Soxbadger

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 05:00 PM) I love how Chaffetz threw that bill onto Clintons lap in withdrawl Its a shame that they couldnt have put a moderate in his position. Because Ethics should be bi-partisan.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 03:00 PM) Vice puts this into a little bit different perspective. The IB publication left out this line. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/apparent...e=vicetwitterus Yeah I dont really think he is a fascist, but this is the type of thing that emboldens people to say "no." Especially as right now people just read headlines.

Looks like the digging has begun: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/donald-trumps-sup...&yptr=yahoo Not saying you should be barred from being a SC Judge because in HS you founded a "Fascism Forever Club", but I do think it will cause problems because Trump has already done some things that mimic fascist ideas.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 02:22 PM) You don't know the far left then. They didn't vote for Clinton, and they won't vote for people like Kaine if they think he's not being "tough enough". And they have no one to blame but themselves. They may as well have voted Trump, and the sooner they realize that they were a part of the reason he won, the sooner that maybe some of this stuff can be fixed. There is a time and a place to push your agenda. But when you have actual enemies at the door, you need to band together and fight the enemies. Otherwise you all end up dead. If they havent learned that lesson, they are most likely hopeless anyways and there is no point in even attempting to court their vote.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 02:16 PM) I agree with this. I want dems to obstruct everything they can during trump, but long term realistically the party that wins electoins should get a chance to implement policy. This whole "party wins on CHANGE" but then can't institute much, then gets voted out so that a group can actually do something, only they can't, is getting old. but that's in normal world. We are in Trump world now, so anything that makes him ineffective is good, because when he is effective we end up with mass chaos in airports and grandmothers dying away from their families. Travel ban is just a drop in the bucket. Insurers want to know what is going on next year and have given them 30 days. If they dont get any sort of clear cut answer, expect premiums to sky rocket. Allies want to know what side of the fence we are on, etc.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 02:06 PM) They literally did not. They bent over backwards and refused to use the power of the purse. The color of the sky in my world is blue, and yours? Sky actually isnt blue, that is just the way humans perceive it due to blue light waves being shorter http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/blue-sky/en/ QUOTE (brett05 @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 02:09 PM) I have no idea what middle you speak of. The middle of the country, thrilled. The middle class. Happy. At least in my circles. And in my circles, middle of the country, middle to upper class, they are appalled. But none of this really matters, if Trump cant deliver jobs to those places he promised, hell be gone. Many people dont care about the SC, they dont care about travel bans/whatever you want to call them. They care about Trump's promise that he was going to turn back time and make America a manufacturing super power with jobs for all. If that doesnt happen, he will have to answer to them. Just like he had to answer to the creditors when he didnt pay the bills on the Taj Mahal. Saying how great something is only works until the bill comes in the mail.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 02:04 PM) In the short term, losing the filibuster would obviously suck. But I've said for years that it's another unnecessary veto point in a system full of veto points, is a historical accident rather than something that was intentionally created, and ultimately should be abolished. Even if it was an accident, I think it has provided an interesting mechanism to try and stop the majority. Ultimately this type of stuff is personal opinion. I think that there is some benefit to a govt that has a high threshold to institute change. While sometimes it is frustrating because change may not happen as quickly as we want, but that also slows change we may dislike. At the end of the day the country is better off when it doesnt drastically change course in short periods of time. Instability is bad for everyone, which is why status quo is sometimes okay, even if its not exactly what I want.

Oh and after a lot of thought, I think that the Democrats should force the nuclear option. It may lose this battle, but it could start a war between congress and Trump, and that is really what we need.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 01:40 PM) Sure, but if you live in my world right now, the far left is LIVID at the Senate Dems for confirming ANY cabinet picks, and for even considering Gorsuch. It's ugly over there. They need to get over themselves, just like the Jill Stein voters. Maybe one day there will be a different system, but for now its generally choice a or b, there is no magical c candidate behind the mystery door.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 11:15 AM) Though no where near right leaning today. Yeah, Im not even sure what the "right" means anymore.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 09:19 AM) From the NYT front page. Not sure how Trump (or Obama) are to blame for this. At some point some general had to tell either or both of them, "this is the plan, it's going to work." Jenks, Without being there it is really hard to ascertain what if anything could have been done differently. That being said, I think this type of "leak" is a by-product of Trump's previous attacks on the intelligence community. When you say how smart you are, how much better you are, how dumb they are, it breeds this type of finger pointing. Its possible someone in the military community wanted to get out ahead of the potential Trump tweet about how the "military failed him." But again, impossible to know. For all we no the military told him "dont attack yet, they are waiting" or it could have been Trump saying "I dont think its a good time, do you really think we should?" Unfortunately Trump's own actions have caused my immediate belief to be that it is the former (he insisted against their opinion) as opposed to the latter. Thats the price you pay for what Trump is doing. And it is why most successful leaders dont act like him.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 1, 2017 -> 02:55 PM) Oh ok, I mustve missed that. My EMEA team hasnt seemed to be very worried about that stuff, but whatever. lol I was just being sarcastic. But unfortunately it really does seem to be his argument. Which given his propensity for insulting other peoples knowledge, is either ironic or sad.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 1, 2017 -> 02:37 PM) Like which attacks? The ones in Europe. Remember the entire premise of his argument is that Europe and the United States are comparable, and that the US should wait 5 years to see how things shake out in Europe before we make a decision.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Feb 1, 2017 -> 01:08 PM) It's like you entirely ignored SSK's post about assimilating immigrants in the US across the last 200 years - oh wait, you hand waved that away as a high school history lesson. The point is that immigrants generally take a generation to assimilate, and have throughout American history. That's because of language gaps in the first generation, close communities made up of the same ethnicity, etc. The second generation learns the language and assimilates. In a lot of cases, they still hold on to their religion and identify with cultural things from their homeland, but that's no different than the way the Irish, Italians, Germans, etc. identify with their native land multiple generations down the road. Your underlying point is the same point that has been made by Nativists and Isolationists about the "other" since this country was founded. But your argument actually goes further. In the above paragraph, you seem to be arguing that Muslim refugees are incapable of assimilating, and that their inability to assimilate leads to terror attacks (an argument that is not even a little bit backed up by any amount of data). Thus, your argument - if I'm understanding correctly - would support a blanket ban on further immigration by Muslims into the USA because none of your arguments are limited to the countries in Trump's ban. Which is a startling and really, really, un-American (at least it's antithesis to the values that this country was founded upon) argument to be making (not to mention that it's insulting to the many, many Muslims who are an important fabric of what makes America great). And this is why its really hard to even pin down what his argument is. At first I just thought it was naturally about countries that are considered to sponsor terrorism, and that those countries posed a danger/risk. Once that argument was debunked, it seems that it has moved towards the more "Jews dont assimilate in German culture, so we should keep the Jews out." Oh wait, I mean Muslims dont assimilate in European culture. Oh never mind, I meant Muslims may not assimilate well in the United States because they dont assimilate well in Europe. When in reality, a lot of our families didnt assimilate well in their European country of origin, which is exactly why they came here. And strangely, when they were removed from their European country of origin, they seemed to do just fine in the US. So I am not sure why we would think that Muslims are somehow different than Jews, Protestants, Catholics, or any other religious group that has found sanctuary in the United States. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 1, 2017 -> 02:05 PM) This is BY FAR the most important thing to remember. When people post things about locking their doors and the like, keep in mind no individual wrote a constitution with all of the rights and responsibilities that are mapped out in it. This is pretty straight forward "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." When you pass an executive order that essentially establishes a law that bans people because of a religion, you are flat out in violation of the constitution. It would be another thing if you had shutdown all immigration to try to fix the system, because at least that would effect everyone equally s***ty. This law explicitly targets people on the basis of one religion in overwhelming numbers. One could have even tried to make an argument that this wasn't the case until the President actually went a step further and talked about giving preferential treatment to Christians. While a lot of the country will look at that and see no problem with it, realize that if this stands, this gives a legal precedent to any future President to do the same to Christians, or any other religion, in the name of "safety" Giving that power to anyone should scare you. The constitution agreed this was dangerous, and flat out said so. Using scare tactics to try to circumvent it is a flat out power grab. At least Trump is trying to cloak it under "security" concerns and saying that its "countries" not religions. Conte just stepped up the rhetoric and made it all about Muslim religion. Interesting fact: http://www.tolerance.org/publication/ameri...s-united-states But I guess none of those Muslims ever assimilated, because you know, Europe.

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Feb 1, 2017 -> 12:46 PM) You dont know or understand the difference between multiculturalism and assimilation. I'm sorry, you can do all the weaseling and "WHY WONT YOU RESPOND TO MY POINTS" but that kind of wanton disregard to even familiarize yourself to a college freshman level understanding of the issue disqualifies you from having a thought worth taking seriously on the matter. You say the USA and Europe are different, but aside from the Atlantic Ocean separating them you seem unable to explain why. And you are hung up on this idea that I'm afraid of terror attacks and that its "risky" to let them in lest we invite more attacks onto our shores. That's not really the point and never has been. Terror attacks are just symptoms of larger issue Muslim refugees have assimilating into the native culture, but because you dont really understand what assimilation is (the fact that you think it means they have to respect our laws actually made me LOL) having this discussion with you is worthless. It'd be like asking my dog how to fix something on my car. I'm not falling for it, and my refusal to insult my own intelligence and do battle with somebody who is literally clueless on the topic is not "running away from the argument". My post got deleted accidentally so Ill paraphrase. You are the one who keeps comparing the US to Europe, it is your argument, you need to support it. But since you want some differences. 1) Europe is a continent, the US is a country. 2) Europe is comprised of different countries, the United States is a single country. 3) The US explicitly separated church and state. I could keep going, but I think the first problem you have is that you are lumping "Europe" together instead of discussing individual European countries. The last part is, you keep using terms and you fail to define them which is really poor form. My original comment about the US isnt a country of assimilation, was based on the idea of "forced" assimilation. After reading more of your posts, I now believe you were referring to "cultural" assimilation. You arent specific enough when you articulate your position. And its interesting that you loled about respect for laws: http://www.ceousa.org/immigration-assimili...on/assimilation Not saying I agree with that website, but most would agree a part of assimilation is respecting the laws of the country you are in. And what is sad/funny, is that many of the problems Muslim assimilation has in Europe is based on laws in certain European countries, such as the burka ban, that make it impossible for Mulsims to truly assimilate. But maybe youre right, maybe I dont know have a freshman level understanding of this subject, as clearly in your opinion a continent is comparable to a country.

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Feb 1, 2017 -> 12:09 PM) You earlier: My guess is you have absolutely zero understanding of why refugees have issues in Europe, or why Europe is having issues with refugees. Interesting you worded it the way you did, do you think its the responsibility of receiving countries to change for refugees or the other way around? Because you seem to be agreeing with anyone who vouches for assimilation, and your criticism of Europe here tends to side with that, but initially you definitely took a stand with multiculturalism. I suspect you are talking entirely out of your ass and have very little idea what it is you are even talking about. Also, I'm done talking about immigration. I actually have very few problems with American immigration policy, the only real one being it seems content with leaving about 15 million people in this country basically stateless because partisan bickering has prevented opening up a path to citizenship for them. This strategy of bringing up straight out of the textbook history (and calling me a klansman, which is a pretty serious accusation to levy so glibly) is not one I'm going to abide anymore because (a) it's f***ing BORING and (b) it doesn't even apply. The words refugee and immigrant have different meanings and this ignorant fusion of the two is obfuscating the real discussion over this particular executive order and the broader debate hanging over it. People who think they informed on the issue just because they can recite history taught to every single high school student in this country and then calling me a KKK member because I have the nerve to say it may be a bit more nuanced is not pleasant. Uh what? No one is confusing immigrants and refugees, unless maybe you are? Refugees are a subset of immigrants. Not all immigrants are refugees. That being said, Ill answer your questions. Do I think that it is the responsibility of the country to change for immigrants? I dont know, it depends on the scenario. Do I think that the US should have changed its policy towards african's and not allow slavery, absolutely. Do I think that if a bunch of Nazi's immigrated here we should change to being Nazis? Absolutely not. That being said I think you misunderstood what I meant by "they dont have to assimilate". I didnt mean that they dont have to respect our laws, I mean that they dont have to change their religion or customs. Just because you talk down to people and act like "they" are the ones who "dont understand", doesnt mean you actually understand. So far you have thrown out a lot of "opinions" and have yet to support a single one. You compare Europe to US, when I say I dont find them comparable, you just say "You dont understand Europe", you dont even bother to explain why you believe they are comparable. You make some allegation that US was "cozy" with the Nazis and that it was because of Germans in the US. I ask for some evidence, you dont even respond. I understand why you are running from the argument, and I just dont agree with your opinion at all. As of now, you have offered zero support for why refugees from these countries pose a risk to the US. Your best argument has been "Well Europe", which again is a completely different continent, isnt even a single country and has a completely different history with respect to refugees and immigrants.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Feb 1, 2017 -> 10:19 AM) 1. Republicans a year ago: The people should decide 2. The people vote for Hillary Clinton, but Electoral College saddles us with Trump 3. Therefore, Hillary Clinton or Obama, as the last majority President, should be given the choice. Electoral college is the will of the people. According to Brett, Trump didnt try to "win" the popular vote.

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 10:04 PM) Again, this is propaganda. Saying I have "zero idea of history" then coming at me with high school curriculum cliches is kind of insulting. Not all of this is even true, and even the parts that are are often dramatized to the point of fantasy to become the myth and lore that fills the foundation of American Exceptionalism. Immigration is told to n a starry eyed tone as America's great stake to moral relevance. To that point I kind of agree? I dont know, its a bit tough when you start getting into why the USA has behaved the way it has at certain points in history. Why do you think the USA was so cozy with Hitler in the 1930's? Could it have had something to do with the absolutely massive German population wielding its affection for the motherland as political club to force the US into isolationist policy? Its time we start separating immigrants from refugees. Immigrants go through a lengthy, intentionally arduous process and for many countries have to satisfy a points system that basically requires they be at minimum educated or skilled in an in-demand field. As an immigrant the USA is amongst the easiest Western countries to get into, easier than the golden multiculti city on the hill Canada or population hemorrhaging European states. Refugees on the other hand, well you dont really know what you're getting. And you're saying assimilation has never been forced? Do you know what used to fill the area that is now UIC? Or how the military was called into to Quincy IL to deliver a "convert, leave or die" ultimatum to the Mormons? I can pull up hundreds of examples in just this great state of Illinois of assimilation being forced. And even if we accept the romantic retelling of American immigration history, just because a dynamic has existed in the past does not mean it will continue in the future. Things have changed from many angles in the world of immigration. The needs receiving countries, the policies of receiving countries, the nature of what a refugee actually is...I cannot stress enough how different the world is now than it was then. Ellis Island is a museum now. This may or may not be happening with Muslims. Its interesting to note that many of the attackers in the USA and Europe claimed by ISIS are actually native westerners. The sons of immigrants and refugees are the ones committing the attacks, not the refugees and immigrants themselves. Also intermarriage rates and other signs of assimilation dont seem to improve much generation to generation with Muslims. This is different than other recent immigrant groups, particularly hispanics. My position is wait about five-ish years to accept more refugees and then reevaluate. Observe what is happening in Europe and if we decide to reopen the doors learn from their mistakes, or realize that a torrent of refugees is not what's right for the USA and leave only the traditional immigration path open. That is the most sensible option and the one that guarantees best that we handle it correctly. Rushing in trying to save the world like a bunch of big, bad heroes is often the preamble to a classic American tale of "oh god, what have we gotten ourselves into". Well if you want to suggest that you do have some sort of historical insight, you probably shouldnt start with "Why the US was cozy with Hitler?" and provide absolutely no citation or support for your claim. The US after WWI had an "isolationist" policy. It also completely glosses over people like Einstein, Oppenheimer. Even Eisenhower, Spaatz and Nimitz had German ancestry. Another man, Wendell Willkie, was the only Republican interventionist in the 1940 Republican primary, his father had been born in Germany. But I digress. Europe and the US are different. Europe is the place where many American families left due to persecution. And I dont even know what "rushing to save the world" means. Allowing immigrants, refugees, isnt rushing to save the world. But everyone is allowed to have their opinion, my personal opinion is I dont consider America and Europe comparable. And I can completely understand why refugees/immigrants have issues in Europe. Its the same reason why many of us are here, Europe doesnt always treat "outsiders" well. Which is why the US in many ways is the opposite of Europe.

Funny article about one of Trump's friends, who was allegedly offered a position in HUD and for his company to help build the wall: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/201...&yptr=yahoo The article also states he joked with Trump about what side of the wall hed end up on.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 05:09 PM) I still just don't understand how he can just make all this s*** the law without Congress or the courts having a say. Well even if he is doing something he "cant", youd need the legislature or judiciary to stop him. As of now the legislature is controlled by Republicans, and they dont seem to want to assert their power.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 02:29 PM) No doubt. The Republicans absolutely stole a seat through unprecedented obstructionism. And that's garbage, but the Ds can't filibuster the seat for 4 years. Agreed on his position on Chevron. Also agreed that Trump is turning the announcement into a circus... They could do it. But I am not sure if they all have the political capital to get re-elected and do it. This is why what the Republican's did is a dangerous precedent. If the Democrats stick together, they can basically tell Trump they wont approve any SC nomination until Garland at least gets a vote. I think that many Democratic Senators would risk very little with this move, but there may be enough who fear losing in 2-4 years. It will be interesting to see what they do, someone has to end vendetta politics, but with the way Trump has acted I am not sure that he has given the Democrats a good reason to play nice. My personal opinion is that I dont really believe in these type of games, but at the same time, its hard to watch someone else do it and then hold yourself back on principle.

I disagree. You cant make "rules" to fix people. Just because hardliners were voted in 6 years ago, doesnt mean today people arent fed up with it. If those people who are already in power cant learn how to "play nice", then its time for different people. The rules have been the same since the beginning, but the whole "I cant work with the other side" is seemingly a relatively new phenomenon. I am not saying that every person in congress cant play nice, just that if they continue to believe "This is what their constituents want" they wont change their behavior. If there is a real threat that they will lose power all of a sudden maybe theyll "play nice again." I hate to use this analogy, but Congress is like a child who is fighting over a toy. At some point we as the parents, have to tell them if they cant share, no one gets to play.

QUOTE (New Era on South Side @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 01:09 PM) When I say moderate though it is only because I'm fiscally conservative and more liberal minded. Progressive if you will...kind of like Mark Kirk but voting for both democrats and republicans. We really need the army who doesn't agree with Trump to get going in the midterms and fight back so that when 2020 comes around, another candidate can step forward and try to win back the presidency (even though I think it is unlikely). A real problem is that our current "labels" dont really fit most people well. I used to say I was more fiscally conservative, but after this election I dont even know what fiscal conservative means anymore. There used to be some good in both parties being counter-balances, but now it seems to just be about power. Whoever is in power wants to expand the federal govt to enforce their agenda, whoever isnt in power tries to check it. Nobody wants to work with the other side because they seemingly fear that they wont get re-elected. We all have different ideas/opinions, but we should all agree that our government should be doing what it can to make life better for the most people. Whether thats more govt/less govt, whatever. But this whole "Im taking my ball and going home" routine has gotten old. I am not going to get into who started it, but when Republican's dont even bother to vote on a Supreme Court judge, they have to expect that there will be some sort of counter-response. Its almost as if we need a movement to vote out every incumbent. Just to put the fear back into them.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 12:18 PM) See that is the fun part. No one in politics today seems to think ahead that the powers they stretch to add to today, will eventually go to the other side of the aisle. For the most part you are right, but its the main reason why Democrats didnt nuke the filibuster when they had the chance. They probably regret lowering the threshold for cabinet appointments.

Obamacare website is crashing cause too many people enrolling.