Search options (Page 17 of 35)

I don't think they really went into the language thing. They probably didn't want to draw attention to it. I think the closest we came is Hoshi working to translate things.

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.

Yeah, it seems creepy that Neelix or Tom would be into someone who was probably around 3-5 years old, or that Harry would be into someone who was probably around that age or younger. But then again, was it creepy for Sarek to be married to Amanda or Perrin?

There is a lot of negativity on those boards, but they can also have some interesting discussion too. It's a shame.

The whole internet feels like it is on a downward spiral into unpleasantness.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

Y'know, this thread is starting to sound a lot like the political thread.

Again, it's nothing really unusual. I might sound like a DC cheerleader by repeating this line so much, but most of this stuff that looks really dire when you write articles about it are pretty standard practice. Most scripts, whether they be film or TV, eventually get looked at and tightened up by another writer. Sometimes those changes are used, sometimes not.

This is the guy who worked on the Justice League. Maybe he was going through it to make sure that everything flowed well enough. Maybe there were scenes that weren't quite what they needed to be. Who knows? A draft doesn't need to be a complete overhaul. It's just the latest pass... And there will even be revisions during filming. Possibly even after filming.

Now, if this were a page one rewrite after Affleck stepped down as director, it might look a little worse (though I imagine that any new director will make changes). But they had someone who is already part of their DCEU look over the script. Happens every day on TV shows.

So much press has been given to the fact that Affleck is working on writing the script that it will be turned into a circus if anyone else's name is added to the script. I find that odd.

I did notice that!

*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.

This week's episode was pretty great. I love the twisted humor of this show. I still can't believe that they beat Jerome until his face fell off and plopped into a puddle. Hilarious.

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

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?

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!

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.

FACTS:

--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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

Back to the DC/Marvel thing for a sec... The Marvel movies reshoot things regularly. It is part of the schedule for their films. It is pretty standard for any film, really. That's why I don't get why everyone freaks out when DC does it.

We have also seen comments from Marvel directors. The Iron Man movies in particular had their troubles. Thor's movies had director/actor issues as well.

I'd have to disagree. Peter is supposed to be pretty brilliant. The fight between heroes was in no way justified in the movie, and I think it would have served that character better if they had Tony approach him and Peter just laughed at the absurdity of it all. The airport scene was one of the worst action pieces in the MCU, because it is such large-scale nonsense that it is completely absurd.

Captain America isn't really subtle. He would have been in every history book about WWII. Peter would have grown up thinking of this man as THE ultimate American hero. A legend. I don't think he would have easily turned on that. It'd be like someone agreeing to take down Abraham Lincoln. It'd take a bit of 'splaining to wrap someone's mind around that.

I agree that BvS was altered in a reactionary way, and it shouldn't have been. People are still complaining about Snyder's work, but his movie was actually really good. To be clear, I did like the theatrical version of BvS, and I could easily fill in a lot of the blanks and connect a lot of the dots on my own. i just think that the extended cut is an easier movie to watch and follow, with less work required by the audience.

I disagree that it's a pattern or a problem with the overall slate. Suicide Squad was not the same problem as BvS. Most of the cuts were the types of cuts that you see with any movie. In my opinion, some of it is worth having in there, but none of it really changed my view of the movie. In fact, when the movie was done, there were maybe two scenes that I could think of that were changed and I had to look up the rest of the differences because I couldn't figure out where the extra 13 minutes were coming from. Obviously, ireactions has a different opinion on that. I guess it's just one of those things that comes down to personal taste.

Extended cuts, unrated cuts, special editions, etc... it's been done with all kinds of movies, for a very long time now. It's a way for the studio to attract DVD sales from people who have already seen the movie. It's not always about restoring the movie to the way it was intended to be seen, or the director's true vision. Sometimes, it's just about finding material that was edited out for whatever reason, but could still serve a purpose. Most of the the Suicide Squad material could have been left out, with no significant change to the movie, in my opinion. but "Two minutes of bonus material!" is not very exciting when they print it on the back of the box.

We can argue the merits of the Marvel strategy again... do you want to? Because Civil War wasn't fit for the screen, nor were most of their movies (count the number of Marvel movies, and then subtract the ones that really shouldn't have been released as we saw them). DC could put out crap because it's on the schedule too, but that doesn't mean that they should. Having a plan isn't the same thing as having a good plan. And being unwilling to alter the plan as you get into the thick of things doesn't make anyone smarter.

But seriously, why do we keep comparing these movies? Is it just because we've been told that there is a big battle between the two universes that are totally different in most ways and aren't even competing for the same audience? Where is this narrative coming from? Are we ever forced to choose between Supernatural or The X-Files? Do we ever have long conversations about which self-righteous Oscar nominated movie should have been more like the other self-righteous Oscar nominated movie (neither of which made anywhere near the profits either the Marvel or DC movies, by the way). What is the point of comparing.

And also... why *was* Spider-Man in the airport battle scene? The stupid kid decided to go and battle people that he knows are good guys, because the guy who is hitting on his disturbingly-hot aunt told him to? It made no sense!

And what's the vetting process?

Okay, so...

Obama tried to legitimize the oppression in Cuba, and ended the US policy which allowed Cuban refugees to stay in the US and become citizens. Now they would be shipped back to Cuba like other immigrants. This seems to fly in the face of not just liberal immigration views, but you'd think that liberals would be upset about not allowing refugees in. Even more so than the Syrian refugees, because we are pretty much the only hope for the Cubans who flee their country on dinky rafts. Cuba hasn't gone through a big change where everyone is free and happy now.

It would seem that Obama's decision to end the refugee policy was a political tantrum, because too many Cuban-Americans pissed him off during the election and Cubans tend to be more conservative once they get here. You'd think that all of the celebrities who are upset about Trump's refugee policies would have been equally upset about Obama's... Except, they weren't. Nobody cared when we turned our backs on the people fleeing Cuba. Nobody cared about sending them back after their attempt to flee.

So, I have a hard time buying all of this outrage over how uncaring and how un-American Trump's policies are. The fact is, none of these people really care about refugees or humanity. They care about their fad issues. Hating Trump and supporting Muslim immigrants is in style this season. The red carpet at the Oscars this year is probably going to be all about how well people can match their politics to their shoes. They won't want to over-accessorize with jewels, because it would take away from the flare of their pseudo-intellectual outfits.

I can't stand people who pretend to care, or who pretend to be offended, or pretend to be outraged. I hate fakeness.

Right. But we are assuming that this didn't exist with DC movies, when there were probably a number of people involved in making the movies work together. I know you think their system (whatever it was) failed, but I haven't seen any major flaws or continuity errors so far.

Basically what I'm saying is, I don't know what their system is, but there doesn't seem to be a problem so far.

We have to stop comparing DC and Marvel. Marvel is flawed because they put out crap. That isn't a working model. It isn't a good model. It isn't a model to aspire to. There are what, a dozen Marvel movies, plus multiple tv shows? And how much of them are actually good? Maybe five good movies, if we're generous? One really solid TV show? It makes a lot of money and people seem to have a good time with them, but it isn't something to compare every other comic book movie to. Having one guy running things doesn't make their universe cohesive. The supposedly connected tv shows really aren't connected. The characters appear in movies together, but usually don't have consistent personalities or character arcs. They can't seem to decide how they want to approach Captain America's costume, so the tone of it shifts from movie to movie.

It is easy to compare these studios and their movies, but the reality is that they're not doing the same thing. We really shouldn't be holding them up next to each other.

I don't find the DCEU to be as inconsistent as you do. It doesn't contradict itself as much as you imply. Batman was around, but the not super visible or well known. And I don't think the costume was what shocked people about Superman. It was the flying alien with laser eyes element. Wonder Woman was probably never known very widely a century ago.

I disagree about Suicide Squad. Ayer insists that there is no super secret cut locked away somewhere. The movie is what it is. I like it.

I disagree about BvS too, but we don't beat that dead horse.

The Flash is a weird situation. How do they make this movie without stepping on the toes of the series? How do they tell the story of Barry Allen in a way that is valid on its own, but doesn't invalidate the series? Part of me has suspected that this movie could be scrapped entirely, because there isn't a huge need for it. It doesn't surprise me that they're having trouble getting it just right. It took how long to get a good Superman script?

I'm not deducting points for this. Knowing when to change course despite the master plan is a sign that someone cares what they put on screen.

Just to highlight the hypocrisy at work here... Pay attention to how many people boycott the Oscars after marching for women. Will they reject this award show where people give a standing ovation to a man who drugged and raped a child? Or will they tune in to see celebrities in sparklie dresses giving hollow political speeches after they win an ugly statue?

Good video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs

Obama was an establishment stooge too. The problem that the Democrats is that they rely on the establishment. The establishment provides their fear, their outrage and their opinions, while promising to provide fantasy healthcare, free college, free mortgages... It is all fluff. There is a lot that Democrats believe in and are willing to stand for, but if these marches proved anything, it's that they're not doing their homework and they're willing to follow blindly.

I respect the hell out of a lot of Democrats on a personal level. I disagree with them, but that's fine. But as a whole, the party has become like a cult. You can watch Leah Remini's Scientology series and see the same methods of brainwashing used by Democrat leaders. This is dangerous because Democrats in general are more pro-government and aren't as quick to question their own politicians or abandon them. I don't want to sound like I'm insulting Democrats. I'm not. But their general philosophies make them easier targets.

And again, I'm not a crazy Trump defender. People need to stop minimizing what the Nazis were and what they did, because we are nowhere close to that.

But we have a new example of him not being evil:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washin … story.html