Slashdot Mirror

There was Proof that Hillary did most of the things people are accusing Trump of. Hillary and Bill's dealings with Russia led to Russia having control over 20+% of the US Uranium. Hillary had dozens of phones, many unsecured, accessing her illegal private email server. Hillary and Bill are "paid" hundreds of thousands of Dollars while Hillary was acting as Secretary of State, all of which remained "classified" and hidden from public view (except the bit that was hacked and released proving she lied about fixing US Borders). Hillary praised KKK member Byrd and Eugenicist Margaret Sanger openly. In fact go look at the ranks of the KKK and count how many Democrats there are versus Republicans. There was one allegation based on third hand information, Warren Harding, who fought against the KKK and their methods.

Want more? How about _Candidate_ Obama visiting more than thirty foreign Governments to boost support for his campaign holding closed door meetings with those foreign Governments (some hostile). Left Wing Sources, Right Wing source. Just so you can't claim my sources are biased, and there is plenty more to find.

Typical Alinsky tactics. Claim the enemy does what you do, lie and keep lying about what you do. Idiots fall for it. Too bad for the Alinskyites more and more people have caught on and no longer believe the lies. There is a reason that NYP, WP, CNN, et. al have a trust rating of about 6 today.

I agree with AC... it was the Dems' election to lose, and lose it they did. Lowest voter turnout in 20 years. Dumb-fuck Americans who think "I don't like either candidate, so I won't vote", thinking that's gonna make anything... better? But the Dems didn't help their case one fucking bit. Shoulda read the angry writing on the wall and backed Bernie... cutting Bernie at the knees for Hillary might probably be why so many voters stayed home.

I recommend staying away from Krugman. Republicans were pushing for more infrastructure spending in the bill. You can't change history. The ARRA only spent about 3% of the bill on infrastructure, which is why many R's opposed it. You can read about their alternative bill here Suck it.

because a Republican-controlled Congress was dead-set on doing nothing in order to obstruct Obama at all costs. This is, seriously, no shit, because the Republicans would be damned if they even APPEARED to be supporting a president that some still swore was not a citizen.

She did win in a landslide in the only thing polls measure: number of voters. That popular vote win WAS in fact a landslide. No, landslide is not strong enough a word - it was a fucking avalanche.

2.1% is a "fucking avalanche?" Had she won the electoral college, she would have tied Jimmy Carter at 39th place in terms of margin of victory.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/21/...

That's not an avalanche, regardless of vulgar qualifier. It is not a landslide. It is a narrow margin, and ranks up there with the narrowest in U.S. history. Let's not distort the facts any further, okay?

There's a point where cars become too powerful. When Paul Walker died , it was discussed that the Porsche Carrera GT he was in (as a passenger) has three times the horsepower of the average car [and is] notoriously difficult to handle, even for professional drivers. Porsche was exonerated from blame in the crash, but when you put a car on the road that can blast to 80 at the slip of a shoe, then there's an accident waiting to happen.

My car will lose traction if I put my foot to the floor. So I don't do that, I do other things that are less dangerous, like pushing the accelerator pedal a little bit. It's called driving.

Proof?

Slashdot customer service here again. I'm sorry you're having trouble seeing what's in front of your nose. I'll be happy to help you with that.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/11/...

http://thehill.com/homenews/se...

Would you mind taking a short survey about your experience with Slashdot customer service?

There's a point where cars become too powerful. When Paul Walker died , it was discussed that the Porsche Carrera GT he was in (as a passenger) has three times the horsepower of the average car [and is] notoriously difficult to handle, even for professional drivers. Porsche was exonerated from blame in the crash, but when you put a car on the road that can blast to 80 at the slip of a shoe, then there's an accident waiting to happen.

In the instant case, if the driver had been in a base Ford Escort or Chevy Cruz, they'd probably be alive today.

I'm all for high-performance cars, and I love the pickup in my street-legal ride, but on the street there's a limit to what's practical and safe. Think real hard how you got your license... not that hard, right? All sorts of people you wonder whether they can tie their own shoes walking out with brand new licenses, thinking "great! now I can legally get alcohol!"

Now consider how tech is going to continue to advance until Tesla and those electric motors puts the power of a Veyron into the hands of anyone who can sign for a car loan but doesn't know that that kind of speed belongs only on the track. A 1979 Toyota Tercel has no business with a modern 5.2 L Flat Plane Crank V8 bolted onto it, particularly because the suspension and steering can't handle the power and the driver of such an abomination is probably a goddam fool, likely to pound down a few six-packs before heading out for Zombie night at Applebees. The only razor-thin silver-lining in the article reported by the OP is they didn't mow down a sidewalk-full of bystanders before the smeared themselves.

If tech advances until torque and horsepower become trivial, we will have to have governors built-in to cars because the road has to be shared and driving like an idiot will become not a matter of a broken leg but something a lot more permanent. On the track or the salt flats, do what you want. On the streets there's a point where basic transportation becomes a suicide machine, and I don't want to share those streets with overpowered idiots.

Trump is massively unpopular. The Republican's own policies are, for the most part, massively unpopular when actually implemented (as an example, while a lot of people support getting rid of "Obamacare", relatively few - a small minority of voters - approve of getting rid of the "Affordable Care Act". Yes, really.)

So Trump actually gives the Republicans quite a bit of cover to do the unpopular stuff, and then hang Trump with it later. Which is why I don't see the Republicans actually impeaching Trump for at least a year - get the bad stuff out of the way, then "Oops, no, we thought he was terrible too".

Ironically the Sierra Club called it and actually tried to make them fix it 12 years ago. http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/13/...

No. I use RSS feeds into live bookmarks straight to my browser's bookmark toolbar. I have done this for years, it's a wonderful technology you can use with virtually all news sites, and you can then easily pick and choose the articles you want from updated drop down folders on your toolbar.

• BBC World News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/rss/news...
• CBC World News: http://rss.cbc.ca/lineup/world...
• CBC Canadian News: http://rss.cbc.ca/lineup/canad...
• Globe & Mail World News: http://feeds.feedburner.com/Th...
• CNN World News: http://rss.cnn.com/rss/cnn_wor...
• CNN US News: http://rss.cnn.com/rss/cnn_us....

For Mozilla or (better yet) PaleMoon browsers you just click on the link above, then on the resultant page click Subscribe Now into Live Bookmarks. I suspect Chrome is similar. This will buy you automatically updated headlines from multiple respected news outlets with different viewpoints in dropdown menus. Why anyone would use Facebook for news is beyond me. If you ask me, anyone who does go to Facebook for news deserves what they get. Facebook is a sewer of trolls initiating social malware for the kick it gives them to see their garbage repeated. Go to news sources for news. Go to facebook to try and make yourself feel better about how well liked you are.

No. I use RSS feeds into live bookmarks straight to my browser's bookmark toolbar. I have done this for years, it's a wonderful technology you can use with virtually all news sites, and you can then easily pick and choose the articles you want from updated drop down folders on your toolbar.

• BBC World News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/rss/news...
• CBC World News: http://rss.cbc.ca/lineup/world...
• CBC Canadian News: http://rss.cbc.ca/lineup/canad...
• Globe & Mail World News: http://feeds.feedburner.com/Th...
• CNN World News: http://rss.cnn.com/rss/cnn_wor...
• CNN US News: http://rss.cnn.com/rss/cnn_us....

For Mozilla or (better yet) PaleMoon browsers you just click on the link above, then on the resultant page click Subscribe Now into Live Bookmarks. I suspect Chrome is similar. This will buy you automatically updated headlines from multiple respected news outlets with different viewpoints in dropdown menus. Why anyone would use Facebook for news is beyond me. If you ask me, anyone who does go to Facebook for news deserves what they get. Facebook is a sewer of trolls initiating social malware for the kick it gives them to see their garbage repeated. Go to news sources for news. Go to facebook to try and make yourself feel better about how well liked you are.

Or more likely there is only so much room to fit people in the Bay Area

Ummm, no. More likely this is another bubble, and we're seeing the first signs its going to pop. How many of these "businesses" that sell "free" products are actually turning a profit? And how many are just waiting to be bought out? Sound familiar? It's the tech version of flipping houses.

That is what it would seem like but it's not true. Tax revenue isn't only collected once. When I spend money at a store, that's income to the store and that itself is taxed. That store spends the money to buy the goods they are selling, so that purchase is taxed. And on down the line.

This is the power of the free market. A very imperfect comparison would be to compound interest. There isn't just 1 transaction, you get more money in after each transaction on down the line. It's why food stamps actually return MORE money than is put in. For every dollar given out as food stamps, the tax revenue is over $1.50. linky

Now, food stamps for everybody doesn't scale to the entire population but for low income people who need it it's really no brainer economically.

The larger scale of this is economic stimulus. Putting government money into infrastructure. It is things that have to be done, and it keeps the wheels of the economy turning say, during a recession. By spending money to build a road, you pay the construction company. they pay their workers. The workers buy stuff. The stores buy more stuff to reflect the demand. That's how an economy works.

So by the gov putting money into an economy it keeps it moving when there is less private or consumer demand due to a recession.

The real kicker to stimulus is you also do it when the interest rates are low. And they are at historic lows right now. It's never been cheaper to deficit spend. Better if you don' t deficit spend, but that's not the world we have right now. We need to fix our infrastructure and grow the economy.

You seemed to have left out the Southern Strategy and the War on Drugs, which went a long way towards splitting the parties.

Conveniently towards the end of your timeline, Nixon during his 1968 campaign appealed to many dixiecrats who were upset about the passage of the civil rights act, stating it was a form of government encroachment on their lives. This in turn led to a party shift where former dixiecrats turned republicans and in time, the former republicans turned progressive. Once the parties flipped, you've got the War on Drugs for the 1970s and 1980s that heavily criminalized communities of color and anti-war liberals. Or as John Erlichman said it "We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news,"

Blacks, who were outright demonized by the right, turned to the left, which accepted them because who would not turn down the free vote. The left still treats black voters in a passive-agressive manner, knowing they can reliably count on the black vote, but the relationship is not as antagonistic as what is seen on the right.

So many right wing people love to crow about how Republicans freed the slaves and were responsible for most progressive legislation early on in this country. All that is true, but the conveniently leave out the part where Nixon and Lee Atwater flipped the parties, and when both Reagan and Bush used race based fear mongering to further drive the republican base whiter and more conservative.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/...

But also, Putin has stated that "there is only one superpower" in the world.

Putin says a lot of things.

Putin most definitely does not want another Cold War.

That must explain why he invaded Ukraine.

They have some things to fix first. But let's at least leave the door open...

Even if he has the purest of intentions, returning Snowden would make the US less stable.

yep, like this piece of shit http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/02/...

And spokespeople for Russia have already stated "Nonsense"

Right... because Russia is so credible.

Claims that Russian forces entered Ukraine 'complete rubbish,' Russia says

Correct, you don't just burn an asset* for no reason. You do it because it gains you an advantage, such as to protect a much bigger asset - such as the suggestions that this is meant to distract from scandals about pro-Russian influence in Trump's advisors. It becomes a cost-benefit analysis of whether they think what they get out of it is worth the questions it raises in the minds of future defectors/spies/etc.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/...
http://www.vox.com/world/2017/...

*Regardless of what we think of Snowden or his motives or his actions, this is how Putin/Russian intelligence will look at him.

According to the [FBI] investigation report, top Clinton adviser Cheryl Mills told a PRN worker whose name was redacted in December 2014 that Clinton wanted her email to only be retained for 60 days, and instructed him to reset the retention policy on her email account.
But the individual told the FBI he realized that he had failed to do so until after The New York Times published its bombshell story revealing Clinton's private server and email use, prompting an "'oh s***' moment."

"In a follow-up FBI interview on May 3, 2016, (name redacted) indicated he believed he had an 'oh s***' moment and sometime between March 25-31, 2015, deleted the Clinton archive mailbox from the PRN server and used BleachBit to delete the exported .PST files he had created on the server system containing Clinton's emails," the report stated.

The mass deletion occurred after the March 2, 2015, Times story and after a March 3, 2015, preservation order from the House Benghazi Committee to retain and produce documents related to her email accounts.

-Clinton News Network

Documents are classified due to their content, whether marked or unmarked. Clinton received training and signed off that she understood this. "Intent" is not a condition for violating the laws governing document security, negligence is sufficient. Clinton broke laws which others have been prosecuted for. Go alt-fuck yourself.

The @POTUS account retweeted his Nordstrom tweet, so yes. Plus Kellanne Conway was busy telling people to "Go buy Ivanka's stuff."

http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/0...

http://heavy.com/news/2017/02/...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl...

This is because conservatism is the politics of nostalgia and ignoring things that only affect other people.

There's nothing wrong with a country putting its own interests first, and that is not incompatible with caring about and helping others.

Trump wants things to be like the 1950s again. It's even in his campaign slogan: Make American Great Again, as in it used to be great and should go back to that state.

Straw man. You seem to be implying that he supports racist/sexist/homophobic action when that's not true. Being great does not mean completely without flaws, and being great again does not mean reverting to the exact same state (see links).

http://netrightdaily.com/2016/...

The alt-right like this, because after all it is a movement that started with white supremacists. In the 1950s, white people had more rights and power than others. Of course it sucked if you were not white, but... meh, it's those people's own fault or something.

As a conservative, I only started hearing the term alt-right a few months ago on Reddit, so I have no idea about its origin, but most of what I saw were reasonable people unhappy with the way things are going (though of course there were also a few crazies, like in any community). Trump got more minority votes than any Republican candidate in 40 years. Don't tell me that him or the majority of his supporters are white supremacists when they cheer him for telling him like it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04...

And that's what the new alt-right media offers: comfort.

I actually agree that the alt-right media offers comfort, because I find comfort in the truth. I find comfort that there are people out there publishing well-reasoned arguments because I'm tired of being force-fed a narrative. I find comfort when I see people rationally debating over things without screaming and violence. I find comfort that when an alt-right journalist says that it's insane that we can be accused of racism for saying "I don't see race." I find comfort in the fact that half of my fellow Americans haven't been completely brainwashed even if many are afraid to speak up because of a violence-promoting left, as was recently shown in Berkeley.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

1. Perspective is a funny thing. https://www.theatlantic.com/po... You can see that the tents were located just past the Smithsonian Castle, which is more like 2/3 of the way to the Washington Monument. https://www.google.com/maps/@3... You can also see in CNN's gigapixel http://www.cnn.com/interactive... that the section between the tents and the first row of green barriers is almost empty, and the section after that has very few people standing on the north side, matching very closely with photographs taken from behind. I'm not arguing numbers, but in this case at least, the evidence seems to match statements published elsewhere.

1. Published a comparison photo of President Obama and Trump's inaugurations that was completely fake and disproved by the gigapixel image that in fact showed that President Trump's inauguration was packed to the tents at the Washington Memorial.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive... [cnn.com]

2. Claimed that President Trump said soldiers who commit suicide are weak. Never said that. Go to youtube and see the video of what he actually said.

3. Claimed reading Wikileaks was illegal, except for the media.

4. Gave the debate questions to Hillary's campaign. Thus their portrayal of a fair debate was fake.

Seems like a lot of fake to me!

You're right. Fox tends to report news with a heavy bias. CNN makes shit up.

1. Published a comparison photo of President Obama and Trump's inaugurations that was completely fake and disproved by the gigapixel image that in fact showed that President Trump's inauguration was packed to the tents at the Washington Memorial.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive... [cnn.com]

2. Claimed that President Trump said soldiers who commit suicide are weak. Never said that. Go to youtube and see the video of what he actually said.

3. Claimed reading Wikileaks was illegal, except for the media.

4. Gave the debate questions to Hillary's campaign. Thus their portrayal of a fair debate was fake.

Seems like a lot of fake to me!

Non-politicized....are you off your effing rocker?

1. Published a comparison photo of President Obama and Trump's inaugurations that was completely fake and disproved by the gigapixel image that in fact showed that President Trump's inauguration was packed to the tents at the Washington Memorial.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive... [cnn.com]

2. Claimed that President Trump said soldiers who commit suicide are weak. Never said that. Go to youtube and see the video of what he actually said.

3. Claimed reading Wikileaks was illegal, except for the media.

4. Gave the debate questions to Hillary's campaign. Thus their portrayal of a fair debate was fake.

Seems like a lot of fake to me!

1. Published a comparison photo of President Obama and Trump's inaugurations that was completely fake and disproved by the gigapixel image that in fact showed that President Trump's inauguration was packed to the tents at the Washington Memorial.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive...

2. Claimed that President Trump said soldiers who commit suicide are weak. Never said that. Go to youtube and see the video of what he actually said.

3. Claimed reading Wikileaks was illegal, except for the media.

4. Gave the debate questions to Hillary's campaign.

Do you really want more?

1. Published a comparison photo of President Obama and Trump's inaugurations that was completely fake and disproved by the gigapixel image that in fact showed that President Trump's inauguration was packed to the tents at the Washington Memorial.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive... [cnn.com]

2. Claimed that President Trump said soldiers who commit suicide are weak. Never said that. Go to youtube and see the video of what he actually said.

3. Claimed reading Wikileaks was illegal, except for the media.

4. Gave the debate questions to Hillary's campaign. Thus their portrayal of a fair debate was fake.

Seems like a lot of fake to me!

The side by side comparison of President Obama's packed inauguration and President Trump's near empty inauguration. Except it is #fakenews #alternativefacts The Trump photo was NOT taken during the inauguration. In fact, President Trump's inauguration was packed all the way to the tents at the Lincoln Memorial. This is documented, confirmed, and readily

So EVERY article touting that comparison was #fakenews, yet I haven't seen a single retraction. Instead, I have watch my liberal friends on the right exclaim that a difference in time of capture doesn't make it fake. Essentially arguing well it's a picture, and it was the inauguration day, so it's real. Um, but presenting it as a photo of the inauguration crowd is a lie. Just one of many repeated lies by CNN and HuffPo.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive...

Except not so much.

One particular case stands out to me. Navy soldier, on leave, drunk. Seen in an altercation in a bar with someone. that someone was known for instigating fights. Person winds up stabbed to death later.

The suspect is arrested, and drunk, and with a huge lack of sleep, under duress from trained psychological tactics confesses. He later recants. Blood at the scene does not match hos or the victims blood type. None matches his. No physical evidence shows he was there. Convicted of 2nd degree murder.

He has a family member (through an attorney) years later make an inquiry if the evidence is still in storage. Murder cases are supposed to have evidence kept for a very long time (if not forever) in my state. They are told yes. Attorney gets innocence project involved. A few months later the innocence project requests evidence, and is told sorry, it was 'lost' in a move between labs, never to be found again.

This man did more than two decades before mandatory release. For a crime he possibly did not commit. He is not the only one with stories like this.

Find this video from 2006 and ask has it gotten any better? http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Program...

"The degree of civilisation in a society is revealed by entering its prisons." -Fyodor Dostoyevsky
"If you want to see the scum of the earth, go to any prison - at shift change" - Paul Harvey

Fuck you, fuck your stupid crack, and fuck smelly H1B indo-chimps posting this overblown shit to tease stupid libtards.

AMERICA FIRST

What exactly is the difference between "America First and "Deutschland über alles?" Just askin'

Oh, and let me just leave this here.

I think that idea is comforting to a certain kind of person, but I don't see that. You can get in way more financial trouble with child support, and that doesn't require marriage.

You can be hit for child support if you are only the sperm donor. http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/23/...

That's why I have to chuckle when people say that I reference edge cases. This was a case of a female couple who wanted a child (which I support by the way) but one of them later sued the man for child support and won. Any man who donates sperm better be willing to support that child if the couple wants that to happen.

Peter Thiel sounds like the classic paternalistic moron who thinks that every problem needs him to solve it. People will get married or they won't. Who really cares?

Asshole fits as well. I suspect that the pushback is not based on being an asshole though. It takes special powers of denial to try to tap dance around what has happened.

As for caring about it, I don't, unless the aggrieved ladies don't become eligible to go after the In-Laws to take their money for child support. Note that it has been attempted. In 1988 in a case in Louisiana, a woman sued her child's paternal grandparents under Loiusiana's version of the Elizabethan Poor Law. She won, but lost on appeal. In general, the courts do not enforce child support from grandparents who are not in logo parentis.

So far.

The issue is there are a lot of women who would like children, and th esocial experiment has them hitting their mid thirties, and suddenly wondering where all the good men went. Some of us are out riding our motorcycles. It's less risky.

Marketers seem eager to abuse and misuse establish terms for advertising purposes. First "hoverboard", now "hologram".

As best as I can tell (TFA is devoid of details), this is a glorified version of the system used at Hatsune Miku" concerts - a simple rear projection onto a glass screen. A slightly more sophisticated version uses multiple cameras surrounding the person whose image is being broadcast, and switches between them depending on where the observer camera is positioned. That creates the illusion that the observer can move around the image in 3D, but the illusion only works for the observer being tracked. Anyone else sees a 2D image which rotates depending on where the designated observer moves, not based on where they themselves move.

A true hologram is not conveyed as an image. It is conveyed as an interference pattern created by taking a Fourier transform of a 3D light field. When you take another Fourier transform of that interference pattern (e.g. shine onto it coherent light equivalent to the light that originally created the pattern), it reconstructs the original 3D light field - a hologram.

See Macy's stock over the last year?

That certainly is a fairly counterexample. Do you have any more? They're kind of scarce. There's plenty of examples of liberal boycotts that amount to jack diddly as well though, like hobby lobby and chik-fil-a. Who knew that a bunch of redneck conservatives were the majority of their market? Wait, everyone. Everyone knew.

It's also worth mentioning that Macy's has been in decline for some time now, and the Trump supporter boycott (while, I think, significant) is just one more wound they can ill sustain. The truth is that Macy's and Bloomingdale's are both specifically old brands which people see as irrelevant today. About the only people shopping there were social conservatives who chose to give them their money on that basis, perceiving them as a traditional brand. A more relevant brand which did not depend on that particular segment for sales would have less trouble with a Trump-supporter boycott.

What world are you living in? It is incredibly hard to get doctors and health care professionals to got to underserved areas in the US. It is a huge problem: http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/2...

You know, that case still ties my gut up in knots. I haven't read where anyone was held accountable for that BS. Seems like someone should be guilty of manslaughter or something. They murdered a man.

Especially for BS like this one - http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/02/... . That poor woman manager.

http://www.reuters.com/article...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/w...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

I don't see rioting from conservatives at all. I am not sure what news you are seeing, but these riots are from people "protesting" Trump and his policies (without even having a basic understanding of the policies). The day before the inauguration, the protesters torched a limo. Ironically, the limo was owned by a muslim man who didn't like Trump either. Protests at U C Berkeley turned violent over Milo Yiannopoulos, and the recent executive orders that were implimenting policy passed by the previous administration. Portland Oregon protests turn violent over Trumps (illegal!) immigrant stances.

There were some non-violent protests, such as the women's protests the Saturday after the inauguration, but that is hardly the norm right now.

FYI, I live 30 minutes outside DC, I hear about all the crap going on down there, and it isn't pretty with all the violence coming from these people.

In the last couple years, I have seen no valid reports of white supremacists out beating people

Oh, you silly, mis-informed little boy. What planet do you live on?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/14/...

I call bullshit. I remember Trump telling supporters during a rally to hit protesters and he would pay for their legal fees. I remember seeing on the news an elderly man at a Trump rally punch a protester in the face as the protester was being dragged out by security.

They've hugged and made up since then.

I am sure the ass hat that burned down that mosque in Texas was a Trump supporter.

Are you referring to the mosque that was burned down in 2016, or the mosque that was burned down in 2015? Because the 2015 arsonist is a Muslim who attended prayers 5 times a day, before burning down his own mosque on Christmas day. As for the 2016 arson, I'll wait for the police report, thank you.

I am sure the neo nazi wanna be that burned down those churches in the south this last summer would vote for Trump.

Actually, there was a grand total of one black church that was burned down and vandalized with "Vote Trump" graffiti. It turns out the arsonist was black, and a member of the congregation to boot. More encouragingly, the church has since raised over $170,000 from donors to rebuild the church, many of which were donations from Trump supporters.

If you are not willing to speak out against those instances of violence by your fellow Trump supporters you have no right to bitch about being targeted.

Got any more? Knocking these down is pretty fun.

They should be citizens by now, so the ban shouldn't affect them.

The original ban applied to green card holders traveling outside of the United States.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/02/politics/donald-trump-immigration-ban/index.html

So did the casino stiff him or kill him?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/01/us/slot-machine-winner-steak-dinner-trnd

You realize #fakenews wasn't invented till AFTER the democrats lost the election, right?

Don't believe me? Check Google Trends for fakenews.

I don't know about #fakenews (like a hashtag means anything) but fake news was all over the media prior to the election.

Back in 2004 the CBS-pushed fake news supposedly from the 1960s but written in the default MS Word font at least CBS lawyers claiming it was "accurate".

OK, that's only because Texas libel law shields purveyors of libel if they think the libel is accurate, but still...

So the mainstream media has been pushing fake news for decades.

You realize #fakenews wasn't invented till AFTER the democrats lost the election, right?

Don't believe me? Check Google Trends for fakenews.

I don't know about #fakenews (like a hashtag means anything) but fake news was all over the media prior to the election.

That was before this.

States with the biggest H1-B problems, and demanding more to come into the US, are dominated by Democrats.

Republicans cannot be both racist and pro-H1-B. Instead, take a look at the businesses benefiting from H1-B visas and who they are donating to the most.

For some perspective, here's a Republican bill to partially limit H1-B. The bill being discussed here is about adding a new minimum wage to try to avoid the perception of replacing talent with slave labor. It also has other out-of-touch requirements, which would hurt US applicants.

Lofgren's legislation also plays to her Silicon Valley base: It would set aside 20% of the allocated H-1B visas each year for startups, which she defines as firms with 50 or fewer workers.

I cannot name a startup that needed H1-B assistance for some of their first 50 employees.

The only thing that can fix H1-B is to remove H1-B entirely. Businesses should be able to sponsor international talent and spend money bringing them into the US with those people working toward US citizenship. There's no reason that we should be bringing in average (and often below average) talent, especially if that talent has no interest in staying in the US, thus not improving our tax revenues. If we want everyone else's best and brightest, then that's the best way to get them and retain them.

This must be the reason. It's the only thing that makes sense!

The AC you replied to before my first comment explicitly mentioned "violently rioting in the streets and punching people". Your examples are two non-violent, although both abhorrent and obnoxious, incidents. On the other hand, we had riots after the election and riots for the inauguration, all by anti-Trump people. I assume the "punching people" bit was a reference to when a racist asshole got punched on live TV by one of the anti-Trump rioters in Washington DC -- an act that was praised by a lot of other Trump critics. Would you like to try again, and explain why you think violent crime is predominantly committed by Trump supporters?

The Emoluments Clause is short: "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state." What is the clear violation? Did Vladimir Putin tell Russia to write a big check, payable to Donald J. Trump, that Trump then deposited?

In the time it took you to type that in, fill in the captcha, and submit the post you could have completed the web search to find the citation. But here you go:

Restrictions from Obama years broadened to a ban
In December 2015, President Obama signed into law a measure placing limited restrictions on certain travelers who had visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on or after March 1, 2011. Two months later, the Obama administration added Libya, Somalia, and Yemen to the list, in what it called an effort to address "the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters."

Who cares what ISIS wants?

If you're trying to win a conflict, you need to be aware of the objective of your enemy in order to better defeat them. If you do not understand their objectives or their methods, you cannot defeat them. You should have learned this by now from both Vietnam and the failed Iraq campaign(s).

Basically you're characterizing the travel ban as something it's not (an anti-muslim move)

No, I've been explaining to you why the ban(s) are a defective solution: they do not alter the current situation, which already allows for refusing immigrants whose backgrounds cannot be vetted, in any positive way. Your own State Department is against it. What they do accomplish on the other hand is provide your enemy with ample propaganda ammunition to further their goal in painting the US as the enemy of all muslims It's a pure PR stunt from Trump that has no actual upsides while worsening the strategic position and reputation in the middle-east.

You do not understand this and maintain the ban is somehow useful, despite there being no factual evidence for that. The justifications given for it all all attacks which were not performed by people coming in from those countries,

No one cares about your histrionics.

Your entire argument thus far has been: 'you disagree with Trump, therefore you're wrong'. You have not demonstrated why this ban makes any sense or improves the current siutation in any way. That's because it does not. It's a 'solution' for a non-issue which does not block access from the high risk terrorist countries such as SA, Pakistan etc. At least if it included those you would have a point. I've been saying Trumps solution is essentially useless in achieving what he claims it to achieve (reducing the risk of terrorism) because the risk of terrorism from people coming in from those countries is minimal compared to the countries you keep letting in.

This discussion has 2 main points:

1. Are country-wide travel bans effective way of reducing terrorism?
2. If one were to ban immigrants from certain countries in an attempt to reduce terrorism, would this list be a sensible one?

My answer to both is no. We probably disagree on the 1st one but that's irrelevant, because regardless of that the 2nd is objectively wrong, making this policy idiotic even if one's answer to 1. is yes. Banning countries like SA, Turkey, Pakistan, UEA would actually reduce the odds of terror attacks, this however does not. It does however conveniently aid your enemy which is trying to turn the domestic US muslim population more into aggression.

I'm yelling about the idiocy of trump because trump is objectively wrong here even if you agree with his stated end goals. I'm yelling at him because setting these types of policies shows lack of forethought, and does not raise my confidence in the slightest that he has a clue of what he's doing.