(11-13-2017 03:34 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 02:23 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 02:00 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 01:24 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  I think everyone who watches John Oliver realizes how sad it is that the most honest and informative source of information has to come from comedians. When the current president shapes his policy based off of what he watches on Fox & Friends all you can do is laugh at the sad state of America.

(11-13-2017 02:00 PM)miko33 Wrote:  C'mon... We obviously know that he is not doing that. He has advisers that are helping him to flesh out his policies. In fact, when you strip away the rhetoric that he's using the policies the goals he's working towards are quite conventional. The "biggest tax overhaul in history" is riddled with compromises and isn't going to be the big splash legislation that was promised.

Finally, something to respond to.

Yes, it was defensive hyperbole because I was responding to exactly the sorts of comments I was expecting to receive at first.

What concerns me, however, is the notion (posted by the NYtimes, aired on Fox & Friends, and then nearly immediately tweeted by Trump) that "Fox & Friends is the most powerful media organization in the country" based on the very premise that it's powerful BECAUSE he watches regularly and absorbs the dialogue discussed there. Add on to that, that he had Steve Bannon of Breitbart as a member of his staff, and has had talking points taken verbatim from InfoWars, it's incredibly concerning, especially for someone in a position of ultimate information.

(11-13-2017 02:00 PM)miko33 Wrote:  The "muslim ban" as it's called by the Dems is pretty conventional stuff when your goal is to minimize infiltration by enemy combatants. In our not too distant past, we shut down immigration from enemy countries before. We also have "no fly lists' for locations we are not allowed to fly to for our safety. Temporarily banning immigrants from Iran, Iraq, Syria and other dangerous countries is not racist or "religionist".

Let's be clear here. The muslim ban was clearly motivated by religious discrimination. That's what the courts have ruled, and then ruled again after each subsequent appeal. You are correct that it is pretty conventional stuff, but the choices of banned countries was highly questionable and inconsistent, and combining that with the language of the initial ban and quotes from Trump, it was clear he was targeting muslims and not enemies of the state. The supreme court stated this when they ruled the ban unconstitutional.

(11-13-2017 02:00 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Our borders to the north and especially the south are porous. Routine fence jumping by people illegally coming into the country is objectively bad. We need to have better control over our borders so that we have 1) controlled - and legal - immigration and 2) minimize the chances that terrorists cross into our country undetected. Do we need a literal wall? IMHO, no. However, we need A LOT more surveilance and swift action to detain and deport illegals at the border. It's pretty ******* obvious that this needs to happen. You have to be a ******* moron to disagree with this... Speaking of ******* morons...

I don't think many are objecting to increased surveillance at all. I think that is the more rational decision, and only the fringe far left are looking to embrace all immigrants regardless of threat or intent. Building a wall is a huge waste to taxpayer money, will have incredible environmental impacts, and can be scaled with a ladder. Not to mention, Trump's motivation clearly lie in a discriminatory light, based on his comments on the campaign trail and other policy-changing actions like eliminating the DACA program.

(11-13-2017 02:00 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Oliver brings up a number of good points. Trump's messaging is rotten. He IS a troll. He IS an arsehole. He IS thin skinned. He IS narcissistic. He IS a very political person who takes every possible opportunity to tar and feather his opponents. What Oliver is blind about in his big monologue is that the policies he champions are probably no better. He parrots the Dems policies, and we know there are plenty of their policies that suck royally too. Twenty ******* trillion dollars worth of debt proves to be that your policies are a long term disaster. His views on being decent and courteous are spot on. His political views - OTOH - are bollocks just like anyone else's.

You imply that the debt is solely a democrat problem, which is incorrect, and will only get worse if Trump's tax plan gets passed. In John Oliver's defense, if you watch his other, non-politicized videos he's consistent in his logic and research on everything from State Lottery systems, Pyramid Schemes, the Coal Industry, and many many others. I don't think he parrots the ideas at all, just that his show, reasoning, and topics coincide with many moderate ideas. The level they go to research and pursue their topics alone should disprove simply parroting.

(11-13-2017 02:00 PM)miko33 Wrote:  The BOTTOM LINE: If the economy is good - dare I say great, markets are up, unemployment is down, labor participation is up and real wages improve...NO ONE is voting Trump out of office. It's the economy, stupid. Always was, always is and always will be.

It remains to be seen how much of the current economy is Trump or Obama policy. We're not yet through year one. If Trump is removed from office, it will be via something he's personally done, or from the proceedings of the Russia Investigation

Regarding the policies that raised the debt, indeed yes it was a combination of efforts by both parties. You'll debate with me on which party bears the greater burden. IMHO the biggest drivers of the debt are social security and medicare. Those are Dem initiated programs that are now not sustainable due to our population replacement rates. On the GOP side, it's defense spending and the propensity to entangle us into unnecessary wars.

Regarding the "muslim ban", I ultimately disagree with the supreme court on this. Legally, I'm sure they are right. However, from a security POV not having it as a temporary measure to devise improved vetting of these people is a security risk. That's my opinion. I'll point out that it's not unprecedented to take actions like this. Roosevelt did this in WW2 for example. The point is that others preceding Trump have had similar thoughts and pursued similar actions. It's not like he pulled this from the air as his own idea.

you forgot the 401k/roth/china/japan thingy

this thread is actually a good read....

(11-13-2017 03:32 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 02:37 PM)fsquid Wrote:  Humor has always been used as another delivery method to get a point across. Unsure why simply using humor has one's opinion immediately discarded. He does have a point about the "whataboutism" and it was used during the Obama presidency by liberals too.

one achieves gains.....the other mires in the quicksand for a prostitution style paycheck....

name me one socialist comedic pundit that achieved any long term goal outside of long term failure.....

good ******* luck with that one....

name me a "serious political analyst who has done the same?

(11-13-2017 04:27 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 03:32 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-13-2017 02:37 PM)fsquid Wrote:  Humor has always been used as another delivery method to get a point across. Unsure why simply using humor has one's opinion immediately discarded. He does have a point about the "whataboutism" and it was used during the Obama presidency by liberals too.

one achieves gains.....the other mires in the quicksand for a prostitution style paycheck....

name me one socialist comedic pundit that achieved any long term goal outside of long term failure.....

good ******* luck with that one....

name me a "serious political analyst who has done the same?

they walk hand-in-hand.....we both know that....

as I phrased it, I'll concede a touché on that one....

The Real John Oliver has been revealed !

(11-15-2017 09:03 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

The Real John Oliver has been revealed !

You clearly don't watch the show. He continually pokes fun at himself for his looks and also that he looks like Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin.