists is under consideration.​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom