American Politics Thread: Orange is the new POTUS (Archive)

[Senator Clay Davis]

She did worse in the Raddatz interview yesterday. Actual exchange...

HUCKABEE SANDERS: I can't speak for the President
RADDATZ: But you're his spokesperson?!?!?!?!?!?!
HUCKABEE SANDERS: ??????

[Wormius]

I am trying to understand what is happening in the Khan story. How can he not be able to travel to Toronto, as a US citizen? It sounds like only something Canada would be able to prevent, but it reads like the US is preventing him from traveling to Canada for a speech?

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/...izer-1.3312966

A Muslim Gold Star father who famously offered to lend Donald Trump his copy of the U.S. Constitution has cancelled a scheduled speech in Toronto because “his travel privileges are being reviewed,” according to the event organizer.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I doubt the problem would be getting into Canada; more likely getting back into the US.

[Thor]

This Sarah is infuriating lol

That is so painful to watch.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

In an earlier discussion regarding Charles Murray's most recent work, Coming Apart, New Era admitted that he had never read either the Bell Curve or the book in question. So take anything he says on this subject with a grain of salt.

And this would be peter12 at his finest. Misremembering only what he wants to so he can score what he thinks is a point.

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showpos...postcount=1400

No peter, I have read the Bell Curve. I have not read Coming Apart because I thought the Bell Curve was contrived bull####. Still do, especially after all the years that proves his theories to be garbage.

Oh, and peter12 hasn't been a classroom except to be one of those whiny little conservatives the faculty member has to spend a ridiculous amount of time disproving the garbage he read on the internet, so take everything he says on the subject with a grain of salt.

Coming Apart is probably the most moderate piece of "controversial social science" that I have ever read in my life.

I would have thought that would have been Archie & Jughead #39.

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, this is ridiculous. Just plain old Quisling acquiesence.

William Deresiewicz (socialist and atheist, hardly a conservative) just wrote up a great essay in The American Scholar. Recommended reading for anyone who thinks the kind of thuggery displayed Middlebury is "okay" or "understandable."


New Era et al should spend some time considering the above bolded sentences.

And why would that be? You can't debate anything with someone who arrives to the argument with alternative facts. When someone stands there and tells you the world is flat, evolution is a farce, and Jesus rode a dinosaur onto the ark, how can you possibly have an intelligent debate? When they trot out sources of information like Breitbart and ZeroHedge, how can you take them serious? If you cannot agree with what are facts, then the debate is useless. That is where the problem is. Couple that with their willingness to cry to the administration when you make their house of cards come crashing embarrassingly to the ground and you have an environment where debate is not possible. But let me guess, that is a liberal problem? Right?

Originally Posted by peter12

So you think the liberal professor who was hospitalized also deserved her injury because she chose to consort with the enemy?

I didn't say that at all and you know it. My point was, and still is, that these whiny little conservative bitches are the first ones to protest a faculty member who is just trying to do their job. They go out of their way to make life difficult for that faculty member, going so far as to threaten their livelihood. They take the pursuit of their ideological position extremely seriously and will lash out at anyone who stands in their way. I think it's wonderful that the liberal students have said enough is enough and are finally pushing back. It is sad and tragic that anyone got hurt, but it takes two to have a confrontation. As we have seen in the past, conservatives are more than willing to mix it up, then cry foul.

Originally Posted by northcrunk

It might make you mad but Peter12 has a good point.

But he doesn't. Conservatives play politics on campuses just like they play politics in the national sphere; they use two sets of rules. These guys like to claim they like open debate, but they bring "alternative facts" as their argument - things the rest of the world refers to as bold faced lies - and then cry foul when you show their sources to be garbage. They cry ad hominem or lay the burden of proof on you to prove the unprovable. You can't have a debate with someone who does not follow the same rules that apply to you. This is why peter likes to resort to philosophical arguments, as they are subjective and practically impossible to prove wrong. Facts don't matter when he is arguing a subjective opinion on a rhetorical question.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I am trying to understand what is happening in the Khan story. How can he not be able to travel to Toronto, as a US citizen? It sounds like only something Canada would be able to prevent, but it reads like the US is preventing him from traveling to Canada for a speech?

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/...izer-1.3312966

The threat is they may not allow him back into the US. He is right to be afraid to leave the country. He would be held in a small room for a long time, just to make a point.

[burn_this_city]

How can they stop an American citizen from re-entry to the US?

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I doubt the problem would be getting into Canada; more likely getting back into the US.

I guess I am just shocked that a US citizen, presumably traveling with s US passport would have issues. Seems absurd. What are US customs officers being told to do? I wouldn't think they would be so extra antagonistic without some direction to do so.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

How can they stop an American citizen from re-entry to the US?

Pretty easy. Claim he is on a watch list. Happens quite often.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Trumpcare is now out. Probably the best thread for details I've seen so far.

https://twitter.com/sangerkatz/statu...88093449138177

There are already four GOP senators who will not vote for this unless it's...well...basically Obamacare lol.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/power...=.0b3cfd7b8863

American, and Canadian, conservatism is less and less directed by economic ideology and more and more directed by a desire to revert the social order to a combination Ayn Rand fantasy with an American 1953 propaganda film.

This isn't a debate about whether the free market can do something more efficiently, it's bizarre moral legislation disguised as economics from the perspective of "I got mine" libertarian epistemic isolationism.

It's the worst kind of hypocrisy.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I am trying to understand what is happening in the Khan story. How can he not be able to travel to Toronto, as a US citizen? It sounds like only something Canada would be able to prevent, but it reads like the US is preventing him from traveling to Canada for a speech?

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/...izer-1.3312966

Has there been any corroboration of his story, or explanation of who provided this notification or how? This is an extraordinary claim and while it will be unsurprising if it's true...it still requires more evidence than "he says he's under review."

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by New Era

Pretty easy. Claim he is on a watch list. Happens quite often.

Not to citizens, unless deemed an enemy combatant, where would he go? The international area of an airport and stay in pseudo purgatory?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Trumpcare is now out. Probably the best thread for details I've seen so far.

https://twitter.com/sangerkatz/statu...88093449138177

Based on that it appears that Trumpcare will cover fewer people than Obamacare, be generally more favourable for insurers, and not cover anything to do with abortions. Aside from that I have some difficulty parsing the effect of the details there.

All of that being said, this is clearly the best part.

Margot Sanger-Katz‏ Verified account @sangerkatz

A bunch of taxes will be eliminated beginning in 2018: on health insurance, tanning, rx drugs, net investment income. (Note: not right away.)

Of course.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

American, and Canadian, conservatism is less and less directed by economic ideology and more and more directed by a desire to revert the social order to a combination Ayn Rand fantasy with an American 1953 propaganda film.

This isn't a debate about whether the free market can do something more efficiently, it's bizarre moral legislation disguised as economics from the perspective of "I got mine" libertarian epistemic isolationism.

It's the worst kind of hypocrisy.

And from the early reactions, it appears it's DOA in the Senate if those four GOPers stick to their word. I also think Trump will be very pissed at this, it breaks many of his campaign promises.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Not to citizens, unless deemed an enemy combatant, where would he go? The international area of an airport and stay in pseudo purgatory?

Uh, yeah. Citizens are barred from a flight or entry into the country as a result of an update to a watch list. Happens a lot. And yes, the individual is barred entry and is either held until the issue is resolved, or sent to the consulate to have the issue resolved. These issues normally can be resolved easily enough, but they can take hours to confirm identity, depending on the mood and competence of the individual doing the validation.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

Has there been any corroboration of his story, or explanation of who provided this notification or how? This is an extraordinary claim and while it will be unsurprising if it's true...it still requires more evidence than "he says he's under review."

I haven't seen any further information other than the speech and trip being cancelled. That's the claim from some; that Khan and/or the media is/are lying to disparage Trump. Which I doubt, but there hasn't been any more info either.

[photon]

More inauguration photos from a Freedom of Information Act request.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jasonaleopo...l-photos-of-tr

[Senator Clay Davis]

Official name of Trumpcare or Ryancare (or my favorite: Dontcare): Murican Health Care Act. Because of course (obviously, we can only dream it's actually Murican and not American)

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...olence/518667/

Late to the party, but I found this paragraph interesting:

Some of Murray’s views are indeed odious. Twenty-three years ago, he co-authored The Bell Curve, which argued that differences in intelligence account for much of the class stratification in American life, that intelligence is partly genetic, and that there may be genetic differences between races. Critics called Murray’s argument intellectually shoddy, racist and dangerous, and I agree. (Before I began working there full-time, my old magazine, The New Republic, published an excerpt of the book, along with rebuttals, and thus gave it a legitimacy it did not deserve).

That is one of the risks of universities permitting speakers whose ideas are abhorrent and do not withstand academic rigour to speak at a university: to the casual observer, observing a speaker giving a speech/lecture at a university may give the speaker a legitimacy he or she does not deserve.

Universities control who they permit to lecture/teach every day. For instance, MIT has repeatedly declined my offer to teach one of its quantum physics courses.

Anyway, I'm not sure where I fall on this debate. Its a very complex problem.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Late to the party, but I found this paragraph interesting:



That is one of the risks of universities permitting speakers whose ideas are abhorrent and do not withstand academic rigour to speak at a university: to the casual observer, observing a speaker giving a speech/lecture at a university may give the speaker a legitimacy he or she does not deserve.

Universities control who they permit to lecture/teach every day. For instance, MIT has repeatedly declined my offer to teach one of its quantum physics courses.

Anyway, I'm not sure where I fall on this debate. Its a very complex problem.

This is a good point, but only if it is a university scheduled event. As a guest lecturer my work must meet rigor. A guest speaker as a invitee of a club, does not. When it is a club event the school's reputation isn't supposed to be lent to the presenter, but I can see how it would work, just because they get to put on their resume they spoke at this institution. I guess the difference is understanding the contrast between guest lecturer and guest speaker.