Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Grizzlor wrote:

Obama executive orders were done so, and implemented, over a period of time so that the government could adjust and educate in a timely manner.  This allowed time to object to them, before implementation.  Trump on the other hand is acting like a dictator, issuing edicts without consultation, that are causing people and government to meltdown.  His approach is a disaster, and nearly everything he does now will be protested and subject to law suits, because he is doing it unilaterally like a strong man.

First of all, let's forego the cries of "dictator!". Much like those using words like "Nazi" and "Hitler", this only serves to lessen the impact of the word, it doesn't serve to make Trump look worse. He is not a dictator. How can he be a dictator for undoing what Obama did? Wouldn't that mean that by necessity, Obama would have been a dictator for causing this mess in the first place? Wouldn't Trump be un-dictatoring?

But neither. Obama was an a$$hole, not a dictator.

I don't know where you're getting your information that Trump didn't consult with anyone. It's my understanding that he has. Also, the government isn't melting down.

On immigration, the problem is Trump is picking and choosing.  He absurdly said Syrian Christians were welcome, an outrageous statement, and honestly, how can you prove someone's true religion?  He also conveniently left off Saudi Arabia and Egypt, where Trump has business in, but who have exported several terrorists.  Secondly, we are already vetting, in most cases it takes YEARS to get into the United States, refugee or not, legally.  These people had done their due diligence, and Trump blocked them at the door, really for no good reason.  He has no clue how government operates.  As for best interest, most with experience feel that the ban will ultimately HARM US interests.  Regardless, the vetting process now is about as good as it can be.  To expect POOR refugees to even HAVE cellphones let alone to turn over the contacts and browsing history is pretty hilarious.  Who is this going to catch?  ROFL!  These people are not just dumped onto the street, they are sponsored by relatives, as well as often religious groups, same as probably most Americans' ancestors were years ago.  The vetting is extreme, unlike obtaining a gun, which is a hilariously easy thing to do, and has cost far more lives than "refugee terrorism."  The point though, why couldn't this have been discussed first?

Actually, the wording of the order states that Christians, as well as other minorities in their countries who are especially persecuted. This is not unusual. In fact, when seeking asylum, it's pretty standard to establish religious reasons for persecution. Also, keep in mind that Obama also didn't allow Syrian refugees to come over on large numbers until 2016. In 2011, Obama admitted a whopping 29. Everyone else was blocked at the door.

As you say, how can one establish anyone's real religion? But that's kinda the problem with the current vetting process. It's hard to establish any real facts. Which is why Trump has enacted this *temporary* hold, until we can work out a proper vetting process.

Also, getting a gun isn't super easy. You have to pass a background check... in a country where that actually means something. Also, it is a Constitutional right. You might as well say that posting on the internet or protesting Trump are far too easy.

His moves on national security are frankly, frightening.  He placed self-professed LENINIST (aka anarchist) Steve Bannon on the National Security Council, while limiting the participation of the UN Ambassador, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Director of National Intelligence.  Here again, come the accusations that Trump doesn't give a damn about the facts on the ground OR diplomacy.  Sorry, but this is unbelievably insane shit.

Is it even possible to be Leninist and anarchist? One is extreme left and the other is extreme right. I don't really follow this part. Sorry.

As for Obamacare, the Democrats made a calculation.  Perhaps it was wrong, but the GOP were unwilling to agree to much of anything in healthcare.  They decided that something HAD to be done about the system.  They did it.  Pre-existing conditions, loss of employment, kids aging but without work, and financial ruin from healthcare costs were ALL dealt with.  No the solution wasn't perfect, but here again, Trump's demolish and "rebuild" approach is objected to by even many Republicans.  Governors certainly don't want to blow up the system overnight the way he does.

So what you're saying is that when you agree with a wild, unilateral move that goes against everything that the people want, it is simply a "calculation" and fully acceptable, but when it's something that you disagree with, it is like a dictatorship? There was no exploration of healthcare. They passed something that even the democrats admitted to not reading! That is balls-out crazy! Of course it failed!

All those things that you claim were dealt with weren't. People still can't afford healthcare. Employers can't afford to pay for it, which resulted in businesses closing or jobs lost. For many people, the cost of healthcare went through the roof. My father had a stroke in 2009 and we've been riding this healthcare wave since it started. It's been a disaster for doctors, medical equipment providers, as well as patients. It's been horrible, which is why most people want it repealed. And if you'll notice, nobody just repealed it with no plan to replace. They're still working on how they're going to do it. It hasn't happened yet.  Trump doesn't have a "demolish and rebuild" approach. He has always had a "repeal and replace" approach, which is the only way to do it.

Once more, the protests, which have been largely peaceful, will continue, because Trump's approach has been so awful.  He won't change of course.  He'll just fire people who tell him to.

You can't say that the protests have been largely peaceful when only some people have suffered brain damage because of them, or because only a few people have been lit on fire. These "protests", which aren't protests, they're riots, are not peaceful. They are not civil. They are not justified in their actions. They are responsible for holding people up at airports more than Trump was!

pilight wrote:

For someone who is supposedly not a manic Trump supporter, you do a pretty good impression of him.  "I read the first bullet point of this plan and I can tell you it's terrible and we can do something better."

For someone who is supposedly way smarter than me, you do a pretty good job of avoiding everything I said in my post so that you don't have to think up an actual response. Go back. Re-read it. That's my response to you.

And I'm not going to waste my time trying to validate my Trump-doubter street creds. If you don't believe me, bully for you.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:
pilight wrote:

For someone who is supposedly not a manic Trump supporter, you do a pretty good impression of him.  "I read the first bullet point of this plan and I can tell you it's terrible and we can do something better."

For someone who is supposedly way smarter than me, you do a pretty good job of avoiding everything I said in my post so that you don't have to think up an actual response. Go back. Re-read it. That's my response to you.

And I'm not going to waste my time trying to validate my Trump-doubter street creds. If you don't believe me, bully for you.

I'm not sure what makes you think I'm way smarter than you.

Your response indicates a belief that Syria is some sort of medieval fiefdom that keeps records on parchment.  They have electricity, computers, and modern record keeping there.

You also apparently didn't finish even the first bullet point, or you likely would have noticed that 99% of applicants are screened out by the UN.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I'd also like to point out once again, it makes no sense to suggest that Trump excluded countries based on where he has had business dealings.

The list was made up during the Obama administration. It is a list of terrorist strongholds. Trump didn't close his eyes and pick at random.

This really speaks to the problem at hand. We can't even discuss the actual issues until we drop this layer of BS outrage. Stop hating for the sake of hating. Hate for good reasons, based on facts and logic.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I'm interested in Informant's opinions, but I do find it extremely tiresome to be told: someone who expressed the outrage you express is a hypocrite. Therefore, that point of view is worthless. You should instantly dismiss any opinion shared by contradictory and confused human beings. If someone exercises bad judgement in some areas or many areas, then anything they say immediately invalid.

It adds about as much to the conversation as Slider_Quinn CONSTANTLY bringing up Marvel movies in the DC thread. It's just changing the subject.

Conceding that your concerns about immigration are legitimate (your country can't sustain the population, it's a security risk) -- are you really okay with people who've received green cards and visas being held without due process and being threatened into leaving the country and being sent back into the persecution and horror they were fleeing and for which they were granted safe passage that's now being withdrawn? Are you really okay with people being caught in limbo between the countries they fled and America which has now abruptly shut its doors? Are you really okay with all this cruelty and suffering?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions wrote:

It adds about as much to the conversation as Slider_Quinn CONSTANTLY bringing up Marvel movies in the DC thread. It's just changing the subject.


Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I never said that anyone who expresses a different opinion isn't worth listening to or that the other side is invalid.

What I said was that these ideas that Trump is a dictator, Trump is not a valid President, Trump's actions are unlawful... THOSE are worthless. That is hypocrisy. That is a waste of time. It's a burning mess of useless vitriol that is keeping people from discussing the actual issues.


--Trump is a valid President. He won the election. Deal with it.

--Trump's actions are legal. They've been passed through any number of government organizations whose job it is to decide whether they are legal and they are.

--They are not unconstitutional. They are not even unusual. Obama and Carter took similar actions. Nobody cared.

--He is not discriminating based on religion. He is not banning Muslims. He is not giving Christians alone preferential treatment. He is giving priority status to those who are most persecuted, which does include (but is not limited to) Christians.

--Religion has always been used as part of the process when judging asylum cases. Why? Because religious persecution is a thing that exists and people need asylum because of it.

--The hold is not permanent. In fact, it will quite probably last for a shorter amount of time than when Obama did it.

--Those with visas can still get in! The order has a provision, allowing a case-by-case review whereby people with visas can be allowed back into the country, even if their country of origin is listed on the halt. And people are taking advantage of this, so it's not like it's some mythical thing that is never going to happen. It should also be noted that visas can be reviewed or revoked at any time anyway.

--People are not being detained without due process. It's not like they're being sent to Gitmo. They are being delayed while they are processed. There's a difference. They're sitting in an airport for a few hours while they wait. If they want to live in America, they should probably get used to that part, because we've all done it. Also, they have representation. I saw one of the people on the news this morning after being released from DFW airport, and his lawyers were all right there. Which he didn't need, because he was processed and released. He left his home country Monday, and he was free to go on Tuesday. If the hardship of sitting in an airport is the worst thing that these refugees have experienced in their lives, they probably don't deserve refugee status.

--Some quotes from October 2015 --

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.): “Mr. Director, before this committee, [FBI] Assistant Director [Michael] Steinbach said that the concerns in Syria is that we don’t have the systems in place on the ground to collect the information to vet. That would be the concern. Databases don’t hold the information on these individuals. Is that still the position of the department?”

FBI Director James Comey: “Yes, I think that’s the challenge we’re all talking about, is that we can only query against that which we have collected, and so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interests reflected in our database, we can query our database til the cows come home, but we’re not gonna—there’ll be nothing show up, because we have no record on that person,"

And for those keeping up with Obama halting Iraqi refugees in 2011, Comey added: “You can only query what you’ve collected, and with respect to Iraqi refugees, we had far more in our databases because of our country’s work there for a decade. This is a different situation,”

Yes. James Comey. I don't like him, but whatever. There you go.

--If polls are your thing, when last I checked it was about 57% of Americans who agreed with Trump's actions regarding the refugees, with 33% disapproving, and the rest undecided. This is why Trump was elected. This is what the people wanted.

So, let's discuss this issue. Let's discuss the vetting process, and the refugees, and whether Christians or more persecuted. But no matter how many times I've rambled off relevant facts and information in this discussion, we keep coming back around to the hysteria about Trump being an evil dictatiornazihitlerracisthomphobetyrant.

You cannot call him a dictator for using his power to undo what Obama used the same power to do. You cannot call him a dictator for telling law enforcement officials to enforce the law, while having not cared that Obama literally ordered them not to follow the law. Yes, I am absolutely going to call bullshit on that, because it is absolutely relevant to this conversation. We can't discuss the issue until we clear away the thick layer of crap that people are insisting we swim through.

I know it sucks to suddenly be the people standing by, powerless, while the President does things that you don't agree with. That was my life for the past 8 years. I watched Obama violate the Consitution. I watched him violate his oath to uphold the laws of this country. I watched him turn his back on our allies and give aid to their enemies. I watched him create a level of racial division that I have never seen before in my life. And I called him a lot of things during that time. But I never compared him to Hitler. I never declared that he was a dictator who was only moments away from building concentration camps. My side of this argument never had violent riots in the streets, lighting people on fire or beating the crap out of them because we disagreed.

There is good and proper disagreement and anger to be had. But that does not excuse blind hatred, violence, or childish whining and name-calling. It does not excuse a Secret Service agent saying that she would not take a bullet for the President, because it is not her job to choose. I've known federal employees, agents and otherwise, who have had to serve under Presidents they liked and Presidents that they didn't. They don't get to decide when they will uphold the law and when they won't. And these other government employees who are violating orders to not discuss their work on Twitter are not just or righteous for violating their orders the second they have to serve under someone they disagree with. They are not allowed to create a shadow government that operates how they see fit. They are not allowed to stage a coup against a Presidents whose only crime thus far has been to order them to do their damn jobs.

And fucking Obama needs to keep his has-been mouth shut. As I predicted, he is out there, trying to keep stirring the pot and keep the riots raging. Keep people hating. Keep people violent. He loves this shit. George W. Bush didn't go out there, criticizing Obama's every move. We just went on and on about this peaceful transfer of power and how amazing it is... except, it's not amazing when the former President is trying to undermine the authority of the current President.

Finally, don't tell me that discussing the hypocrisy is a useless detour from the real conversation. I came in here before anyone was discussing the refugees, specifically to discuss the hypocrisy on the left. That is a very large part of the conversation taking place here. I am not going to let it go until people start acting like adults by having rational discussions about the issues and the facts, and stop whining about how Trump is such a big meanie for not being Obama. You can disagree and debate without all of that crap. Hell, I might even agree on some of the issues with this order, you never know. But as long as everyone is being ultra irrational, going on as though it's only logical that if a President does something they disagree with, he should immediately be kicked out of office, that nice and calm version of this conversation can't really happen. When my stating actual facts and my own opinions is met with accusations of being an uncaring Trump parrot who loves suffering and cruelty, how do you expect to have a meaningful discussion?

If I'm wrong, and there is good reason why Obama was justified for violating actual laws and overusing his power, and Trump is a horrible dictator for using his power, please tell me. If I'm wrong about the stories of an increase in violent crimes in countries who are accepting more refugees, tell me. If I'm wrong about the quotes from the FBI Director saying that there really is no way to properly vet these people, let me know. I'd love to have that back and forth. Just do it without the hysteria and the hypocrisy, because I will not stop calling people on that. I'd expect no less from anyone responding to me.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I remember a couple of years ago my nephew and I planned to go to a convention that had Karen Gillan (Amy Pond) appearing.  We've been working on getting a replica of River Song's diary signed by all the stars related to it; and all we have left to obtain now is Karen and Peter Capaldi.

So we get to the convention with our autograph ticket in hand only to find out Karen is not there.  While trying to leave the U.K., her visa to enter the United States was not approved.  She was not allowed to enter the country.  This was when Obama was president.  Where were all the people losing their minds when she couldn't get in?

But what really blows my mind?  Reading that some of these people detained after the Trump order were on their way home from vacationing abroad.  Trump has been saying what he's going to do for over a year.  These people thought that right after he takes office was the best time to leave the country on vacation?  Really?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

They wouldn't allow Karen Gillan into the US?! What kind of tyrant was that man!? That is clearly a violation of several of my rights. We should probably see about having him brought up on charges, because Karen Gillan should be allowed to go wherever she damn well pleases!

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

[ ... ]

Finally, don't tell me that discussing the hypocrisy is a useless detour from the real conversation. [ ... ]

No, I don't think that's how it works here.

You're free to say that hypocrisy dismisses an argument or that calling Trump a fascist dictator takes the conversation to an irrational place just as I'm free to say that accusations of hypocrisy do little more than move to goalposts to send the conversation to what is from my point of view an irrational place.

Informant, hypocrisy is a useless detour from the real conversation that the United States has suspended civil liberties for Muslims and become a kleptocracy. Ireactions, that's an exaggerated extreme that's divorced from reality. And so on. You're free to express those views and I'm free to say they don't bring much to the table, just as Slider_Quinn21 is free to keep bringing the god damn Marvel Cinematic Universe into the freakin' DC Extended Universe thread and I am free to express tremendous exasperation and Slider_Quinn21 is free to keep at it anyway.

I am having strong doubts that freedom is still a thing in the US, but we still have some here.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Nobody's suspended civil liberties for Muslims. The US still has more freedom than you do. smile

When I said "don't tell me", it was a colloquialism, not an actual order.

Hypocrisy is the topic that I brought up. Therefore hypocrisy is a topic of conversation. It's not a detour. And it is a very large part of this conversation, because hypocrisy is what keeps people thinking that the US has suspended civil liberties for Muslims or that freedom is being lost in the US. Hypocrisy is what makes you think that Trump is somehow violating laws and the Constitution, because that is what the headlines are telling you, from the same news outlets that failed to report on Obama's actual violations. It's the notion that it's all okay, as long as I like the guy doing it but when someone else gets elected, they should have to do whatever I want anyway or be kicked out of office.

If people stepped back and looked at the actual facts instead of reading headlines and freaking out and forcing the rest of us to live in an imaginary world where Nazi airships are hovering over Washington, the conversation could be quite civil and pleasant. Nobody's losing their rights. Homes aren't being raided. Nobody's being thrown into any ovens. What Trump is doing is simply what should have been done in the first place, which is take the time to figure out how to do this properly. Why wasn't this done in the first place, so we'd have a well oiled machine by now? Instead, we had government officials admitting that they really have no idea how to vet these refugees, but we're letting them in anyway!

I'm curious now. What freedoms do you think we're losing in the US?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I tend to discuss politics on this Bboard at a distance because, honestly, I don't really see the point of sharing my views. You already know what they are; you rail against them pretty regularly before I even get around to posting them.

I marched with women to express my defiance towards a self-admitted sexual harasser who grabs women being made the leader of the free world. Didn't litter or set anyone on fire, and I really can't defend those who did. I appreciated the videos that the cast of AVENGERS made urging people to vote, but I have no patience for any defense of Polanski. My opinions are largely in line with the content of,,,, and I grimly read and in the same spirit that I read Know what you oppose and all.

I commissioned someone to write Quinn Mallory's political opinions for me; this person thinks that climate change is caused by solar maximums and is not man-made and described Donald Trump as the best thing for America right now. What that says about me (or Quinn), I'm not sure...

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

*Trump didn't admit to grabbing women on that tape. Much like when he said that he could gun someone down in the middle of New York and not lose any supporters, he was making a comment about the things that people would let him get away with, using an exaggerated example.

See, that sounds like I'm defending him. I'm not. I think both comments show how disgusting he is, and what an ego he has. I've been around dudes who were doing the locker room talk thing, and it always disgusts me. Then again, I've been around plenty of women who could hold their own in that department. I was just raised better than that and I don't talk about people in that way. However, as much as I do not approve of those comments, I can't go along with the "he admits to sexually assaulting women!" narrative, because it is false. I will not believe anything just because it's convenient.

Random story time...

I was a juror on a civil trial a while back. It was a sad story. A girl was born at 21 weeks (!!!). She was so premature that her skin wasn't even skin yet. She had a ton of medical issues, naturally. One of them was called retinopathy of prematurity. Essentially, as her eyes vascularized, the veins went crazy and detatched her retinas. Laser surgery stopped the progress of the damage, but there was damage. Now on top of all of her other issues, she was going to be mostly blind.

Horrible situation. The family was suing the doctor for not performing the laser surgery sooner, to the tune of millions of dollars. The job of the jurors was to look at all of the available information and determine whether or not the doctor was negligent. With witness testimony and medical journals provided as evidence, the case became complicated. There is something called "threshold" when it comes to ROP. It's the point in the development of the eye when those veins go crazy and detatch the retinas. Standard practice at the time was to wait until threshold, to see whether or not ROP developed and how much damage their would be, however trials were being run on performing the surgery prior to that threshold point. Later, the earlier surgery would become standard.

Everyone cared about the kid. We all sympathized with the family. We all wanted to help them take care of the girl, because of the challenges that she would be facing. The question was, was the doctor negligent? Did he meet the medical standards?

Yes, he did. At the time, standard practice was to wait for threshold. There was a lot of behind the scenes drama with getting the equipment needed at this hospital, but ultimately, despite all of that drama, the medical standard *at the time* was met.

So, the jury deliberates. It's a simple decision. Everyone knows where they stand. We turn in our votes... ten jurors side with the parents. Two jurors side with the doctor. I sided with the doctor, because no matter what I felt or wanted, the facts were the facts. The standards were met. I even asked the other jurors how they could vote the way they were, knowing that the standards were met and knowing that our on job was to make that determination. How could they ignore the facts? The answer I got was "These are doctors. The standards should be higher for them."

Of course, the standards ARE higher... and the doctor met those standards. But no matter how much I tried to get this point across, those ten jurors acknowledged that the facts were on the side of the doctor, but sided with the family instead. And when I asked them if they could explain why, the answer I got was literally, I kid you not, "We have the majority. We don't have to explain ourselves to you."

So I sat in that room for days, listening to them decide just how much money they were going to wrongfully give this family. The only time I could speak up was to tell them when they were awarding money for things that were clearly unrelated to the case. The one other juror who agreed with me would just sit there, giving me wide-eyed shrugs as we watched those ten other people wrongfully award money, going against the responsibilities that were spelled out to us, and going against facts and logic (not an opinion, mind you. They clearly said that the standards were met and they had no reason for what they were doing).

They awarded the family millions. The doctor's lawyer knew who voted for what, and she looked at me as the decision was being read. All I could do was shrug. I genuinely had no idea why.

The family didn't know how anyone voted. So as I was walking out of the place for the last time, they were met a group of us in the hallway. The mother was crying, hugging us and thanking us (I was with the woman who also voted against them). It was really awkward. I genuinely did feel for these people. But the decision was 100% wrong.

It's all good. I'm still Facebook friends with three of the jurors, two of whom voted wrongly and one who was just an alternate and didn't vote at all.

But this is who I am. I don't care if people have different views. What annoys me and nags me all these years later isn't that I didn't win that argument or that they were wrong. What bothers me about it is that they didn't care about facts. It bothers me that I can't understand why they believed what they did, because they didn't really care enough to think it through.

Facts matter. Saying that Trump banned Muslims is a lie. Saying that something is unconstitutional for Trump, but wasn't unconstitutional for Obama is disingenuous. I can't accept that as a reason. I respect a ton of people who have many different opinions than I do when it comes to politics, but it bothers me when I can have long conversations with people without understanding what those other people think. I can usually argue both sides of a debate, and I've actually switched sides and argued against myself when other people weren't making good points. I hate it on TV shows when the writers can't understand a different point of view, so their characters can't genuinely believe in anything that the writers don't (Firefly's Book character suffered because of this).

I want there to be good reasons for people to have different opinions, because I have an obsessive need to understand these things. I understand why people supported Obamacare, even if I could see its failure coming from a mile away. I can understand people supporting abortion, though I see it as an absolute atrocity. I can understand people who want government funded college education, though I think it'd be about the same level of mess as the public school system that we have now. I don't need to agree with people in order to get them. I just need actual reasons. That is why I am trying to cut through the BS hysteria and emotional nonsense in regards to Trump. If there's a debate to be had on the issues, I want to have it. But I post actual reasons for where I stand, citing historical examples and providing data, and in return I am told that I'm just a manic Trump supporter.

Which. I. Am. F---ing. Not.

The truth is that despite the fact that I don't like Trump on an emotional level, I am capable of liking some of what he does. I'm a conservative. I'm not going to suddenly adopt liberal beliefs because an a$$hole is in office. If he does conservative things, then I'll probably be having a good day.

Do you know why I like you, ireactions? Despite the fact that we completely disagree quite often and our beliefs probably couldn't be more different, once you get past your emotional response, you're willing to accept that I am not a Nazi sympathizer. It's really that simple. You're willing to accept that I have beliefs that you don't share. You probably even read this whole post. Why? Because you can respect someone who isn't like you and that makes conversation worthwhile.

But you have shit taste in news sources. smile

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Trump is a joke.  He's already LOST his "who pays for the wall" tiff with the President of Mexico, and yesterday didn't have the balls to stand up to the drug companies over prescription drug pricing.  Pretty soon he'll understand why and how Obama was unable to move on many of these issues.  He's a total buffoon, and it's clear his central "team" as expected have no clue what "finesse" is required in that office.  They've done nothing but make gaffes and alienate tons of people, and again, this is less than 2 weeks in. 

Even my dog, who by dog standards I will freely admit, not the sharpest knife in the drawer, would have realized the country is highly polarized.  How about I begin with a proposal that will get bipartisan support?  How about we fix our damn infrastructure????  Democrats would have gone along with this, as would Governors and CEO's everywhere.  Instead this moron has freaked or flat pissed off Democrats, Republicans, Governors, CEO's, and whoever else, in just TWO WEEKS!  His scorched earth policy simply will not work.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I'm going to need some time to ponder Informant's jury experience. As for news sources, feel free to recommend your picks?

I find it best to associate with people who don't think the same way I do; I don't need an echo chamber.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions, I was just messing around about the news sources. I tend to bounce around, so I end up everywhere. I can't hate though... they gave one of my books a really good review. smile

Grizzlor, I'm going to need a little bit of help following.

First, in what way did Trump lose the wall "tiff" with Mexico? Do you mean that he lost because Mexico isn't going to just write a check to build a wall? Because the idea is a bit more complicated than that.

Second, I'm not sure what you mean about the drug companies. From what I've read, Trump made his goals clear and the companies have said that they have hope of being able to make it all work. You seem to be implying that this meeting went badly, but everyone seemed to walk away from it with a positive and hopeful attitude.

When it comes to a plan with bipartisan support, the drug issue seems to be as close as he'll get. The issue was one that Bernie Sanders was big on, wasn't it?

But the truth is that there will be no bipartisan support. The riots were planned and paid for before the inauguration. Trump could have adopted a thousand disabled orphans and those riots would have still happened. And yes, I'm calling them riots, because "protest" implies some purpose and some order. This is not what's happening. If you're not watching the news tonight, another Milo speaking engagement was attacked. Hatred and violence are all the rage these days, and the media and politicians just keep feeding into it. They don't want a united country. They want the government turning on the President (remember when it was hateful and criminal for a government official to refuse orders because it conflicted with their beliefs? Not anymore, apparently). They're blatantly lying to the people in order to keep this anger and hatred brewing. It's disgusting and shameful. This is what I hate about the current climate in the country. Facts don't matter as much as narrative. We're not discussing issues, we're picking teams and blindly devoting ourselves to them (and I say "we" as citizens, not "we" as if I'm actually a part of it, because I'm not).

Who does this blind hate and rage benefit? Who do the lies benefit? Who does division benefit? It's not the people, that's for sure.

I don't expect that you're going to agree with much that Trump does over the next four years. That's to be expected. It's the world I lived in for the past eight years. I had to sit by and watch as the President did horrible things and said horrible things, and it's not fun. I get that much, and the beauty of our system is that you will get to voice your opinions and vote in the next election. But keep an eye on the ball, because I can tell you without a doubt that the media and the politicians are flat-out lying. It's not about difference of opinion, it's about facts. Base your opinions on the facts and documents, not the headlines or catch phrases.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Okay, arguing aside, I want to get some points of view from the other side of the issues.

The riots taking place recently, protesting Trump and Milo, and all of that stuff... when you see those things, how do you react? In theory, these are people on your side of the debate (though I don't think anyone here would support violence like that). So what is your gut reaction to seeing people in black masks, carrying signs that range anywhere from "America was never great" to "No Hate", throwing benches through windows, burning cars, firing rockets (fireworks?) at buildings, lighting people on fire, beating them with poles, etc.

I understand differences of opinions on the issues, but it seems like completely out of controls hatred to me. From my point of view, these people look more hateful, more fascist, more intolerant, more dangerous and more crazy than Trump. Rationalizing assault by saying that it's okay to punch a Nazi (therefore declaring anyone who disagrees with them a Nazi) seems completely insane to me. But I'm already on the other side of this debate. So how far from mainstream are those rioters? How do you liberal-minded people see this? Does it make you draw closer to that side, or does it make you step back a little, just to put some distance between you and them? Because I know a lot of liberals, and I have a hard time believing that they would be cheering this on... But I also can't speak for them. They're oddly quiet on this particular topic.

Honestly, I've never seen this level of pure hatred and violence in this country. To see if from people carrying signs about tolerance and love just baffles me. Is this the mainstream left, or should we chalk it up to them wacky millennials who were never taught how to properly process their emotions?

Then again, they could be paid "protesters" who aren't there for anything except the money.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I don't identify with people who engage in physical attacks and cause property damage even if it's to express views I personally agree with. I don't defend it. I don't engage in it. My defiance towards the Trump administration has been more in terms of writing cheques to Planned Parenthood and the ACLU.

The guy who works in the social activism office downstairs tells me he got really upset because he bought New Balance shoes, New Balance supports Trump and my buddy can't afford to throw out a good pair of shoes. I advised that he calculate a percentage of the shoe price that he could afford to pay, give it to me and I'd add it to my next donation for LGBTQ rights. But just because I defy Donald Trump doesn't mean I can answer for the actions of everyone else and their tactics.

618 (edited by Informant 2017-02-03 12:06:46)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Okay, that's what I figured. I just wanted to get the "everyman" liberal perspective on it.

I always thought it would have been annoying to live in the 60's, with the drugged up hippies and radicals that were blowing things up. I guess this is our chance to experience that. Sigh. smile

On another note:
Can you imagine what my life would be like if I boycotted anyone or any company who supported politicians that I disagree with? I have to be pretty selective with my boycotts or else I'd never be able to turn on the TV, read a book or watch a movie.

619 (edited by Grizzlor 2017-02-03 13:15:19)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I'm not even going to discuss the rioting, as no serious political group supports that crap.  However, come on, hatred?  We had people on this thread stating they HATED Hillary!  Obama was HATED by the right.  Tea Partiers had very disgusting signs when they gathered.  It's free speech.  Trump has unilaterally signed orders that a LOT of people don't like.  He is free to do this, but the backlash is there because A) he lost the popular vote and barely won a half dozen states and B) these impact people greatly.  I love it.  This is the most ALIVE democracy and the first amendment has felt in quite a long time. 

I do not expect bipartisanship on the drug pricing.  They tried, and hell, our NJ Senators (supposed liberals) voted it down, because that's big business here.  And he'll eventually lose on the wall.   Nobody wants to pay for it.

Now he's important environmental and financial regulations left and right, without any replacement available.  He's trying to do the same with Obamacare, but Congress knows that would cause chaos. 

Kelly Anne last night blatantly LIED and made up a terrorist attack that never happened to prove the anti-refugee order. 

I really don't care about the Trump pettiness, it's the lying.  Lying and ignoring facts.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

To be clear, I think there's a difference between someone saying "I hate Charlie O'Connell" and someone condoning violence against Charlie O'Connell. I don't care if someone hates Trump. I don't care if someone hates me. But what we're seeing now is a step or ten beyond the scope of what people usually mean when they say "I hate that guy". When I discuss the level of hate in this country right now, I'm not referring to the angry signs at the Women's March. I'm talking about the culture that is calling violent riots "mostly peaceful protests", shifting the blame off of those actually responsible, or flat-out condoning the violence and urging more (which we're seeing from a lot of celebrities, which serves to normalize such speech). Yeah, this might not represent the majority (though I've seen some of my normally level-headed liberal friends making pretty nasty comments and having no desire to be friends with Trump supporters, usually for reasons that are factually wrong, but I don't really get into it with them), but it's going to become the face of the liberal movement unless more sensible liberals stand up and say "I don't like Trump, but this sh*t needs to stop."

I love the practice of the First Amendment as much as anyone (though it was frowned upon during the Obama years, where you couldn't criticize his tie without being called a racist), but I do not love the display that we're seeing. At some point, there will have to be some mature discussion, right? I agree that we need to be truthful and discuss facts, which is what I've been trying to say for a while now. Unfortunately, that isn't what's been happening at all lately. I'd love to discuss the immigration issue without calls of racism (the funding of the wall is really not what most people are thinking when the discuss the idea of Mexico paying for it). I'd love to discuss the refugee situation without the term "Muslim ban" coming up. I'd love to discuss all of those fun issues, but the problem is that we always seem to fall back on slogans and catchphrases, rather than discuss the actual issues. We live in a world that expects everything to be discussed in 140 characters or less. Life just doesn't work that way.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

The claim that Trump didn't engage in a Muslim ban when his own staff called it one is a non-starter for me.

The argument that Trump describing how he grabs women without asking them doesn't qualify as an admission of sexual assault because it was a hypothetical is such a tangled web of feinting and dodging in favour of someone who is so beneath contempt that I can't spare the mental energy to unravel it.

And the declaration that Trump's wall doesn't reflect his hatred of Mexicans whom he's characterized as rapists in addition to saying judges aren't qualified if they're of Mexican descent -- it's so dismissive of facts that I can't see myself offering any worthwhile discussion in response to such viewpoints. I don't even feel the need to argue with them, only take stock of them and carry on with my own efforts even if my efforts are only symbolic gestures.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

It comes down to facts.

Was it a Muslim ban? I don't care what anyone called it. The official documentation and actions taken did not ban Muslims. Many Muslims are still coming into the country. Therefore, there was no Muslim ban. Were Muslims banned? No. That's it. Fact. Calling it a Muslim ban in spite of the facts is an attempt to rewrite history so that you can continue to hate Trump. I believe this is unnecessary because you'll have plenty of reasons to hate Trump without making stuff up.

A hypothetical is not a literal. Which is why it's called a hypothetical and not a literal. Saying that it's an admission of guilt is simply not a fact. You are saying that acknowledging the *fact* that it's a hypothetical is some sort of feinting and dodging maneuver, when the exact opposite is true. You want to believe that he sexually assaults women because it justifies how you *feel* about him. The facts do not support that conclusion, any more than the time that he hypothetically said that he could gun someone down in the middle of the street and not lose any supporters. There is a difference between what we *feel* and what *is*. I feel that Trump is gross. I feel that Trump needs to be carefully watched (which is true of any politician, but this dude knows how to play people). I feel that we could have done better. But my ability to picture him reenacting scenes from American Psycho does not mean that it actually happened.

The wall is not racist. Most of the countries in this world protect their borders, and they do it a lot more strictly than the US has for some time now (not just under Obama, it goes back quite a way). The implication that securing our border is racist is silly. It's another attempt to delegitimize the man rather than discuss the issue.

Trump did say that some Mexicans were rapists. He also said that some were perfectly nice people. This is a fact. If it's racist, you should tell the illegal Mexicans who rape people to stop doing that because they're making the rest of us racist. Not all illegals are rapists... But all illegals are criminals.

The judge... Judge Curiel is a member of an organization whose name literally translates to "The Race". Can you imagine what you'd be saying about Donald Trump right now if he belonged to an organization called "The Race"? I've seen members of La Raza on the news, talking about wanting to retake land that they think was stolen from them. So if Donald Trump thinks that this judge might have a grudge against the guy who wants to build a wall, it's an idea that I'm willing to consider. I'm also willing to consider that the judge could be fair (though from what Trump says, they lost the plaintiff in the case against him and the judge still wanted to proceed, which seems weird to me. I haven't researched that case enough to have an opinion one way or the other). Do I think it automatically think that it makes Trump a racist? No. The judge willingly associated with a race-based organization, and that association is allowed to be questioned, whether the accusation is true or not.

As with my jury duty experience, we have a situation here where people allow their feelings to outweigh the facts at hand. Willingly believing anything you hear just because it justifies your hatred of someone is fundamentally wrong. And it's a "boy crying wolf" scenario, because I think you'll have plenty of justified reasons to dislike Trump over the coming years, but if you jump on every tabloid story about his alligator babies, your legitimate concerns aren't going to carry the weight that they should.

There was no Muslim ban. Starting from that *fact*, why do you object to this action? Because you feel it's unnecessary? Because you think that there has already been enough effort put into the screening processes and you feel this is just a show of power by Trump? Because you think it's not worth delaying the arrival of refugees who desperately need to get out of danger, for the sake of weeding out some hypothetical terrorist that may or may not exist? Because such-and-such law makes it illegal for him to take such actions?

I'm not saying that I agree with any of the above, but let's start from the foundation of reality. It happened. It's serious. We don't need razzle-dazzle, with lots of flashy keywords. You disagree with this action. That's fine. So tell me why. What is wrong with a temporary moratorium on refugees from these specific countries, pending a review of the screening process?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

Most of the countries in this world protect their borders, and they do it a lot more strictly than the US has for some time now (not just under Obama, it goes back quite a way). The implication that securing our border is racist is silly. It's another attempt to delegitimize the man rather than discuss the issue.

What countries have built a wall to separate themselves from a close, historical ally?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Don't know. Could be none for all I know. But that doesn't change the fact that many countries around the world have walls or barriers on their borders. Illegal immigration is a major problem that we have with Mexico. Drug trafficking. Human trafficking. Weapons trafficking. Criminals coming over here, committing violent crimes, and even if they are deported, they just come right back over the border. Not all illegals are violent criminals. Some want better lives for their families, but by breaking our laws they prove that they have no regard for our laws. Being pleasant doesn't mean that they do not impose a burden on our country that they literally have no right to impose on us.

And on top of the problems that we have with Mexicans, we have the issue of people from other countries who want to get over that border. Some with terrorist ties.

We have a right to protect our border. We have a right to decide who will come into this country and what that process will be. So if you're opposed to using a wall for that purpose, what do you propose? We could put thousands more agents out there with guns, arresting and deporting, but that doesn't seal the hole or stop the flood.

And if you think I'm just a mean racist who doesn't care about the poor people who want better lives, do you have any idea how many of them die trying to get here illegally? How many are raped by the coyotes they hire to bring them here?

This problem needs to be addressed. Immigration is great, but it needs to be done properly. Throwing open the doors didn't work.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Melissa McCarthy seems to really struggle to satirize what is already ridicuous about the White House: … ize-to-me/

Anyway. I'm not here to debate. As I said, Informant already knows my views; I know his, I see no need to argue that which Informant will not accept and I welcome Informant's views on this Bboard. I generally post just so that if a stranger comes to this Bboard, I don't want them thinking we're a Bboard comprised entirely of Trump supporters, something even our long-term visitors were starting to think.

I also see no point in debating with someone who considers quotes from the President and his staff to be inadmissibly outside the facts in discussing their actions. No point. Back to work.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

As covered before, if terrorists are the concern then the wall needs to be on the other border.

As for crime, the data doesn't support your conclusion.  Crime rates are lower along the border.  The wall isn't going to stop trafficking in drugs or humans as long as the CBP is working with the cartels.

Punishing people for coming here illegally because we won't allow them to come legally based on an arbitrary quota is an exercise in circular logic.  It's like limiting the number of people who can use a crosswalk then arresting people who jaywalk.

Throwing open the doors didn't work?  Nonsense.  We had no immigration quotas on Mexico at all until the 1960's.  Nobody had a problem with it.  Closing the doors is what hasn't worked.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

This fanfic ThomasMalthus wrote years ago ( I think it was around 2000 or 2004) popped into my head the other day when reading through this thread.

So I'm just going to leave this here.


628 (edited by Informant 2017-02-06 13:29:13)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions, I would not call myself a "Trump supporter". Most of what I've said here isn't even supporting Trump, but clarifying facts, as opposed to feelings or misinformation written in false news headlines or false news articles. To call myself a Trump supporter would mean that I support the man, which is not true. However, as we are both conservatives, there will probably be many times when I agree with what he does. My support will be on the issues, and on a case-by-case basis.

We can discuss quotes from the President. However, a quote from a President or his staff is not the same as the policy that is enacted. For example, Obama said that if you liked your medical plan, you would be able to keep it. However, the policy enacted reflected something different. Trump doesn't just wave his hand and make something so. He signs an official document. He could say "I'm signing a document that bans all Muslims" and then sign a lunch order for his staff... that doesn't mean that the lunch order banned Muslims.

One of the frustrating things about Trump is that he talks a lot, without going over his words as though they were a legal document, the way most Presidents have. He uses the wrong words. He says the wrong things. And sometimes it takes some work to figure out what it actually going on. Like when he says that Mexico will pay for the wall... it's true that this is the plan, but it misrepresents the method by which this will be done. Hell, the "wall" might not even be what we're all picturing when all is said and done. There is no official design that I've seen.

I will accept you arguing your side. I will accept you getting frustrated with me when I constantly contradict what everyone else says on certain subjects. However, I will not accept being spoken of as though I am being irrational for looking at the actual facts and documents when it comes to official policy. We can discuss the comments made by those officials in relation to the actual policy, but that's about it. If you want to just discuss the way Trump talks sometimes, then we will probably be in agreement a lot of the time. He's an ass. But don't say that you're done discussing and that you're ready to move on and then take a jab at me.

But I'm ready to move on and stop this back and forth if you are. There really is no point in having a discussion with someone who doesn't seem to care about the difference between reality and irrational emotion.

See? It's really annoying when someone does that, isn't it? smile

pilight, can I ask where you're getting your statistics about crime rates along the border? I've seen a DOJ report from 2014, showing that something like 40% of federal crimes were committed along the border, but if there is some more recent data to take into consideration, I'm interested in seeing it.

I agree that we need to crack down on corrupt employees and program in our own government. However, making it harder to move product from point A to point B is certainly going to make trafficking harder.

Other than that, there's not much that I can say about your comments. We have fundamentally different beliefs about how immigration should be handled. I don't think it's realistic or sustainable to just let anyone who wants to come into our country do so without going through the proper procedures. Every country has immigration policies, some more strict than our own. We are a country that a lot of people, in a lot of other countries (not just Mexico) want to live in. If we don't have some sort of immigration policy, how do you propose that we stop people from flooding in?

I had a South African friend years ago, who was here on a visa and wanted desperately to stay, but couldn't. We aren't just talking about Mexico when it comes to the policies that we establish here. And no matter how much we might like people or feel for people, we simply cannot sustain every person in this world who wants to come into our country. I don't know if you've noticed, but our economy isn't exactly doing great as it is. Schools are over-crowded. Hospitals struggle with illegals who can't pay for care. When handled correctly, immigration allows people to come into the country and become a part of the great American system. If you just let everyone come rushing in, we will be drowning in people that we can't take care of and the great American system will not be able to carry that burden.

On top of all of that, quite frankly, I don't want people coming into this country if they're going to wave around the flag of another country and declare that they're retaking something that they view as theirs. That's called an invasion.

chaser9, thanks for posting that link. That is the way things seem to be in this country. smile

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant, on this one page in this one thread, you've burned through over 7,200 words chatting up politics. Having dumped all of that into Word, that's a 14 page essay, single-spaced.

I'm not saying that to judge, but I do want it noted. Mostly because I want to know how you can carve time out of writing a book to focus on Trump? I legitimately want to know because I would like to write my own book(s) but can't seem to make it happen.

Earth Prime | The Definitive Source for Sliders™

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I type fast... and I'm in editing mode. You should see me go on about something that I'm really passionate about. smile

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

pilight, I didn't mean to ignore the links you posted. They didn't show up as links when I first read the post for some reason.

The thing to note is that the article keeps referring to violent crimes, which require a criminal to threaten a victim. This would not include a lot of border crimes, including (but not limited to) illegally crossing. It wouldn't include burglaries, trespassing, shoplifting, or any number of crimes. Not to split hairs, but if we are looking at crime statistics, you can't discount most types of crime.

Also, I doubt that illegals stay in border towns once they cross over. That'd be a bit like breaking into someone's house and then unpacking in the guest room.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

My unwillingness to get involved in a debate over Trump and America with Informant shouldn't be read as a dismissal of Informant. It's a bit like Slider_Quinn21's inexplicable and bizarre love for STAR TREK VOYAGER. I've ranted about how awful the show is -- but there's no point getting any farther into it at this stage. We know each other's positions, these positions are welcome to be shared in this space on the internet. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I shall watch FARSCAPE, Slider_Quinn21 will watch VOYAGER, and we will carry on. I need to put my rage elsewhere and to more productive purpose than here.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

pilight, I didn't mean to ignore the links you posted. They didn't show up as links when I first read the post for some reason.

The thing to note is that the article keeps referring to violent crimes, which require a criminal to threaten a victim. This would not include a lot of border crimes, including (but not limited to) illegally crossing. It wouldn't include burglaries, trespassing, shoplifting, or any number of crimes. Not to split hairs, but if we are looking at crime statistics, you can't discount most types of crime.

Also, I doubt that illegals stay in border towns once they cross over. That'd be a bit like breaking into someone's house and then unpacking in the guest room.

You can't seriously be suggesting we need a gazillion dollar wall to keep out shoplifters and trespassers.  There must be a more cost effective way to deal with such things.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

We could always stop financing the Sinaloa cartel, giving them the funding and muscle to murder their enemies and sending panicked Mexicans fleeing for safer regions!

Earth Prime | The Definitive Source for Sliders™

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

ireactions, I actually agree about the part where you think we've said all there is to say. I'm going to give it a rest for a while after today.

pilight, you know that's not what I said. It is misleading to put out a report on how crime levels on the border are so low, but leave out most types of crime.

Also, I don't care what the wall costs! Mexico is paying! smile

Transmodiar, you've twisted my arm. We can stop financing the cartel. See? We agree on stuff now! And I kept the reply pretty short.

I mean, I was tempted to go into a whole long thing about Fast and Furious (not the movie) and all of that, but I figured that you already knew that stuff, and I really didn't need to give pages of exposition for the home audience.

Then I considered doing this thing where I pretend that I'm actually in favor of financing the cartel, because I have a reputation for being disagreeable. But I couldn't really find the angle to work that one from. It just came out sounding stupid.

Finally, I decided that we've had enough of the long-winded political responses where I pretty much state my case in the first sentence and then go through a whole Columbo monologue, explaining the hows and whys of it all. Everyone, myself included, is probably pretty tired of that. So ultimately, the best option was to keep it short and sweet. End this whole round of political blathering on a note of unity and agreement. Nobody likes the cartels! So, short response it was! Nice and to the point.

I'm going to consider keeping all of my responses this short in the future. It saves a lot of time.

Is this joke old yet?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Will it get worse or better?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Depends on your perspective. smile

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate … index.html

Not for Michael Flynn.  He's out, and sure to be called before the Senate.  Another Oliver North?  We shall see.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

Depends on your perspective. smile


I more meant from everyone's perspective (outliers excluded of course)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate … ing-214775

Trump hasn't really accomplished much of anything, good or bad.  The travel ban is the only real thing he's done, and the checks and balances of the country have worked in stopping that for the time being.  The media and social media are saying a lot about Trump being a fascist.

Instead, he's basically what he's always been - a lot of talk and no action.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I wouldn't say that Trump is no action. He took action. The court overstepped quite a bit by stopping his order. It will be overturned.

Will it get better? Yeah. Life will go on. All of the people who are panicking about Trump being a Nazi will get bored when there are no death camps. Riots will continue, because they will continue to be funded, but they've already lost whatever legitimacy they might have had by turning violent.

So we will be left with normal liberals and normal conservatives, debating relatively boring issues, the way we always so regardless of who is in office. Liberals probably won't be super happy a lot of the time, but that's life. Conservatives will probably have their own complaints too. Again, that's life.

Basically, there is nothing unusual happening here.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Well, as someone who didn't like Trump but feared Hillary more, I was banking on him not doing much.  So not doing much of anything is basically my best case scenario smile

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate … ce=copyurl

National Security discussion held during a party at Trump's golf course.  Great idea!

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Just curious - how long until there's a Hollywood action film where Trump and his administration are the villains?

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Oh, I'm expecting to see a wave of those plotlines as the TV season winds down. Then a bunch of pilots next year. Then a bunch of movies which will flip because nobody cares about Hollywood politics.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Where's Leslie Nielsen when you need him?

647 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2017-05-10 16:13:53)

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Don't forget this happened the last time a republican was in office:!

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

I'm confused.  Am I supposed to hate Comey?  Love him?  Feel sorry for him?  Love that he got fired but not in the way he did?  Wish he wasn't fired but that he would be better?

I've been told so many thing by both sides that I honestly don't know how I feel.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

Sometimes, Comey was on my side and sometimes he was on the other side, but I always respected him as the last honest man in a world of liars, a man who was no one's lackey or loyalist and answered only to his own conscience -- a conscience that was, however, often marred by a rapturous overconfidence in his own self-righteousness rather than a solemn assessment of the situation. In a time of potential peace, I saw him as a dangerous figure; in the fascist nightmare that America's become, I saw him as one of the few remaining checks and balances on a corrupt and compromised administration.

Basically, I saw him the way Dean sees Crowley on SUPERNATURAL.

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate

That actually might be a really good comparison.