Right, the stay is temporary pending the trial. The stay was granted, and upheld, on the basis of the likelihood of success of the state. There was no reason to keep it in place while planning for trial. The Government couldn't prove the need to keep it in place.
Lawyers on both sides of the argument were freaking morons and not prepared in front of the appeals circuit
Washington state lawyer couldnt even present a numbers argument on muslims affected when asked.
Trump adminstration lawyer. Complete dumbass , couldnt even provide the 60 counts of convicted terrorism charges on US Soil from those 7 countries since 2001. Wasnt prepared at all. The no terrorist acts from those countries since 9/11 is a lie repeated over and over from opponents of the EO. Judge Robart even used the lie in his arguments against the EO when he ruled on the stay of it
So a half dozen rotten apples pass inspection, and Trump's reaction is to burn the whole orchard. That's an overreaction on multiple levels.
The seven countries are orchards. The immigrants are the apples, in case you didn't get it.
Sorry, but not letting in green card holders, that's assinine. America, the land of the free, except for you guys. We don't want your kind 'round here.
god damnit stardust. Nobody banned green card holders. There was confusion in the language of the order with terms of a waiver. It was clarified and everything was fixed.
Thats a damn non issue that you feel compelled to keep bringing up. You routinely chime in this thread with either a lack of understanding the situation or lacking facts rants that steer the discussion slightly off topic.
it really sucks that i even need to defend donald effing trump in the first place. thats how ridiculous the media assault has been on him. he does feed it with some comments but he can do no right. We are about to get progress on tax reform it looks like. I cant wait to hear that coverage right in the heart of tax season
you are being like bernie sanders.coming at it on an all emotional argument. no facts or sense. Why these refugees stardust? there are people under oppression or horrible living conditions everywhere. where do you draw the line. ask european countries how the refugees are doing for them. these people have a cost tied to them by the way. its not free to take them in. thats my main gripe against refugees. where do you draw the line?
japan has taken 11 refugees. they are taking no more. so why is there no uproar over them? they are a major global player. why do some get to protect themselves and others not?
and here you go again. did you even read the link you posted? headline is clickbait garbage. putin gave no declaration. that was a guess on something he could do if the sanctions stay. it was an opinion piece that could easily be detected by the big bold red opinion at the top
. so trump keeps russian sanctions in place? isnt that what any president would do in this situation? so is he putins best friend or not? getting a mixed message.
oh and no...no WW3. that shit is being thrown around nearly as much as nazi and hitler. enough
god damnit stardust. Nobody banned green card holders. There was confusion in the language of the order with terms of a waiver. It was clarified and everything was fixed.
Thats a damn non issue that you feel compelled to keep bringing up. You routinely chime in this thread with either a lack of understanding the situation or lacking facts rants that steer the discussion slightly off topic.
it really sucks that i even need to defend donald effing trump in the first place. thats how ridiculous the media assault has been on him. he does feed it with some comments but he can do no right. We are about to get progress on tax reform it looks like. I cant wait to hear that coverage right in the heart of tax season
The court once again disagrees with you:
"At this point, however, we cannot rely upon the Government’s contention that the Executive Order no longer applies to lawful permanent residents. The Government has offered no authority establishing that the White House counsel is empowered to issue an amended order superseding the Executive Order signed by the President and now challenged by the States, and that proposition seems unlikely. Nor has the Government established that the White House counsel’s interpretation of the Executive Order is binding on all executive branch officials responsible for enforcing the Executive Order. The White House counsel is not the President, and he is not known to be in the chain of command for any of the Executive Departments. Moreover, in light of the Government’s shifting interpretations of the Executive Order, we cannot say that the current interpretation by White House counsel, even if authoritative and binding, will persist past the immediate stage of these proceedings. On this record, therefore, we cannot conclude that the Government has shown that it is “absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Friends of the Earth, Inc., v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (emphasis added)."
Indeed, why do anti-Trumpers insist on strawmen arguments? You know, pretending he is against immigrants in general or muslims in general? For those of you in Rio Linda and West Palm Beach, a strawman is where someone argues a pretend position (usually a more extreme or unpopular one) that their opponent doesn't really believe. For example, if someone argues that marijuana should be legal, then a strawman argument would be to reply that legalizing all illegal drugs would be a complete disaster.
I think it's sad that the young folks over at Berkley along with the faculty, administration, and some local people of power actually condone literal terrorism and extremism like.
But, I don't think they represent liberalism just like how Osama Bin Laden doesn't represent Islam.
The people involved in that incident are certainly terrorists and at absolute best violent extremists.
Are you liberal activists sure that Trump and his supporters are Islamophic and can't stand Muslims? Are you sure you're sure it's our side that's against them?
Oh yeah look at that liberal love/tolerance/diversity/etc Trumping hate
Are you liberal activists sure that Trump and his supporters are Islamophic and can't stand Muslims? Are you sure you're sure it's our side that's against them?
I take serious umbgrage at the notion that disagreeing with Trump somehow makes one a "liberal activist".
Also, this "our side" talk perpetuates this ridiculous division.
It's not "your side" or "our side".
It is a political party ideology that you are simply choosing to espouse, but upon which you have no practical influence, whatsoever.
It also claims some sort of monolithic set of beliefs that everybody who agrees or disagrees on a single issue supposedly shares about a wide range of other issues, which is absurd, unless it's assumed that nobody is engaging in any independent thought at all.
For example, if someone argues that marijuana should be legal, then a strawman argument would be to reply that legalizing all illegal drugs would be a complete disaster.
That would actually be more of a slippery slope fallacy, IMO, depending on how the reply was worded.
Are you liberal activists sure that Trump and his supporters are Islamophic and can't stand Muslims? Are you sure you're sure it's our side that's against them?
I take serious umbgrage at the notion that disagreeing with Trump somehow makes one a "liberal activist".
I stop bothering with people who make blanket statements like this. Not you Arch just to be clear. Both sides need to stop doing this. Narrow mindedness like this, is why discussions and debates fail before they ever start. Everyone already has their mind made up about the other "side".
I stop bothering with people who make blanket statements like this. Not you Arch just to be clear. Both sides need to stop doing this. Narrow mindedness like this, is why discussions and debates fail before they ever start. Everyone already has their mind made up about the other "side".
I guess my questions to anybody that purports to be "on a side" rather than a free thinking individual who may agree or disagree on specific issues is:
1) are you actually a political figure with any genuine influence on the laws or process?
2) do you have any meaningful influence with any such political figure?
3) at a bare minimum, are you somehow involved in politics by organizing or otherwise publicizing anything to encourage change?
If the answer to all 3 is "no" then you aren't REALLY "on a side"... you are pretty much just parroting what that "side" claims as their views, with no contribution of your own, if you are claiming "a side".
That said, I think "unaffiliated" individuals can definitely have useful and meaningful conversations about issues.
I just think when it turns into some silly "us vs them" situation of broadly defined "sides" it as crossed over into the absurd.
Are you liberal activists sure that Trump and his supporters are Islamophic and can't stand Muslims? Are you sure you're sure it's our side that's against them?
I take serious umbgrage at the notion that disagreeing with Trump somehow makes one a "liberal activist"
Nooooo, if you were paying attention I was refering specifically to the liberal activists out there who are rioting and smashing/burning things and using tactics like that to scare away people from coming to colleges as speakers (such as Milo at UC-Berkley) because their views differ from theirs. Not people in general who disagree with Trump who mostly are responsible enough to do so without acting like complete idiots
Are you liberal activists sure that Trump and his supporters are Islamophic and can't stand Muslims? Are you sure you're sure it's our side that's against them?
I take serious umbgrage at the notion that disagreeing with Trump somehow makes one a "liberal activist"
Nooooo, if you were paying attention I was refering specifically to the liberal activists out there who are rioting and smashing/burning things and using tactics like that to scare away people from coming to colleges as speakers (such as Milo at UC-Berkley) because their views differ from theirs. Not people in general who disagree with Trump who mostly are responsible enough to do so without acting like complete idiots
From your line of posting it was not entirely clear if you were solely referring to the people in those videos or if you were making a generalization that the people in those videos are somehow inherently affiliated with all people posting disagreement with what Trump has been doing.
Yes I was indeed referring to those destructive liberal activists. Of course I don't think anywhere near all Trump opponents are like that (in fact it wasn't until a few months prior to the election that I truly was convinced Trump was "for real"; wasn't really for or against him exactly, it was just he was this weird/oddball guy and I wasn't sure if he was gonna go the distance in terms of the wide open R nomination race). No different than how when Obama was president people who disagreed with him were stereotyped as racists and such. I had no issue with his race at all...I saw him as just another liberal Democrat who was getting in way over his head (he was horribly underqualified in 2008 for President).
Yes I was indeed referring to those destructive liberal activists. Of course I don't think anywhere near all Trump opponents are like that (in fact it wasn't until a few months prior to the election that I truly was convinced Trump was "for real"; wasn't really for or against him exactly, it was just he was this weird/oddball guy and I wasn't sure if he was gonna go the distance in terms of the wide open R nomination race). No different than how when Obama was president people who disagreed with him were stereotyped as racists and such. I had no issue with his race at all...I saw him as just another liberal Democrat who was getting in way over his head (he was horribly underqualified in 2008 for President).
Not saying you are saying this, but Trump is also nowhere near qualified when it comes to being president. He has NO political experience at all. And IMO came off as just another 1%er saying exactly what you want to hear as he slowly steps behind you and unbuttons his pants.
I saw him as just another liberal Democrat who was getting in way over his head (he was horribly underqualified in 2008 for President).
Junior Bush was perfectly qualified, being a former governor, and he was horrendous. Experience isn't everything.
Obama's main flaw IMO was thinking that he could work with the Tea Party politicians. It took a few years before he caught on that these people were not going to work with him and block him just because he symbolized everything they hated.
Yes I was indeed referring to those destructive liberal activists. Of course I don't think anywhere near all Trump opponents are like that (in fact it wasn't until a few months prior to the election that I truly was convinced Trump was "for real"; wasn't really for or against him exactly, it was just he was this weird/oddball guy and I wasn't sure if he was gonna go the distance in terms of the wide open R nomination race). No different than how when Obama was president people who disagreed with him were stereotyped as racists and such. I had no issue with his race at all...I saw him as just another liberal Democrat who was getting in way over his head (he was horribly underqualified in 2008 for President).
Not saying you are saying this, but Trump is also nowhere near qualified when it comes to being president. He has NO political experience at all.
And he's pretty much proving it. He's kind of sitting on his ass and signing whatever is put in front of him. Heck, he would have signed a bill unfavorable to LGBT people if his kids hadn't stepped in.
Yes I was indeed referring to those destructive liberal activists. Of course I don't think anywhere near all Trump opponents are like that (in fact it wasn't until a few months prior to the election that I truly was convinced Trump was "for real"; wasn't really for or against him exactly, it was just he was this weird/oddball guy and I wasn't sure if he was gonna go the distance in terms of the wide open R nomination race). No different than how when Obama was president people who disagreed with him were stereotyped as racists and such. I had no issue with his race at all...I saw him as just another liberal Democrat who was getting in way over his head (he was horribly underqualified in 2008 for President).
Not saying you are saying this, but Trump is also nowhere near qualified when it comes to being president. He has NO political experience at all.
And he's pretty much proving it. He's kind of sitting on his ass and signing whatever is put in front of him. Heck, he would have signed a bill unfavorable to LGBT people if his kids hadn't stepped in.
Coincidentally, Politico just put out an article on how his inexperience is frustrating Trump:
"In interviews, nearly two dozen people who’ve spent time with Trump in the three weeks since his inauguration said that his mood has careened between surprise and anger as he’s faced the predictable realities of governing, from congressional delays over his cabinet nominations and legal fights holding up his aggressive initiatives to staff in-fighting and leaks.
...
Trump often asks simple questions about policies, proposals and personnel. And, when discussions get bogged down in details, the president has been known to quickly change the subject — to "seem in control at all times," one senior government official said — or direct questions about details to his chief strategist Steve Bannon, his son-in-law Jared Kushner or House Speaker Paul Ryan. Trump has privately expressed disbelief over the ability of judges, bureaucrats or lawmakers to delay — or even stop — him from filling positions and implementing policies."
About the riots in Berkeley, weren't these mainly anarchist idiots? Here in Mexico they tend to disrupt otherwise peaceful demonstrations.
Yup. But in a good amount of Trump voters eyes, it was every "liberal" that exists doing those crimes. Of course not all Trump supporters jump to conclusions like that though.
Out of curiosity, how do you guys feel about Ivankas clothing and shoes being made in china and other countries? After her dads whole spiel was about making things in America because China is destroying America financially and we are sending all our work out? Not looking to argue, just curious.
Out of curiosity, how do you guys feel about Ivankas clothing and shoes being made in china and other countries? After her dads whole spiel was about making things in America because China is destroying America financially and we are sending all our work out?
I'd be surprised of somebody making clothes in China instead of a cheaper country like Bangladesh or Vietnam, honestly.
Chinese labor is too expensive compared to some of its regional neighbors in lowtech things like garment fabrication.
But Ivanka isn't her dad, and she isn't personally beholden to whatever he might say politically, IMO.
Trump, on the other hand, has pretty readily duped millions of blue collar workers into believing his economic statements, and they desperately want to believe him for emotional reasons rather than recognizing pragmatic realities of capitalism.
Out of curiosity, how do you guys feel about Ivankas clothing and shoes being made in china and other countries? After her dads whole spiel was about making things in America because China is destroying America financially and we are sending all our work out?
I'd be surprised of somebody making clothes in China instead of a cheaper country like Bangladesh or Vietnam, honestly.
Chinese labor is too expensive compared to some of its regional neighbors in lowtech things like garment fabrication.
But Ivanka isn't her dad, and she isn't personally beholden to whatever he might say politically, IMO.
Trump, on the other hand, has pretty readily duped millions of blue collar workers into believing his economic statements, and they desperately want to believe him for emotional reasons rather than recognizing pragmatic realities of capitalism.
You are right, they are being made in bangladesh, indonesia, and China. That is why i said China and other countries. It is still outsourcing jobs though and getting cheap labor.
That is fine that she isn't her dad, but it certainly doesn't look good when your own daughter is part of the demonized 1% that Trump is claiming is "ruining" the country and who we need to be fighting IMO
That is fine that she isn't her dad, but it certainly doesn't look good when your own daughter is part of the demonized 1% that Trump is claiming is "ruining" the country IMO
Hence my comment about Trump duping certain categories of the electorate in the first place with commentary that is disingenuous, at best.
The only ways that certain types of manufacturing come back to the USA for anything other than super-premium brands is going to be:
1) brands that cater to custom quick-turn arounds where slow-boat shipping isn't acceptable
2) a shift in energy that makes long distance shipping prohibitively expensive
3) automation that replaces what garment workers do in super cheap countries, which STILL doesn't give those jobs back to Americans
Hey, remember a few weeks back when Trump said he might drop support for the One China policy? Maybe use it as a bargaining chip for a sweeter deal with China?
Well Trump has re-affirmed the US support of the One China policy today, getting jack-squat from China. The guy is embarrassing himself with his Twitter feed. He makes a bold claim, China calls his bluff, and makes himself look like a paper tiger to the world.
Comments
Right, the stay is temporary pending the trial. The stay was granted, and upheld, on the basis of the likelihood of success of the state. There was no reason to keep it in place while planning for trial. The Government couldn't prove the need to keep it in place.
Lawyers on both sides of the argument were freaking morons and not prepared in front of the appeals circuit
Washington state lawyer couldnt even present a numbers argument on muslims affected when asked.
Trump adminstration lawyer. Complete dumbass , couldnt even provide the 60 counts of convicted terrorism charges on US Soil from those 7 countries since 2001. Wasnt prepared at all. The no terrorist acts from those countries since 9/11 is a lie repeated over and over from opponents of the EO. Judge Robart even used the lie in his arguments against the EO when he ruled on the stay of it
So a half dozen rotten apples pass inspection, and Trump's reaction is to burn the whole orchard. That's an overreaction on multiple levels.
The seven countries are orchards. The immigrants are the apples, in case you didn't get it.
Sorry, but not letting in green card holders, that's assinine. America, the land of the free, except for you guys. We don't want your kind 'round here.
Thats a damn non issue that you feel compelled to keep bringing up. You routinely chime in this thread with either a lack of understanding the situation or lacking facts rants that steer the discussion slightly off topic.
it really sucks that i even need to defend donald effing trump in the first place. thats how ridiculous the media assault has been on him. he does feed it with some comments but he can do no right. We are about to get progress on tax reform it looks like. I cant wait to hear that coverage right in the heart of tax season
Gonna change the subject here for a moment. Precurser to WWIII?
http://www.newsweek.com/putin-trump-lift-sanctions-or-ukraine-gets-it-554691
PUTIN TO TRUMP: LIFT SANCTIONS OR UKRAINE GETS IT!
Okay Quest I give up. So I guess we just let the refugees die. No hard feelings...
Gonna change the subject here for a moment. Precurser to WWIII?
http://www.newsweek.com/putin-tru...
you are being like bernie sanders.coming at it on an all emotional argument. no facts or sense. Why these refugees stardust? there are people under oppression or horrible living conditions everywhere. where do you draw the line. ask european countries how the refugees are doing for them. these people have a cost tied to them by the way. its not free to take them in. thats my main gripe against refugees. where do you draw the line?
japan has taken 11 refugees. they are taking no more. so why is there no uproar over them? they are a major global player. why do some get to protect themselves and others not?
and here you go again. did you even read the link you posted? headline is clickbait garbage. putin gave no declaration. that was a guess on something he could do if the sanctions stay. it was an opinion piece that could easily be detected by the big bold red opinion at the top
. so trump keeps russian sanctions in place? isnt that what any president would do in this situation? so is he putins best friend or not? getting a mixed message.
oh and no...no WW3. that shit is being thrown around nearly as much as nazi and hitler. enough
Okay Quest I give up. So I guess we just let the refugees die. No hard feelings...
Gonna change the subject here for a moment. Precurser to WWIII?
http://www.newsweek.com/putin-trump-lift-sanctions-or-ukrain...
you are being like bernie sanders.coming at it on an all emotional argument. no facts or sense.
To be fair, Trump's EO was based on an emotional appeal to his base, not facts or sense...
god damnit stardust. Nobody banned green card holders. There was confusion in the language of the order with terms of a waiver. It was clarified and everything was fixed.
Thats a damn non issue that you feel compelled to keep bringing up. You routinely chime in this thread with either a lack of understanding the situation or lacking facts rants that steer the discussion slightly off topic.
it really sucks that i even need to defend donald effing trump in the first place. thats how ridiculous the media assault has been on him. he does feed it with some comments but he can do no right. We are about to get progress on tax reform it looks like. I cant wait to hear that coverage right in the heart of tax season
The court once again disagrees with you:
"At this point, however, we cannot rely upon the Government’s contention that the Executive Order no longer applies to lawful permanent residents. The Government has offered no authority establishing that the White House counsel is empowered to issue an amended order superseding the Executive Order signed by the President and now challenged by the States, and that proposition seems unlikely. Nor has the Government established that the White House counsel’s interpretation of the Executive Order is binding on all executive branch officials responsible for enforcing the Executive Order. The White House counsel is not the President, and he is not known to be in the chain of command for any of the Executive Departments. Moreover, in light of the Government’s shifting interpretations of the Executive Order, we cannot say that the current interpretation by White House counsel, even if authoritative and binding, will persist past the immediate stage of these proceedings. On this record, therefore, we cannot conclude that the Government has shown that it is “absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Friends of the Earth, Inc., v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (emphasis added)."
I think it's sad that the young folks over at Berkley along with the faculty, administration, and some local people of power actually condone literal terrorism and extremism like.
But, I don't think they represent liberalism just like how Osama Bin Laden doesn't represent Islam.
The people involved in that incident are certainly terrorists and at absolute best violent extremists.
Oh yeah look at that liberal love/tolerance/diversity/etc Trumping hate
Are you liberal activists sure that Trump and his supporters are Islamophic and can't stand Muslims? Are you sure you're sure it's our side that's against them?
I take serious umbgrage at the notion that disagreeing with Trump somehow makes one a "liberal activist".
Also, this "our side" talk perpetuates this ridiculous division.
It's not "your side" or "our side".
It is a political party ideology that you are simply choosing to espouse, but upon which you have no practical influence, whatsoever.
It also claims some sort of monolithic set of beliefs that everybody who agrees or disagrees on a single issue supposedly shares about a wide range of other issues, which is absurd, unless it's assumed that nobody is engaging in any independent thought at all.
For example, if someone argues that marijuana should be legal, then a strawman argument would be to reply that legalizing all illegal drugs would be a complete disaster.
That would actually be more of a slippery slope fallacy, IMO, depending on how the reply was worded.
Are you liberal activists sure that Trump and his supporters are Islamophic and can't stand Muslims? Are you sure you're sure it's our side that's against them?
I take serious umbgrage at the notion that disagreeing with Trump somehow makes one a "liberal activist".
I stop bothering with people who make blanket statements like this. Not you Arch just to be clear. Both sides need to stop doing this. Narrow mindedness like this, is why discussions and debates fail before they ever start. Everyone already has their mind made up about the other "side".
I stop bothering with people who make blanket statements like this. Not you Arch just to be clear. Both sides need to stop doing this. Narrow mindedness like this, is why discussions and debates fail before they ever start. Everyone already has their mind made up about the other "side".
I guess my questions to anybody that purports to be "on a side" rather than a free thinking individual who may agree or disagree on specific issues is:
1) are you actually a political figure with any genuine influence on the laws or process?
2) do you have any meaningful influence with any such political figure?
3) at a bare minimum, are you somehow involved in politics by organizing or otherwise publicizing anything to encourage change?
If the answer to all 3 is "no" then you aren't REALLY "on a side"... you are pretty much just parroting what that "side" claims as their views, with no contribution of your own, if you are claiming "a side".
That said, I think "unaffiliated" individuals can definitely have useful and meaningful conversations about issues.
I just think when it turns into some silly "us vs them" situation of broadly defined "sides" it as crossed over into the absurd.
Are you liberal activists sure that Trump and his supporters are Islamophic and can't stand Muslims? Are you sure you're sure it's our side that's against them?
I take serious umbgrage at the notion that disagreeing with Trump somehow makes one a "liberal activist"
Nooooo, if you were paying attention I was refering specifically to the liberal activists out there who are rioting and smashing/burning things and using tactics like that to scare away people from coming to colleges as speakers (such as Milo at UC-Berkley) because their views differ from theirs. Not people in general who disagree with Trump who mostly are responsible enough to do so without acting like complete idiots
Are you liberal activists sure that Trump and his supporters are Islamophic and can't stand Muslims? Are you sure you're sure it's our side that's against them?
I take serious umbgrage at the notion that disagreeing with Trump somehow makes one a "liberal activist"
Nooooo, if you were paying attention I was refering specifically to the liberal activists out there who are rioting and smashing/burning things and using tactics like that to scare away people from coming to colleges as speakers (such as Milo at UC-Berkley) because their views differ from theirs. Not people in general who disagree with Trump who mostly are responsible enough to do so without acting like complete idiots
From your line of posting it was not entirely clear if you were solely referring to the people in those videos or if you were making a generalization that the people in those videos are somehow inherently affiliated with all people posting disagreement with what Trump has been doing.
Yes I was indeed referring to those destructive liberal activists. Of course I don't think anywhere near all Trump opponents are like that (in fact it wasn't until a few months prior to the election that I truly was convinced Trump was "for real"; wasn't really for or against him exactly, it was just he was this weird/oddball guy and I wasn't sure if he was gonna go the distance in terms of the wide open R nomination race). No different than how when Obama was president people who disagreed with him were stereotyped as racists and such. I had no issue with his race at all...I saw him as just another liberal Democrat who was getting in way over his head (he was horribly underqualified in 2008 for President).
Not saying you are saying this, but Trump is also nowhere near qualified when it comes to being president. He has NO political experience at all. And IMO came off as just another 1%er saying exactly what you want to hear as he slowly steps behind you and unbuttons his pants.
I saw him as just another liberal Democrat who was getting in way over his head (he was horribly underqualified in 2008 for President).
Junior Bush was perfectly qualified, being a former governor, and he was horrendous. Experience isn't everything.
Obama's main flaw IMO was thinking that he could work with the Tea Party politicians. It took a few years before he caught on that these people were not going to work with him and block him just because he symbolized everything they hated.
Yes I was indeed referring to those destructive liberal activists. Of course I don't think anywhere near all Trump opponents are like that (in fact it wasn't until a few months prior to the election that I truly was convinced Trump was "for real"; wasn't really for or against him exactly, it was just he was this weird/oddball guy and I wasn't sure if he was gonna go the distance in terms of the wide open R nomination race). No different than how when Obama was president people who disagreed with him were stereotyped as racists and such. I had no issue with his race at all...I saw him as just another liberal Democrat who was getting in way over his head (he was horribly underqualified in 2008 for President).
Not saying you are saying this, but Trump is also nowhere near qualified when it comes to being president. He has NO political experience at all.
And he's pretty much proving it. He's kind of sitting on his ass and signing whatever is put in front of him. Heck, he would have signed a bill unfavorable to LGBT people if his kids hadn't stepped in.
Yes I was indeed referring to those destructive liberal activists. Of course I don't think anywhere near all Trump opponents are like that (in fact it wasn't until a few months prior to the election that I truly was convinced Trump was "for real"; wasn't really for or against him exactly, it was just he was this weird/oddball guy and I wasn't sure if he was gonna go the distance in terms of the wide open R nomination race). No different than how when Obama was president people who disagreed with him were stereotyped as racists and such. I had no issue with his race at all...I saw him as just another liberal Democrat who was getting in way over his head (he was horribly underqualified in 2008 for President).
Not saying you are saying this, but Trump is also nowhere near qualified when it comes to being president. He has NO political experience at all.
And he's pretty much proving it. He's kind of sitting on his ass and signing whatever is put in front of him. Heck, he would have signed a bill unfavorable to LGBT people if his kids hadn't stepped in.
Coincidentally, Politico just put out an article on how his inexperience is frustrating Trump:
"In interviews, nearly two dozen people who’ve spent time with Trump in the three weeks since his inauguration said that his mood has careened between surprise and anger as he’s faced the predictable realities of governing, from congressional delays over his cabinet nominations and legal fights holding up his aggressive initiatives to staff in-fighting and leaks.
...
Trump often asks simple questions about policies, proposals and personnel. And, when discussions get bogged down in details, the president has been known to quickly change the subject — to "seem in control at all times," one senior government official said — or direct questions about details to his chief strategist Steve Bannon, his son-in-law Jared Kushner or House Speaker Paul Ryan. Trump has privately expressed disbelief over the ability of judges, bureaucrats or lawmakers to delay — or even stop — him from filling positions and implementing policies."
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/donald-trump-challenges-governing-presidency-234879
About the riots in Berkeley, weren't these mainly anarchist idiots? Here in Mexico they tend to disrupt otherwise peaceful demonstrations.
Yup. But in a good amount of Trump voters eyes, it was every "liberal" that exists doing those crimes. Of course not all Trump supporters jump to conclusions like that though.
I take serious umbgrage at the notion that disagreeing with Trump somehow makes one a "liberal activist".
Also, this "our side" talk perpetuates this ridiculous division.
It's too late
Independant thought and compromise are hard. Better to just parrot whatever the party line is.
Out of curiosity, how do you guys feel about Ivankas clothing and shoes being made in china and other countries? After her dads whole spiel was about making things in America because China is destroying America financially and we are sending all our work out?
I'd be surprised of somebody making clothes in China instead of a cheaper country like Bangladesh or Vietnam, honestly.
Chinese labor is too expensive compared to some of its regional neighbors in lowtech things like garment fabrication.
But Ivanka isn't her dad, and she isn't personally beholden to whatever he might say politically, IMO.
Trump, on the other hand, has pretty readily duped millions of blue collar workers into believing his economic statements, and they desperately want to believe him for emotional reasons rather than recognizing pragmatic realities of capitalism.
Out of curiosity, how do you guys feel about Ivankas clothing and shoes being made in china and other countries? After her dads whole spiel was about making things in America because China is destroying America financially and we are sending all our work out?
I'd be surprised of somebody making clothes in China instead of a cheaper country like Bangladesh or Vietnam, honestly.
Chinese labor is too expensive compared to some of its regional neighbors in lowtech things like garment fabrication.
But Ivanka isn't her dad, and she isn't personally beholden to whatever he might say politically, IMO.
Trump, on the other hand, has pretty readily duped millions of blue collar workers into believing his economic statements, and they desperately want to believe him for emotional reasons rather than recognizing pragmatic realities of capitalism.
You are right, they are being made in bangladesh, indonesia, and China. That is why i said China and other countries. It is still outsourcing jobs though and getting cheap labor.
That is fine that she isn't her dad, but it certainly doesn't look good when your own daughter is part of the demonized 1% that Trump is claiming is "ruining" the country and who we need to be fighting IMO
That is fine that she isn't her dad, but it certainly doesn't look good when your own daughter is part of the demonized 1% that Trump is claiming is "ruining" the country IMO
Hence my comment about Trump duping certain categories of the electorate in the first place with commentary that is disingenuous, at best.
The only ways that certain types of manufacturing come back to the USA for anything other than super-premium brands is going to be:
1) brands that cater to custom quick-turn arounds where slow-boat shipping isn't acceptable
2) a shift in energy that makes long distance shipping prohibitively expensive
3) automation that replaces what garment workers do in super cheap countries, which STILL doesn't give those jobs back to Americans
Well Trump has re-affirmed the US support of the One China policy today, getting jack-squat from China. The guy is embarrassing himself with his Twitter feed. He makes a bold claim, China calls his bluff, and makes himself look like a paper tiger to the world.