World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[Sarge]

Yep, all good. And if any of my posts got overly snarky, please give me a little leeway.

Much respect, man, for being strong in your beliefs.

Possibly this was something better discussed in PM, but perhaps someone will find it edifying.

EDIT: I missed one, the religious one. Ha!

[CRTGAMER]

"He doesn't care about the working class."
- You know this how?

"He doesn't care about our relations with 90% of the world."
- Doesn't care, or wishes to portray himself differently than his predecessor? Who knows? Some of his actions have been okay, some have been a bit cringeworthy.

"He wants to control the media and what they can and cannot say."
- Kind of like Pres. Obama was with Fox News, just that he was less boorish about it.

"He wants big military, big government on the policing side of things."
- Given that our military has been significantly depleted, I'm with him on building back up. The primary goal of a country is the defense of its people, so if there's anywhere I want to make sure we're up to snuff, it's the military.

I'll add to the hypocrisy questions that for me worth responding.

"He doesn't care about the working class."
President Trump's primary focus is jobs jobs jobs. More has been done then in the past decades to bring jobs back during his campaign and after he took the oath of office.

"He doesn't care about our relations with 90% of the world."
I'll answer this for a simple rewording. He does not care about putting other countries above the United States as what has happened in many decades even if it does affect relations. About time.

"He wants to control the media and what they can and cannot say."
Proven already that the Democrats do control the Mainstream News Media collusion. Fox was created by a conservative due the frustration in this. The President does not want to control the media, but will immediately and effectively challenge lies thru his tweets.

"He wants big military, big government on the policing side of things."
A strong military "Peace Thru Strength" is the best deterrent against conflict. A carrier battle fleet patrolling international waters has so much impact to keep uprising against the U.S in check. No police unit should ever be compromised to protect the public. As the law rightfully covers; both the defense Commander in Chief and police Mayor superiors are civilian politicians to set policy. However, policies must be set responsibly to protect both the public and the protection force.

[prfsnl_gmr]

In the law, intentions matter...a lot...and Donald Trump stated repeatedly on the campaign trail that he would ban Muslims from entering the U.S. That his executive order made a clumsy attempt at religious neutrality - "It doesn't ban Muslims! It just bans everyone from a lot of majority-Muslim countries!" - is of no consequence in the face of evidence showing discriminatory intent.

Regardless of what was stated during the campaign, all we can go on is what is in the executive order. So what is contained there is not, in any real sense, a "Muslim" ban. It may or may not be good policy, but that's what is going to end up sorted out in the court system.

The courts can consider that, and they are not necessarily bound to the four corners of the order. Regardless - and if I recall correctly - the order has some language about prioritizing people who practice minority religions living in majority-Muslim countries for entry into the U.S. Such a preference is unconstitutional; so, even if the judges were bound to the order's plain language, that portion, at least, would be over-turned.

Sarge and JP1...I appreciate all of your posts. Interacting with members like the two of you are why I keep returning to this thread!

[Sarge]

Thanks, prf. I know we all get hot under the collar sometimes (I might have even done so a little bit today...), but I think in the end we really do want the best for this great country. I'll do what I can locally to make my community a better place, and I figure if enough of us do that, most of our problems will be resolved.

In a lot of ways, I've moved well beyond putting my faith in a single leader to fix all that ails our nation. So much of our real problems are in the heart. If we can change enough hearts and minds, despite our political differences, I think we'll be okay.

Okay, now I'm just sounding sappy. I'll shut up now.

[Blu]

For the record, ISIL was targeting Shia led factions of the government and populace upon taking territory between Iraq and a Syrian. It is disputable to say it was happening more to Yazidis or Kurdish folks.

It was happening quite prevalently in those days where ISIL was expanding rapidly. It was a pendulum swinging back and forth between the sectarian violence.

To say it affected religious minorities disproportionately is factually untrue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sarge]

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/03/new- ... 16785.html

A heart-breaking read. Dear Lord, we really do have it good here.

[jp1]

You are effectively asserting that, if he had his druthers, he'd be killing groups of people. You don't see how this is dangerous? Hyperbolic? I mean, I can understand your concern, because I have issues with the man, too, but it feels like the only line you've drawn between him and Hitler is the fact that (you think) he's stupid and the Constitution keeps him in check, otherwise he'd be sending folks to the gas chamber.

Sure, at the moment it is hyperbole. I still wouldn't put it past him, not at all. This is exactly why I think people should be paying close attention to what he does. I don't think his hate speech was just for show, his picks for staff and actions since he took office demonstrate that he had full intent on follow through. He's just getting started. I don't feel we can afford to give him the benefit of the doubt. Yes, I do think (based on what evidence I've been afforded) that he is a stupid man.

I can agree with some of this. There are times where his brashness can be a positive attribute, and other times where it is clearly a negative. A good leader knows when to employ both.

When is it positive to piss off the entire world and half your own country?

- I don't know if "doesn't care" is the right word, but he certainly leans more toward economic growth that environmental regulations. That's a really big discussion that would also take a long time.

I don't really even know how to start here. He clearly doesn't care about the real environmental issues we face. Economic growth is pointless if you burn the planet to ground to accomplish it. Do you deny climate change? Do you support mountaintop removal mining?

"He doesn't care about the working class."
- You know this how?

He championed a bunch of bullshit about creating jobs, helping the middle class, boosting the economy, etc... Every action he has taken since being put in office is contrary to this notion. How much proof do you need? You actually believe Donald Trump gives a damn at all about anyone outside the 1%? Hell, even upper middle class don't exist to him. He is President because he could purchase big data and campaign on it, even more though he is President to stroke his own ego. What makes you think he cares about working class people? Because he said it? He said a lot of hateful things that you seem willing to overlook as campaigning, but this he meant?

"He doesn't care about our relations with 90% of the world."
- Doesn't care, or wishes to portray himself differently than his predecessor? Who knows? Some of his actions have been okay, some have been a bit cringeworthy.

I don't know, I don't care. His motivations are irrelevant, he is jeopardizing relationships that have been in place for decades. Isis is happy with his actions, think about that.

"He is a sexist at least, and possibly a sex offender."
- Sexist? Probably. A sex offender? Gotta have proof of that. And I don't use the next example as a justification of bad behavior, but as an illustration of the hypocrisy of many on the left: Pres. Bill Clinton.

What of Bill Clinton? There was talk of impeachment, he was publicly chastised by both parties. I don't really understand the point though, how does that change Trump's undeniable misogyny? I did say "possibly", in my eyes when it comes to the presidency, that is enough. Imagine the message sent to the women of this country and the world. Look at things he has said in the past and present publicly. If you had a daughter, how would you explain this away to her?

"He is a proven failure with business, and has filed bankruptcy many times."
- Risk is an inherent part of business. He's succeeded in some areas, failed in others. I'd refer you to this article for a different view.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/trumps-bu ... le/1031022

He has failed more often than someone running the country on the basis of their business savvy should have. As has been pointed out many times, he would have more money if he had simply let someone else manage his trust fund and sat on his ass. Sounds like failure to me.

"He uses scare tactics to rally the right into a frenzy."
- I'm absolutely sure he's the only person in politics to ever do that. Which, by the way, is also what I'm accusing the left of doing when they brand him as the second coming of Hitler.

Of course he isn't the first. It doesn't make the tactic more tasteful. The "Hitler" poster is an observation of similarities. I like to pay attention to the past, so hopefully we aren't susceptible to repeating it. If even half of that list bares a mild resemblance to you, you should be a bit concerned as well. It doesn't mean he is Hitler, it does speak to the sad state of our nation since he took office. I don't think you could fairly compare Obama with socialism or communism in the same way. It's a convenient finger waving argument, but it doesn't hold weight in my opinion.

"He wants to control the media and what they can and cannot say."
- Kind of like Pres. Obama was with Fox News, just that he was less boorish about it.

No, not kind of like Obama with Fox. Trump wants all information to flow through and be approved by him, or he will not offer it at all. Fox News is garbage, I don't care what side of the fence you are on, you should be able to recognize they have no journalistic integrity.

"He wants big military, big government on the policing side of things."
- Given that our military has been significantly depleted, I'm with him on building back up. The primary goal of a country is the defense of its people, so if there's anywhere I want to make sure we're up to snuff, it's the military.

It isn't just the military. It's the police force, his push for border control and immigration enforcement are all government expenditures. Meanwhile education funding will continue to be cut. Social programs will be cut, affordable health care will be cut. All because the government is "too big". How hypocritical is that?

"He clearly doesn't give a shit about education. It's easier to control stupid people."
- What are you deriving this from?

Is this a serious question? DeVos is not interested in education, she is interested in indoctrination. Even as a Christian, I feel that is wrong. Church and state. There is more to talk about here, but I can't even believe you feel he has the best interest of public education at heart. What are you deriving that from?

"He hasn't cut ties with his business, he could be profiting from decisions right now and you wouldn't know it."
- My understanding is that he has turned it over to his sons. I'm watching in that regard.

If you're watching, then you know it has already extended past that. His sons were involved in vetting his cabinet.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStor ... s-45268265

What of that?

My point was less to defend Trump, and more to defend CRTGAMER. I don't agree with everything he posts, either, but that post felt similarly reactionary to me.

CRTGAMER has been willfully ignorant of every instance of someone trying to engage him in a valuable debate. He simply ignores all opposition and regurgitates the same trash over and over again. Just because you both happen to be conservative doesn't make you equivalent. I'm surprised at the restraint being shown in his favor honestly. I might be a little harsh towards him, but he is offensive to me almost all of the time. The fact I'm direct in my approach is a more honest effort, though admittedly not the high road. I'm more than a little tired of his garbage. Sorry, but that's all there is to it.

I'll get to the other post shortly. I want to emphatically point out that I was quite blunt with my responses, however the tone they will undoubtedly convey is no reflection of my feelings towards you. I'm debating, but not attacking. I assure you, any disrespect in my comments is purely coincidental to the issues themselves. That may be hard to believe, but the honest truth is that with my strong feelings on the subject I just don't have the fortitude to dance around them tactfully.

[jp1]

- "If the nationalism crosses an unacceptable line, I will have issues. However, a deep love of country does not inherently mean that one is going to cross into fascism."

Where do you believe that line should be drawn? Our nation is already comprised of many people who are being made to feel unwelcome. There is a start to everything, maybe there aren't internment camps at the moment...it doesn't mean it couldn't happen in this climate.

"- What human rights has he violated right now?"

I'm more concerned with those he intends to violate. I've paid attention to his hate speech and his cabinet picks. There is a theme, you don't see it?

"- Every politician pretty much ever identifies enemies to unify their base. This happens every single time we have an election, on both sides."

"Identifies" or fabricates? You can disagree with Obama all you like, but he was clearly looking to broker peace, it was at least an end goal. Trump clearly has no such intention. I'm not sure how looking for trouble equates to strength. We aren't talking about defense or preparation here. He is actively pissing off people who could realistically take us to war.

"- Restoration of the military is not supremacy of the military."

"Supremacy of the Military" - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

"- Sexism, yeah, probably. There's one. Is this supposed to refer to a leader's personal life, or rampant sexism in all parts of government?"

Both.

"- I don't see him controlling the mass media. He's trying to shape the message, but I don't see him going all Pravda."

Already addressed this one. He wants to control the media, and has even tried to take measures to do so. Does this concern you?

"- Is obsession the right term? National security is an issue, and is increasingly so in the era of cyber-terrorism and asymmetrical warfare."

How much focus does it need within the first week, and then ongoing as a main focal point to qualify as obsession in your opinion?

"- We haven't really seen enough to know what he's going to do on the corporate side. There is an assumption that because his advisors are moneyed people, he will always side with them."

He is also "moneyed people" and they weren't accidental picks. I think it is a pretty safe assumption.

"- How is he suppressing labor? Is it because he appointed an opponent of minimum wage?"

Partially, sure. Although raising minimum wage alone accomplishes nothing. Otherwise, I don't have much here. So one box without a definite check for me.

"- I've got to be honest, as a member of the "intellectual" class, I've got a disdain for a lot of them, too. I read this more as a disdain for the establishment, the folks that on both sides have managed to screw things up time and again. I don't know of any specific attack on the arts. If we talk about science, I can understand some of the global warming skepticism as well. There's a lot of conflicting data out there, over a very short time period. There's a long, long discussion here, but... not sure I want to delve into it right now."

Global warming skepticism? Come on Sarge, don't go there. I'll leave that one alone. I don't have a disdain for intellectuals or the not so intellectuals. I never assume I'm the smartest one in the room. He doesn't want to hear opposition from people with opposing viewpoints and the intellectual capacity to break down his fabrications. It's more straightforward in my view.

"- Given the rather lax enforcement of various aspects of the law in the previous administration, a focus on restoring the rule of law should be unsurprising."

Lax enforcement? Oh, this conversation isn't going to end well if we keep going down these roads. Non-violent drug offenders spending most or all of their life in prison is "lax"? Prison overcrowding due to minor offenders seeing major penalties? Excessive force being punished with paid vacations? We aren't even on the same planet here.

"- Too soon to tell here. I'll be watching closely."

Forecast doesn't look great from my viewpoint. However, I agree nothing too substantial just yet.

"- The election wasn't fraudulent, although I'm sure there were instances of fraud committed. Russia didn't hack our voting machines. And it's also not the first time they've attempted to meddle in our elections, either."

I disagree with this. The hacking was a serious issue that should have been addressed with more regard. Further the data farming from social media that was purchased and used by Trump to help garner favor is in effect "buying" the presidency.

"- Whoops, missed the religious one. Sorta ironic, I guess. I don't think Trump is a particularly religious man, as he shows very little grasp of Scripture, nor does his personal behavior reflect Christ in his life. I can't make any judgments as regarding his salvation, and he could very well be a "new" Christian. I think most of his religious plays are to appeal to his voters. I called him a charlatan several times before the election, especially with religious matters. I must admit, I was wrong on quite a bit, as he's certainly moved to implement much of what he said on the campaign trail."

I don't think he is particularly religious either. I think he pretends to be, which is far worse in this particular regard. He has certainly used the Christian agenda to his advantage, and if it continues to work he will undoubtedly double down on that.

"So I'd say... one solid yes, and a lot of "I'm watching". Various smaller levels of concern that might change if he perpetrates worse, but I can't predict the future.

I know we don't see eye to eye politically, but I hope you can see where I just can't get quite as freaked out. I did that with Pres. Obama, and there were things he did, and policies he implemented, that scared the mess out of me, too, so perhaps I should examine myself and realize that the same fears I had are being played out in reverse, with the only real differences being that we each think we're actually right. "

We all have our opinions. I appreciate your willingness to engage and be honest about yours. I don't really get the Obama thing, but I'm not saying it wasn't a valid experience for you.

"I appreciate your candor, jp1. And I've said it before, I don't feel Trump was anything close to an optimum choice. I don't think the sort of person either of us would have wanted was ever in contention in this election, sadly."

Same. I definitely don't see us coming to a resolute middle ground, but I'm always happy to hear someone on the right with a bit of reason explain their thought process. It is something I am working to open my mind to. Admittedly I still can't understand it, at all really...but I'll keep engaging as long as there is more to learn. Standard disclaimer applies about the blunt nature of my responses. They are for the purposes of illustrating a point, not a sign of dismissal of your views. A couple here look indicative of that, and for that I apologize, I just wasn't sure how to even address them.

[jp1]

Sarge and JP1...I appreciate all of your posts. Interacting with members like the two of you are why I keep returning to this thread!

Thanks, the feeling is mutual. I learn new things from you all the time, not to mention you keep it light. I wish I could strike the same balance of fierce conviction and humor. Despite disagreeing with almost everything Sarge wrote in my last postings I feel the same as well, appreciate a reasoned and rational opposing view. It keeps things interesting.

[Sarge]

Sure, at the moment it is hyperbole. I still wouldn't put it past him, not at all. This is exactly why I think people should be paying close attention to what he does. I don't think his hate speech was just for show, his picks for staff and actions since he took office demonstrate that he had full intent on follow through. He's just getting started. I don't feel we can afford to give him the benefit of the doubt. Yes, I do think (based on what evidence I've been afforded) that he is a stupid man.

I still can't envision him, even with his flaws, as this extreme. If everyone on the left feels this way, it's no wonder there's so much vitriol. I'm going to be honest, I don't know if he's going to survive his term if this keeps up.

When is it positive to piss off the entire world and half your own country?

I think "the entire world" might be stretching it, but half the country, yeah. But any garden-variety Republican can do that last bit. Sometimes, letting your enemies know you mean business can be a positive. Again, I wish it were exercised more judiciously, but I don't subscribe to the idea that we should never, ever tick off other countries.

I don't really even know how to start here. He clearly doesn't care about the real environmental issues we face. Economic growth is pointless if you burn the planet to ground to accomplish it. Do you deny climate change? Do you support mountaintop removal mining?

I question anthropogenic climate change, yes. I've looked at the models, I've seen the data, and I can well conclude... that we don't know. No, really. I've worked with scientists that have done climate change research, and they're not willing to draw firm conclusions either. We really are limited by the quality of data, misunderstanding of some of the processes by which warming occurs, and measurements of global-scale processes over millions of years from perhaps 50 years of directly-observed data.

So basically, I want more research before we commit significantly more resources to a problem that we may not be causing (i.e. part of the natural variability of climate, particularly inter-glacial periods), and also even by the estimates of those who wish to enact severe changes would have a minuscule effect on global temperatures.

He championed a bunch of bullshit about creating jobs, helping the middle class, boosting the economy, etc... Every action he has taken since being put in office is contrary to this notion. How much proof do you need? You actually believe Donald Trump gives a damn at all about anyone outside the 1%? Hell, even upper middle class don't exist to him. He is President because he could purchase big data and campaign on it, even more though he is President to stroke his own ego. What makes you think he cares about working class people? Because he said it? He said a lot of hateful things that you seem willing to overlook as campaigning, but this he meant?

Exactly what actions are those? I'm being entirely serious. Advancing business and the middle class are not necessarily at odds.

I don't know, I don't care. His motivations are irrelevant, he is jeopardizing relationships that have been in place for decades. Isis is happy with his actions, think about that.

Oh, yes, I should totally take every word from ISIS as completely true.

What of Bill Clinton? There was talk of impeachment, he was publicly chastised by both parties. I don't really understand the point though, how does that change Trump's undeniable misogyny? I did say "possibly", in my eyes when it comes to the presidency, that is enough. Imagine the message sent to the women of this country and the world. Look at things he has said in the past and present publicly. If you had a daughter, how would you explain this away to her?

Most Democrats defended him to the bitter end. My point is that the Clinton era effectively set up the precedent we have now. Folks like me were told for years that character in a politician's personal life didn't matter as long as they got the job done. Trump, if the allegations are true, is the culmination of many on "my side" taking that advice.

As for explaining it to my (potential) daughter, that would be surprisingly easy. I would tell her that our leaders are flawed individuals, just like all of humanity is. I would tell her that sometimes, the choices we have don't give us a good, pure option.

He has failed more often than someone running the country on the basis of their business savvy should have. As has been pointed out many times, he would have more money if he had simply let someone else manage his trust fund and sat on his ass. Sounds like failure to me.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... umps-fath/

Of course he isn't the first. It doesn't make the tactic more tasteful. The "Hitler" poster is an observation of similarities. I like to pay attention to the past, so hopefully we aren't susceptible to repeating it. If even half of that list bares a mild resemblance to you, you should be a bit concerned as well. It doesn't mean he is Hitler, it does speak to the sad state of our nation since he took office. I don't think you could fairly compare Obama with socialism or communism in the same way. It's a convenient finger waving argument, but it doesn't hold weight in my opinion.

That it wouldn't hold weight with you is unsurprising, given that you are already pre-disposed to left-leaning politics to begin with. The same is probably true of me since I lean right. I suspect the truth is somewhere down the middle, which is basically Pres. Obama is a left-leaning President with some European socialist tendencies, and Pres. Trump is.. well, actually, we still don't really know. Authoritarian tendencies, yeah. And in some ways, we still need some history and distance to properly judge Pres. Obama, too. Trump definitely doesn't fit into the traditional GOP mold, although many of his Cabinet picks surprisingly do.

No, not kind of like Obama with Fox. Trump wants all information to flow through and be approved by him, or he will not offer it at all. Fox News is garbage, I don't care what side of the fence you are on, you should be able to recognize they have no journalistic integrity.

So what do you think are excellent sources of news? Yes, Fox News leans right, but they certainly aren't "garbage", unless I can throw MSNBC and CNN into that bin as well. I'm guessing there are some left-leaning news outlets that you consider highly reputable that I would consider questionable as well. (I consider Fox, depending on the anchor, to be somewhat reputable, not highly, but then, I find most broadcast news to be less than optimal.)

You're right in one regard: He's not like Pres. Obama because the press mostly loved him. They hate Trump, and Trump hates them back. It's going to be a very interesting four years, assuming he lasts that long...

It isn't just the military. It's the police force, his push for border control and immigration enforcement are all government expenditures. Meanwhile education funding will continue to be cut. Social programs will be cut, affordable health care will be cut. All because the government is "too big". How hypocritical is that?

Hey, I never claimed he was a small-government conservative. I've been saying that since he jumped in the race. Why do you think he gave so many principled conservatives so much heartburn? There's a reason that #NeverTrump exists on our side.

I do think there is a ton of waste in many aspects of government. Including the military! I want to see us spend our money more wisely. There are better ways to achieve our goals in many governmental programs. I don't expect we would actually agree on them, but as the saying goes, "there's more than one way to skin a cat".

As far as border control is concerned, we just went through a period where we didn't really bother trying to enforce much of the law in that respect. That he would pick up such is unsurprising.

Is this a serious question? DeVos is not interested in education, she is interested in indoctrination. Even as a Christian, I feel that is wrong. Church and state. There is more to talk about here, but I can't even believe you feel he has the best interest of public education at heart. What are you deriving that from?

It was more that I wanted you to say it instead of inferring exactly what you meant. I suspected your opposition was primarily rooted in DeVos. I'm going to be perfectly honest (and I know there are teachers 'round these parts), outside of some spectacular teachers, our public school systems in many areas are a mess. And I don't think these are issues that can be solved solely by throwing money at them. I have no issue with school choice. I have no issue with charter schools. I have no issue with "for-profit" education.

As far as indoctrination is concerned, that's also a claim that I hear leveled from the right all the time at the school system, and in some instances I can believe it. (For the record, I don't think Common Core is devil-spawn. I also have experienced three different forms of education: public school, private school, and home-schooling. I'm the most partial to the last one, but it isn't for everyone.)

If you're watching, then you know it has already extended past that. His sons were involved in vetting his cabinet.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStor ... s-45268265

What of that?

From the article:

"Past precedent has been for presidents to sell off their holdings and place the cash into a truly blind trust — not one overseen by a family member — before taking office, even though there's no legal requirement to do so."

I'm watching, but I'm not going to freak out yet.

CRTGAMER has been willfully ignorant of every instance of someone trying to engage him in a valuable debate. He simply ignores all opposition and regurgitates the same trash over and over again. Just because you both happen to be conservative doesn't make you equivalent. I'm surprised at the restraint being shown in his favor honestly. I might be a little harsh towards him, but he is offensive to me almost all of the time. The fact I'm direct in my approach is a more honest effort, though admittedly not the high road. I'm more than a little tired of his garbage. Sorry, but that's all there is to it.

Well, I suspect none of us are going to change each others' minds. I probably should have saved this part for a PM.

I'll get to the other post shortly. I want to emphatically point out that I was quite blunt with my responses, however the tone they will undoubtedly convey is no reflect of my feelings towards you. I'm debating, but not attacking. I assure you, any disrespect in my comments is purely coincidental to the issues themselves. That may be hard to believe, but the honest truth is that with my strong feelings on the subject I just don't have the fortitude to dance around them tactfully.

If I went with my initial responses, I'd potentially compose something similar. I always have to step back for a time before I compose my responses. I suspect if we were in person, we'd have a very constructive debate.

Oh, good grief, it's like 1:30. I'll have to get to the other post when I get time this weekend. Maybe this is why CRT doesn't always engage, it's more effort this way!