What a got damn shitshow. [warning politics]

[surfafrica]

It is an interesting question, but I think it is too early yet. You have to remember who voted for Trump. In the media's (coastal elites, hollywood's, etcs) eyes he was voted for by a bunch of inbred racists with confederate flags on the wall and Copenhagen rings in their back pocket. The reality is that most of the people who voted for him, voted based on their own personal economic situation. In that vein:

- Reduction in regulations
- Reduction in taxes
- Meetings with labor unions
- TPP and NAFTA
- Dodd Frank

There is plenty of time to regret the decision, but there needs to be a result first (crippled economy, loss of jobs, environmental degradation, troops killed, loss of an ally). All we have so far is noise. The media is way too fatalistic about this stuff (IMO). The reality is that the American Republic has withstood way worse than a temporary ham-handed ban on refugees (there is 1.5 billion other Muslims outside the black balled 7 countries  that are free to get in here) and a wild card adviser (Bannon). Should Trump screw up, he can only do it for 4 years, and he will lose his majority (teeth) in 2.

Give me something tangible, and I can regret my choice about the vote.

That's interesting. 

It's the fact that a lot of regular Americans did vote for him that has me wondering about this. This stuff going on right now is not benign. How much are his supporters willing to look past as they wait for these tangible results? 

[johnysmoke]

Drilling in the parks.
https://www.outdoorresearch.com/blog/stories/join-us-call-now-to-stop-drilling-in-national-parks?utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=FB+join+us+call+now+to+stop+drilling+in+national+parks&utm_source=Facebook

[tautologies]

Here you go: "Facism Forever" founder and leader is the nominee for supreme court justice. No wonder Bannon liked him.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4182852/Trump-s-SCOTUS-pick-founded-club-called-Fascism-Forever.html

[comeu]

Feeling sick since seeing some people here support torture. Nothing else to say. You make me sick.
Thank you A10, Yugi and others to respond.
Peace and SURF


Envoyé de mon iPad en utilisant Tapatalk

[yugi]

Watch these testimonials for a better understanding of the dynamics of international order and the threats being faced.

The State of the World: National Security Threats and Challenges
http://youtu.be/7XmNbxAZyXw?t=11m58s

[Area 10]

Watch these testimonials for a better understanding of the dynamics of international order and the threats being faced.

The State of the World: National Security Threats and Challenges
http://youtu.be/7XmNbxAZyXw?t=11m58s

In this video, General Petraeus says the following. It is worth reading carefully:

"The defeat is Islamic extremist groups does of course require a vital military component. But even if we succeed militarily, and metaphorically putting a stake through the heart of Daesh elements in Iraq and Syria, as I believe we will, that success will be fleeting unless the underlying conflicts in those countries and the greater Middle East that enabled ISIL's rise are addressed and resolved. We must also recognise that the long-term success in this conflict requires that the ideology of Islamic extremist (sic) is itself discredited. And contending with the ideological caliphate in cyberspace may well prove more challenging than taking away the rest of what is a shrinking physical caliphate on the ground in Iraq and Syria.

Here I should note that our most important ally in this war is the overwhelming majority of Muslims who reject Al Queda, Daesh and their fanatical, barbaric world view. Indeed, it is millions of Muslims who are fighting and dying in the greatest numbers in the front-lines of this war, including Arab and Kurdish fighters bravely battling ISIL in Mosul, Gulf and Arab forces taking the fight to AQAP in Yemen, Afghans courageously struggling against a resurgent Taliban in a nascent Islamic state affiliate, Somali forces confronting Al Shabaab, and the Libyan elements that recently drove another Islamic State entity from the enclave it had seized on the North African coast.

We must also remember that Islamic extremists want to portray this fight as a clash of civilisations with America at war with Islam. We must not let them do that. Indeed, we must be very sensitive to actions that might give them ammunition in such an effort".

The problems with some of the opinions being expressed here on this forum in respect of the Islamic faith is that several of them appear to risk being grossly offensive to our Muslim allies in this battle who General Petraeus rightly praises. Moreover, the stereotyping of Muslims and the Islamic faith in terms of the worst events in the histories of predominately Islamic countries is grossly unfair, and would be like characterising the population of the US (or Christians in general) as murderous savages based on events such as the Biscari massacre of WWII or the Wisconsin Sikh Temple massacre in 2012. The casual dismissal of the opinions of a well-respected Islamic scholar who points out the incontrovertible meeting points between Islam and Christianity is similarly divisive.

The "war" with Islamic extremism will be one of winning hearts and minds more than taking land. Surely, the way to win hearts and minds is to show a better way, not match barbarity and stereotyping with more of the same as the "fight fire with fire" policy proposes? One of the reasons that Christianity has been so successful IMO is the principle of "turning the other cheek". This is perhaps the most difficult of Jesus's teachings for people to get their head around. But IMO basically it boils down to: "be better than that". And in this context, turning the other cheek may refer to still keeping our doors open to refugees fleeing the murderous intent of our enemies, even though doing so may carry a minuscule increased risk to ourselves. Taking in refugees is likely to be just as effective a strategy - perhaps more so - in the overall battle against this religious fanaticism as drooping bombs is.

But you don't need lofty moral goals to follow this path: This approach is in our own long-term self-interest because every person from war-torn areas who feels gratitude towards their new home is another soldier on our side, and is likely an informed one who can spread our message back home, supply us with information, and build bridges between our culture and theirs.

So I see expressing rude or thoughtless opinions about our allies through e.g. stereotyping, as unpatriotic. It undermines the security of our forces abroad who are risking their lives for our freedom and safety by chiselling away at support for their friends who are fighting alongside them.

For this reason, I would ask we please try to be careful in the way we express our opinions here. Not doing so I suspect plays straight into the hands of our enemies. Being diplomatic and tactful isn't the same as being weak and ineffective. Quite the contrary: Sometimes it's the smartest way to win.

[johnysmoke]

Goop post A10

[GOTWAVZ]

This just in!

[Bean]

From your lips to God's ears!

[beached]

it's amazing what intolerant whiners comprise the left. i hated Obama from day 1, but I also thought 'give the guy a chance, see what he does'. i did, and it was horrific.  i lived, and so will you. but the vitriol coming from you guys is sad.

[stoneaxe]

Is it simply standard practice on the left to scream that others are deflecting...while they deflect? Bill wasn't dismissing a scholars work on the connection between Christianity and Islam....he was dismissing your interpretation of what it means. You used this to show how tolerant Islam is.....you do realize that he has also written about his concern that Christianity is now being forced out...or do you only bring up what agrees with your argument?

Deflection is also not bothering to respond to an argument by just flinging more shit. I noticed no response to the FACT that a very popular democrat president (Bill) gave a speech 30 years ago and received non-partisan support for being tough on illegal immigration...very, very, Trump like. But now there is outcry from the same press that loved Clinton's ideas.....do you guys even know how to spell it....it's  h.y.p.o.c.r.i.s.y. And taut...in regards to that argument...the bullshit comment stands. How can it not when it's in black and white. Complain about Trump's delivery, his coarseness, whatever....but the purpose of the message is the same and the left is acting like the sky is falling. How are you not being fed bullshit?

I agree with much of what you guys are saying. I've despised Trump for what he is long before he entered the race. There is plenty to be concerned about. The saddest thing....all we had to pick from was Clinton or Trump. I'm pretty sure we can survive him and I hope in the process the pendulum gets pushed back to the middle. It's that simple. you guys had 8 years of pushing it to the left.....now it's the rights turn. I don't have a problem with the left pushing back...that's the way it's supposed to be but lets get real and stop complaining about Trump using the same kind of tactics the Dems have for years. It's absolutely laughable that the left now insists on transparency. What a fucking joke that is.

[tautologies]

Again you choose to mention shit that is not the case. Is Clinton president? I'm not sure if you get it, but I am not a democrat. I just have an extremely low tolerance for incompetence...I like skills and people that are good at what they do, I appreciate knowledge and science. Pretty agnostic to party...as long as religion is not the driving force behind your policy...

I have never defended Clinton or Obama when it comes to immigration. In fact the left has traditionally been the ones that tries to strengthen workers in the US (I like free markets)...Obama deported more Mexicans than most other presidents, while Bush almost got through a plan to let illegal workers stay, one of the really good initiatives I think Bush had. I am not complaining about deportation of illegal immigrants, I am, however, against random acts of policy...and I am definitely against the bullshit that is going on now.

What I find incredibly disheartening is how we talk about people who have experienced with worst horrors humans can experience and there is not even an ounce of sympathy. I used to work with refugees, and the stories are absolutely insane. The ban simply led to chaos and it is not functioning in its intended way.

There is a radical difference between due process and something that ends up banning friendly fighter pilots from landing on US airports. Or that ends up giving eks prime minister from Norway trouble because there was a stamp from Iran...in his DIPLOMATIC passport.

I know H Clinton voted for Bush fence....and I think Obama did too...but we have since learned that a fence is meaningless and just impacts unintended parties (like land owners and wildlife). Why not take a lesson from that instead of spending $30-100B? 

You will see more and more reports about Trump and his staff's incompetence because they do not plan and they execute off the cuff. It impacts people lives in so many bad ways.

[PonoBill]

In the same vein, I consider the notion that Christians have some superior moral compass in turning the other cheek to be absurd. I don't disagree with General Patereus' views on warfighting or the role of Muslims in opposing radical elements. But 2000 years of Christian violence and intolerance is equally telling, though in recent history it's been substantially quelled. Very recent. Pope Pius XI and XII didn't exactly distinguish themselves during the rise of fascism, Nazism and  anti-semitism in the 1930's.

Christianity is idolatrous worship of a human to any Muslim. Islam is denial of the Trinity to any Christian. There's not a lot of slack there. And as for the significance of Jesus as a prophet to Muslims, consider that Christians, Jews, and Muslims are all theoretically the Children of Abraham--and they don't like each other much.

Religious scholars say all kinds of things that sound mollifying but are essentially meaningless since the core tenets of the religions are in conflict.

What all this has to do with the shitshow is becoming a bit tenuous. Trump's ban was nonsense when he signed it, it's still nonsense.

As I said before, I think it is critical to the nature of the USA to accept refugees and immigrants. And no, I don't see a significant danger in doing so. The far greater danger is completely surrendering any notion of the USA as a country with a moral purpose--for at least as long as Bozo is in office.

[DavidJohn]

http://www.seabreeze.com.au/Exit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-4180508%2FPIERS-MORGAN-Trump-s-no-monster-s-not-mad-either.html

[stoneaxe]

I think we are far closer than we seem taut. I'm no republican. The refugee issue has been handled terrible...as have others...plenty of incompetence for sure. Truthfully though I'd rather an incompetent Trump than a competent Clinton. My core belief is that the system needed change. Trump is a catalyst to me. He is unfortunately a catalyst with some nasty side effects. But if we don't get torn apart in the process I think we can come out better on the other side.....tough to see that now but you already hear some of  democrat power brokers saying they need to pay more attention to the concerns of those that voted for Trump. I want compromise solutions to complex problems not someones ideology shoved down my throat....like the idea that I'm a racist because I'm very much against illegal immigration. Above all else....I'm hoping the disgust that everyone felt for either Clinton or Trump (take your pick since both are deserving) will cause all of us to be more thoughtful in who we choose in the primary. I've said it before...i would have voted for Bernie over either of them on character alone. He wouldn't have shaken things up as much but until Bernie had to pivot some to try for the latino vote he wasn't too far off on my feelings on immigration and globalization and at least I wouldn't be ashamed we have Trump for president.