|
|
Post by celawson on Mar 1, 2017 12:49:49 GMT -5
One more thing before I head off to work -- those "fact checks" (by the "dishonest media") crack me up. Most all of the "lies" posted in the Guardian article begin by saying things like -"Trump is correct..." or "Trump is also correct..." or refute part of Trump's statement with ONE study or poll. "According to a study" "The study estimated..." Well, how do I know that ONE study or poll is the Holy Grail? Or they say "Economists still debate" And regarding the corporate tax rates - Googling picks up plenty of other sources that agree fully with Trump's claim that the U.S. corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world. Forbes agrees with Trump: www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2015/03/25/the-truth-about-corporate-tax-rates/#b37dbe1742c8Forbes usually knows what it's talking about. Funny how Forbes uses the same source as the Guardian - OECD. But the Guardian looks at tax revenue as percent of GDP. Trump did not say that. Trump mentioned tax rate. I guess there's always a way you can look at numbers to prove Trump "wrong" if you try hard enough. |
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 1, 2017 13:04:38 GMT -5
I fail to see how that is passing the buck. If planning this raid was started before Trump came to office, then it was started before Trump came to office. He still stated that his generals came to him, which means, to me, that he admits he signed off on it. I also fail to see how taking a fair amount of time in his speech to stop and honor Owens and his wife is passing the buck. And I certainly don't see it as exploitation. What do widows of fallen soldiers have to hold on to, and bring them strength, and comfort them in their grief, other than the memory of their loved one and the faith that their loved one did not die in vain and died with honor and died for the greater good? Trump emphasized all that to her, and our government stood and showed gratitude and honored both Owens' and his wife's sacrifice. I cannot imagine anything other than those were moments she will hold onto forever and perhaps use to comfort her kids as well. Chief Petty Officer Owens deserved those moments, and so did his wife. It will never be enough, but it was something, and to cheapen it by claiming it is "exploiting" her only denigrates it. Yes, I know you fail to see how that's passing the buck, but I'm in a good mood so I'll explain why it's passing the buck. Trump is the president. Not my president, but someone's president. Probably yours. That aside, one of his other titles is "Commander-In-Chief." He has the Last Word on a military operation like the one in Yemen that went shit side up and left a Navy SEAL and a 8-year-old girl among the causalities of a botched job the Trump Administration defended as "highly successful." The intelligence for the mission began during Obama's tenure, but the go-or-no-go decision was Trump's to make and Trump alone. He gave the thumbs-up and we know what happened next. Trump punted on taking ANY responsibility.Which is absolute crap, but that's what Spicer spews out daily. Compare and contrast Trump's "they lost Ryan" with Obama's "I'm the president. And I'm always responsible" after four Americans died in Libya or Reagan saying about Iran-Contra, “ As angry as I may be about activities undertaken without my knowledge, I am still accountable for those activities,” he said. “As disappointed as I may be in some who served me, I’m still the one who must answer to the American people for this behavior. And as personally distasteful as I find secret bank accounts and diverted funds - well, as the Navy would say, this happened on my watch.” That's the difference between a President who owns their mistakes when something goes wrong and someone like Trump who says he never has to repent because he's not making any mistakes. Petty Officer Owens' father refused to meet Trump and has demanded an investigation into the Yemen mission failures and what happened to his son. If Trump wants to really honor the fallen soldier who fell due to HIS decision, he should have proclaimed to an assembled Congress and a watching nation he would not rest until the truth was discovered. But that would mean being the president instead of acting like one. |
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 1, 2017 13:16:03 GMT -5
Commander in Chief means you assume the responsibilities of a military commander, which means if shit happens under your command, it's your responsibility- not necessarily your fault, but you still own it. That's why the captain of a ship is on the hook for anything that happens aboard his ship, or if his ship runs aground, or collides with another ship, or whatever, even if it was some dumb subordinate's mistake while he was asleep or ashore.
Trump isn't personally to blame for Owens dying, but he gave the go-ahead for the mission, he sure as hell took credit for the "valuable intelligence" gained from it, so he is responsible for Owens's death, just as every President is responsible the deaths of servicemembers carrying out orders from the CiC. Saying "Oh, it was the generals who told me this was a good idea" - well, you made the decision. You said "Go ahead."
|
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Mar 1, 2017 13:21:56 GMT -5
So I didn't have much interest in the speech as I rarely do. I missed the beginning, but did catch the last 1/2 more or less. Yes, it was Trump at his best. That's a rather low bar. Still, in and of itself, what I heard was fine. The devil is of course in the details and how he plans on taking on some of those things he said he's going to do. I didn't see the widow of the fallen soldier, but is that not something that's done at these things. People have guests to try and push through a point. www.presidency.ucsb.edu/sou_gallery.phpHe did the same with the family members of people killed by illegals. Introduced right after a few Democrats booed. www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/03/01/jamiel_shaw_on_democrats_and_immigration_you_just_ignore_them_like_they_do_me.htmlI thought that was smart on his part. (Or the part of whoever thought it up) Put a face on the people who are hurt when illegals are allowed to cross our borders over and over again, after being caught and punished for a violent crime and deported. Mostly, it didn't really change my opinion of Trump, which is and remains pretty low. He can talk all he wants about the issues with the ACA, but getting it or replaced with something better is what is needed. |
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 1, 2017 14:59:21 GMT -5
While the Washington pundits are all a'flutter and Republicans are relieved Trump didn't cuss out anybody or drop his pants and moon the audience, what's been overlooked is Trump's latest salvo in his war against immigrants. Do immigrants commit crimes? Yes, they do, but statistically, immigrants commit less crimes. So why is Trump creating a special agency when the "problem" is so small? What about violence against immigrants? Why isn't VOICE set up to protect immigrants from crimes against them? What is Trump doing to protect innocents like Srinivas Kuchibhotla who was gunned down by a moron who screamed "Get out of my country!" before shooting the engineer from India. Trump wants to use fear of immigrants to unleash a new front on his attacks against them and while he's doing so, the nativist, xenophobic racists are getting a head start on the ethnic cleansing and Making America White Again. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 15:08:25 GMT -5
I cannot, for the life of me, see why victims of crimes committed by immigrants should be elevated above victims of other crimes, nor why such a tiny group needs its own federal agency. (Weren't Republicans supposed to be in favor of less federal government?)
Nor can I see what exactly this agency would do for victims in any case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Don on Mar 2, 2017 5:24:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Mar 2, 2017 8:31:06 GMT -5
I cannot, for the life of me, see why victims of crimes committed by immigrants should be elevated above victims of other crimes, nor why such a tiny group needs its own federal agency. (Weren't Republicans supposed to be in favor of less federal government?) Nor can I see what exactly this agency would do for victims in any case. They don't and shouldn't. But the criminals shouldn't get special treatment. If ICE asks for a person who is an illegal immigrant to be held by local authorities when he's in custody, he should be held. www.sfgate.com/news/article/Pier-shooting-suspect-had-been-released-from-S-F-6365228.php |
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 3, 2017 7:53:51 GMT -5
I find Balko's piece rather poor. I don't think Trump's speech was the greatest thing since sliced bread, nor do I agree with all of the proposals therein, but the speech wasn't a "nightmare." Balko looks petty and foolish in that piece, imo. |
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 3, 2017 9:15:56 GMT -5
I cannot, for the life of me, see why victims of crimes committed by immigrants should be elevated above victims of other crimes, nor why such a tiny group needs its own federal agency. (Weren't Republicans supposed to be in favor of less federal government?) Nor can I see what exactly this agency would do for victims in any case. I don't disagree. There's no need for a new agency, imo. Though to be fair, it's not really set up for victims of crimes by immigrants in general, it's specific to crimes committed by "removable aliens," which I think refers only to aliens who have violated immigration laws. Trump should check his own terminology here. That said, check this story our: www.cnn.com/2017/03/02/us/ms-13-long-island-killings/index.htmlMy two takeaways from this: 1) US citizens who turn to crime are not special; they can be and are every bit as brutal as anyone else. So immigrants are in no way more of a danger. 2) That said, we have enough criminals who are US citizens--whether immigrants or born here--so we really don't need any more coming here illegally, which is what kinda burns me up about the lack of cooperation with ICE. I don't know if any of the scumbags above--who are here illegally--have prior criminal records, but if they do, their status should have been noted and acted on, imo. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2017 9:34:02 GMT -5
I have zero problem with illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes being given the bum's rush out of the country. Certainly they shouldn't be given special consideration above other criminals. You do the crime, you take the repercussions -- and those repercussions can include deportation.
I'm a lot less keen on spending resources to zealously locate and deport those who are simply working here and making lives for themselves, doing no harm and indeed, contributing. Nor am I a big fan of spending huge amounts of money to keep such people out. (As I've said, I'd like to make it easier for such people to come here in the first place. But even if you favor keeping them out, I would think it makes sense to consider costs vs. benefits. E.g., the cost of constructing, manning, and maintaining the wall vs. the cost of illegal immigrants. Indeed, I think it always makes sense to weigh the costs versus the benefits, whatever policy you're considering.)
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 3, 2017 9:41:07 GMT -5
Oh, I agree. The path to citizenship needs to be easier and the doors need to be larger. And I don't think there needs to be any sort of hunt for illegal immigrants.
But local and state governments still should be cooperating with ICE, should be trying to follow national immigration laws and policies. The "sanctuary city" stuff is total crap, imo. It should be SOP for police when they arrest someone--anyone--to check their immigration status, just as it's SOP to check for outstanding warrants.
|
|
