US Bans Travelers from Certain Muslim Countries

[Prideful]

I said that the rapid rate of executive orders issued by Trump reminds me of the rapid rate of the German equivalent of executive orders issued in Germany 1933. Everything beyond that is not what I said.

"A shared some very specific property with B" does not imply that A=B. It does not even imply that A and B would be similar in anything else apart from this specific property. And I did not even say that they are the same. I just said that this property of A reminds me of some property of B.
If I say "Trump's skin color reminds me of carrots", do I claim that Trump is literally a carrot? No. I also don't claim Trump would be the size of a carrot, grow underground, or share any other properties with a carrot. I don't even claim that Trump's skin color is the color of a carrot.

Wait, I haven't been following the politics news much. I know about the Muslim travel ban of course, and I heard something about internment camps which I hope is just really bad reporting, but what other orders are being sent out? Should I be even more worried?

 

[mfb]

The list up to January 29:

- An executive order that seems to prepare repealing Obamacare, a big component of Obama's politics
- An infrastructure project where I don't know the impact
- "Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements" featuring the wall and various changes to border controls
- "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States", bonus points for using "removable aliens" to describe people
- "Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Employees", sounds reasonable on first glance
- "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" - the topic of this thread

February was very quiet compared to the first week, so my original point does not apply any more.

 

[mheslep]

"A shared some very specific property with B" does not imply that A=B

Okay, nothing implied here: 'Germans remind me of Hitler. They speak German, as did Hitler. Some Germans even write books and paint, as did Hitler'

 

[mfb]

Germans remind me of Hitler.

While you can find statements like this frequently in online discussions (and I just ignore them): That is considering the persons already, not a specific set of actions of those persons.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Only if the connections are valid and I have shown in this case that they are not.

Actually, you haven't shown any such thing. Consider that the muslim ban is a muslim ban, and not a national security measure, in people's minds, due to his previously stated intent to ban all muslims. It's about intent. People invoke Hitler rather than FDR about a possible Trump internment program because of Trump's Hitlerian intent: racism. FDR is just not perceived as having had some pre-existing racist agenda that Japanese internment allowed him to fulfill. Trump, by contrast, has been saying and doing thinly veiled racist things for many years and smirking about it. People keep pulling Hitler into the discussions because there's fear the Trump administration is going to be about targeting all non-whites using whatever pretexts sound plausible. If a large group of non-whites are also members of a religion prone to radicalization, he can use that pretext to inter them. If a large group of non-whites is here illegally, easy targets for him: they're breaking the immigration laws!

Shared racism is a completely appropriate reason to connect two people.

 

[dkotschessaa]

While you can find statements like this frequently in online discussions (and I just ignore them): That is considering the persons already, not a specific set of actions of those persons.

I heard somewhere "History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Vague as that is, I think it applies here.

-Dave K

 

[Buckleymanor]

Only if the connections are valid and I have shown in this case that they are not. Indeed, to make a false connection to Hitler adds to the divisiveness, it doesn't reduce it. Observers from the left are quick to point out that anti-immigrant rhetoric is divisive, but less inclined to point the finger at themselves and acknowledging that comparing someone to The Archetype of Evil is about the most divisive rhetoric there is. It even has a name: Goodwin's Law. Mitt Romney had his "42%" gaffe, which people correctly called divisive and probably cost him some votes. Hillary upped the ante with her "basket of deplorables", which is even more divisive.. I didn't vote for Trump, but this ridiculousness certainly earns him - and more importantly his supporters - sympathy from me.

So by that I take it that you have read the link provided and you don't think the connections made in it valid.
Quote:
The group made special reference to Mr Trump's executive order last month that banned refugees and immigrants from seven mostly Muslim countries from entering the US.

It said Mr Trump put "his hateful xenophobic pre-election rhetoric" into action by signing the measure. The US president, who recently said he was the "least racist" and "least anti-Semitic person", is expected to unveil an updated order this week.

The White House has not commented on the report.

Amnesty also mentioned Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban as leaders who were using the "us versus them" rhetoric.

• Rich nations 'shirking' refugee role
• Full coverage of Europe's migrant crisis

"2016 was the year when the cynical use of 'us vs them' narratives of blame, hate and fear took on a global prominence to a level not seen since the 1930s," Mr Shetty added, citing the year when Adolf Hitler rose to power in Germany.

"A new world order where human rights are portrayed as a barrier to national interests makes the ability to tackle mass atrocities dangerously low, leaving the door open to abuses reminiscent of the darkest times of human history."

Or you are making reference to something else and ignoring these comments.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I heard somewhere "History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Vague as that is, I think it applies here.

No one after Hitler could possibly repeat his rise to power exactly, or even closely. Because of Hitler, observers are now too well equipped with 'anti-Hitler radar', so to speak: people know the red flags now while they didn't then. The next racism-based autocrat has to sidle in wearing camouflage and under the radar. Trump didn't do that very well, and he stepped on many trip wires. The "canaries in the coal mine", the especially sensitive detectors, went off very early in his campaign, and he's been setting off increasingly less sensitive detectors as things progress. The protest against him is massive and has spread around the world. (I'm amazed, for example, at the number of Britons who have demonstrated against his state visit.)

I don't think he will be able to manage to even rhyme. That doesn't mean bad things can't happen. Trump has nukes, Hitler didn't.

 

[mheslep]

No one after Hitler could possibly repeat his rise to power exactly, or even closely.

Starting in 1949, Mao Zedong in China, Pol Pot in Cambodia, Slobodan Milošević (a tyrant back in Europe again), Muhamar Gaddafi in Libya, Théoneste Bagosora in Rwanda, Saddam Hussein (5th largest army in the world in 1990), Kim Jong Un in N. Korea, Mullah Mohammed Omar of the Taliban, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of ISIS.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Starting in 1949, Mao Zedong in China, Pol Pot in Cambodia, Slobodan Milošević (a tyrant back in Europe again), Muhamar Gaddafi in Libya, Théoneste Bagosora in Rwanda, Saddam Hussein (5th largest army in the world in 1990), Kim Jong Un in N. Korea, Mullah Mohammed Omar of the Taliban, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of ISIS.

With the possible exception of Slobodan Milošević, none of these people came to power in cultures where I'd expect the average observer to have detailed knowledge of Hitler. Is WWII history well covered in Iraqi curricula, for example?

 

[mfb]

With the possible exception of Slobodan Milošević, none of these people came to power in cultures where I'd expect the average observer to have detailed knowledge of Hitler.

And with the same exception, I'm not so sure how democratic the previous system was.

 

[russ_watters]

It isn't necessary for him to be planning a muslim genocide for him to derive racist enjoyment of the idea of rounding up muslims.

True! But not Hitlerian, which is what we were discussing.

...his unwillingness to mention Jews in conjunction with the Holocaust...

Not that it's relevant, but that one was overblown at best, if not outright false. Trump's Jewish speechwriter wanted to be inclusive so he said "all" instead of just "Jews". This is yet another silly example of accusing Trump of being on both sides of the same conflict (as in the WWII analogies). Oh wait - we were discussing fake news against Trump, so I guess it is relevant!

I don't understand this part. What are the stats you're referring to? Did you mean to link to a poll here?

I'm referring to your stats.

Also, perhaps you missed the key part of my response the first time, so here it is again:
Do you agree that media accuracy has gotten worse over the last 5 years, since the rise of Twitter?

 

[russ_watters]

I said that the rapid rate of executive orders issued by Trump reminds me of the rapid rate of the German equivalent of executive orders issued in Germany 1933. Everything beyond that is not what I said.

"A shared some very specific property with B" does not imply that A=B.

"A shared some very specific property with B". Right: Property A = Property B.

It does not even imply that A and B would be similar in anything else apart from this specific property. And I did not even say that they are the same. I just said that this property of A reminds me of some property of B.

If I say "Trump's skin color reminds me of carrots", do I claim that Trump is literally a carrot? No. I also don't claim Trump would be the size of a carrot, grow underground, or share any other properties with a carrot. I don't even claim that Trump's skin color is the color of a carrot.

Like a carrot, Hitler has highly specific properties that make him unique and make it inappropriate to draw comparisons between them if it isn't those specific properties that are meant to be compared. Don't be disingenuous here: you weren't comparing Trump to Hitler because both have bad hair, you were comparing Trump to Hitler because you intended to imply Trump might be trying to seize dictatorial power. Or from the other direction: you're basically complaining about the overstated equalization because while Trump has blonde hair, Hitler had black hair, so therefore they aren't equal. C'mon: Hair color is not what made Hitler Hitler and you were comparing exactly the traits (actions) that made Hitler Hitler.

February was very quiet compared to the first week, so my original point does not apply any more.

Yeah, that's one way of putting it!

 

[russ_watters]

So by that I take it that you have read the link provided and you don't think the connections made in it valid.

Yes, but:

Or you are making reference to something else and ignoring these comments.

Mirror, mirror: I made a detailed argument, with citations, and you didn't respond to any of it. You ignored it and posted your own separate argument instead. Don't complain about something that you yourself are doing. That said, when people ignore certain key parts of my posts (even when I repeat them and bold them!), that tells me they find my arguments compelling. So thanks!

 

[russ_watters]

It's about intent.

No it isn't, it is about actions (or predicted actions)*. Hitler's actions differed from FDRs because while Hitler put Jews into gas chambers, FDR did not put the Japanese into gas chambers. They didn't do the same things for different reasons, they did different things. Similarly, Trump is not being accused of wanting to do the same thing for the same reasons (as Hitler), he's being accused of wanting to do a tiny subset of vaguely similar things for vaguely similar reasons.

And that's even in the better comparisons. The worse ones say things like Trump is like Hitler because he is anti-union!

Also, you'd have a hard time showing FDR's motivation not being inherently racist. You can't get from point A to point B without it.
https://artifactsjournal.missouri.edu/2012/03/wwii-propaganda-the-influence-of-racism/

Shared racism is a completely appropriate reason to connect two people.

There are lots and lots of prominent racists in the world that Trump could be compared to and on the flip-side, few people are compared to Hitler for being racist**. Comparing Trump to The Worst Person Ever is taking it to an entirely different level and the comparison is bad because it is missing most of the key elements that made Hitler Hitler.

*Stalin killed tens of millions of people largely for the purpose of/as a result of economic reform, which helped bring industrialization and economic prosperity to the Soviet Union. Since he killed them for a positive reason, does that make it ok to you? It doesn't to me: since actions matter to me, that makes Stalin a monster on a similar level as Hitler.

**My grandmother was racist. Thank god she was too blind by the time I got to high school to see my sister's Hawaiian boyfriend or worse her mixed-race adopted baby! So, my grandmother = Hitler?

 

[zoobyshoe]

And with the same exception, I'm not so sure how democratic the previous system was.

Yes. If you're exploring the assertion, "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme," you have to decide what you think would constitutes either a repetition or rhyme.

In the case of repetition or rhyme with Hitler, I'd agree one thing you'd be looking for is a movement toward dictatorship from democracy. And that would be accomplished by exploiting various aspects of the democratic system that's in place to install the dictatorial one. In other words: you're looking for someone who is exploiting every legal means to concentrate undue power in the government's hands. That was an important strategy change for Hitler after his initial attempt at taking power by force completely failed. From then on, he limited himself to tactics that were, at least to all outward appearances, legal. I'm also not sure we could put Slobodan in the category of someone using democracy against itself.

 

[collinsmark]

C'mon: Hair color is not what made Hitler Hitler and you were comparing exactly the traits (actions) that made Hitler Hitler.

There are more pertinent comparisons between Trump and Hitler than say, hair color/style. For one example, both are admirers of Mussolini.

For those not aware, Benito Mussolini was the fascist ruler of Italy before and during Hitler's rise to power. He has been called "The Father of Fascism." He was also Hitler's biggest European ally during World War II.

Hitler:

In his early years at the helm of the NSDAP, Hitler was a great admirer of Mussolini. The Nazi leader was particularly fascinated with Mussolini’s ‘march on Rome’ – a 1922 protest where thousands of fascists and fascist supporters strode into the Italian capital, which led to Mussolini’s appointment as prime minister.

http://alphahistory.com/nazigermany/hitler-and-mussolini/

Trump:

 

[Buckleymanor]

Yes, but:

Mirror, mirror: I made a detailed argument, with citations, and you didn't respond to any of it. You ignored it and posted your own separate argument instead. Don't complain about something that you yourself are doing. That said, when people ignore certain key parts of my posts (even when I repeat them and bold them!), that tells me they find my arguments compelling. So thanks!

Quite the opposite I made a separate argument because there are so many out there to choose from.
It is you who is ignoring them and protesting so much.

Edit: removed snide comment

 

[dkotschessaa]

Wait, I haven't been following the politics news much. I know about the Muslim travel ban of course, and I heard something about internment camps which I hope is just really bad reporting, but what other orders are being sent out? Should I be even more worried?

There was a weird moment on Fox (of all places) where a Trump surrogate Carl Higbie (spokesman for the Great America Super PAC)claimed that there was "precedent" for a Muslim Registry

"We've done it based on race, we've done it based on religion, we've done it based on region," he said. "We've done it with Iran back — back a while ago. We did it during World War II with [the] Japanese."

That was too weird for even the Fox reporter, who challenged him.

-Dave K

 

[mfb]

A shared some very specific property with B".

... which is not even what I said. I used it in the post as an illustration that even a stronger statement wouldn't imply equality of the persons.

Like a carrot, Hitler has highly specific properties that make him unique and make it inappropriate to draw comparisons between them if it isn't those specific properties that are meant to be compared. Don't be disingenuous here: you weren't comparing Trump to Hitler because both have bad hair, you were comparing Trump to Hitler because you intended to imply Trump might be trying to seize dictatorial power. Or from the other direction: you're basically complaining about the overstated equalization because while Trump has blonde hair, Hitler had black hair, so therefore they aren't equal. C'mon: Hair color is not what made Hitler Hitler and you were comparing exactly the traits (actions) that made Hitler Hitler.

The color of a carrot is one of those specific properties, and still no one complained "you claimed that Trump is literally a carrot!".

If there is a way for Trump to increase his power, I can totally imagine that he might want to use it. I think this is bad and should be prevented. Paying attention to everything that could become such an attempt is important.

 

[zoobyshoe]

If there is a way for Trump to increase his power, I can totally imagine that he might want to use it. I think this is bad and should be prevented. Paying attention to everything that could become such an attempt is important.

Witness his power struggle with the judiciary over the Muslim ban:

Given all of this, there can be no certainty about what the courts will eventually rule. But the Trump administration is taking things further than merely saying a few judges have overstepped their bounds in this one case. Miller seemed to be serving notice Sunday that the administration thinks the courts should play no role in reviewing any of Trump's decisions related to national security.

That makes even some Republicans uneasy.

"I mean, obviously, the president wants to keep the country safe. I recognize that. I think everybody does, and I applaud him for trying to do so," Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said on "Face the Nation" after Miller's appearance. "But, obviously, it needs to be constitutional, and it needs to be wise."

Miller is basically arguing that it doesn't need to be constitutional -- or, more specifically, that anything Trump decides to do when it comes to national security is inherently constitutional, regardless of whether it targets a specific religion or anything else.

That is a massive claim to power. And it apparently won't be the last time Trump's White House attempts to claim it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ill-not-be-questioned/?utm_term=.816040cc64d0

 

[SW VandeCarr]

For the Muslim ban or any other aspect of his agenda, Steve Bannon says Trump is "maniacally" focused.

 

[Evo]

For the Muslim ban or any other aspect of his agenda, Steve Bannon says Trump is "maniacally" focused.

Steve Bannon's three goals for the Presidency? I know it's been asked before. Who's the real President?

 

[zoobyshoe]

For the Muslim ban or any other aspect of his agenda, Steve Bannon says Trump is "maniacally" focused.

A completely opposite opinion from the ghostwriter of Art of the Deal:

"All he is is 'stomp, stomp, stomp' – recognition from outside, bigger, more, a whole series of things that go nowhere in particular," Schwartz wrote in his journal on Oct. 21, 1986, an observation he told The New Yorker disproves the speculation that Trump's campaign is a performance that disguises a more thoughtful and nuanced person behind the scenes.

"There isn't," Schwartz said. "There is no private Trump."

In studying Trump, Schwartz said, he struggled to pin him down for conversations that lasted more than a few minutes, and that the real estate tycoon would often get fidgety, impatient and irritable.

"He has no attention span," Schwartz said. "Trump has been written about a thousand ways from Sunday, but this fundamental aspect of who he is doesn't seem to be fully understood … It's impossible to keep him focussed on any topic, other than his own self-aggrandizement, for more than a few minutes, and even then … If he had to be briefed on a crisis in the Situation Room, it's impossible to imagine him paying attention over a long period of time."

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-07-18/behind-the-art-of-the-deal-trumps-ghostwriter-calls-candidate-a-sociopath

Steve Bannon's three goals for the Presidency? I know it's been asked before. Who's the real President?

Exactly. Trump would have caved to Republican appeals to moderate his rhetoric and goals a long time ago but for Bannon standing over him with a whip. Bannon is at the steering wheel of the US. and Trump is riding shot gun, pretending he's the one telling Bannon where to drive.

The "maniacally focused" person here is, of course, Bannon himself:

As Kurt Bardella, the former spokesman for Breitbart, told me earlier this year, when I was researching a piece on Bannon, “When Sarah Palin was on the rise, he had found a way to become a part of that circle. When the Tea Party was on the rise, he seemed to be right there in that circle. When it was going to be Ted Cruz, he was there. When it was going to be Ben Carson for a hot second, he was there. He’s been someone who’s been in pursuit of that pipeline to power for a long time now.”

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/steve-bannon-will-lead-trumps-white-house
Maniacally focused on insinuating himself into any convenient "pipline to power."

Bannon said some scary things about the media at that conference:

“They’re going to continue to fight,” Bannon said of the media, which he repeatedly described as “the opposition party,” and other forces he sees as standing in the president’s way. “If you think they are giving you your country back without a fight, you are sadly mistaken.”

In other words, he seems to be trying to cast the media as some sort of insurgency that has illegitimately taken control of the country.

 

[Evo]

Time had Bannon on the cover recently. but you have to subscribe to get access,

So here.

Time cover labels Bannon ‘The Great Manipulator’

Time magazine’s latest edition features President Trump’s senior counselor, Stephen Bannon, on the cover with text that reads "The Great Manipulator."

The headline used for the piece inside the magazine asks, "Is Steve Bannon the Second Most Powerful Man in the World?"

"There is only one President at a time, and Donald Trump is not one to cede authority. But in the early days at 1600 Pennsylvania, the portly and rumpled Bannon (the only male aide who dared to visit Trump’s office without a suit and tie) has the tools to become as influential as any staffer in memory,” Time's David Von Drehle writes in his cover story.

Bannon, the former chairman of Breitbart News, reportedly assisted in penning Trump's inaugural address and his immigration and refugee executive order. The former Navy officer and Goldman Sachs investment banker has also been given a seat on the National Security Council.

Earlier this week, The New York Times editorial board portrayed Bannon in similar fashion in terms of his influence inside the Trump White House in a op-ed titled, "President Bannon?"

"Imagine tomorrow if Mr. Trump is faced with a crisis involving China in the South China Sea or Russia in Ukraine," the board writes.

"Will he look to his chief political provocateur, Mr. Bannon, with his penchant for blowing things up, or will he turn at last for counsel to the few more thoughtful experienced hands in his administration, like Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and General Dunford?"

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/317599-time-cover-labels-bannon-the-great-manipulator

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

The only type of entry ban that will keep all terrorists from entering is a total entry ban. But this would still leave domestic terrorists.

We could solve the problem of terrorism by eliminating the root causes. But the current global leadership in some cases actually encourages terrorism, either directly or indirectly. Terrorism will not stop until we have a better global leadership.

Meanwhile, we still have many more deaths each year from disease than from terrorism. Recently I saw an online article about a ten year old boy who is suffering from cancer. His mother has posted some disturbing images of the boy. Where is the war on disease?

It's good to try to prevent terrorists from entering the USA. However, it would also be good to solve the problems of homelessness, malnutrition, inadequate medical and dental care, crime, racism, economic inequality, and other fundamental problems, for which terrorists are not responsible.

Muslims in general are not responsible for our social problems. They do not control the USA.

Since we are talking about terrorism inspired by a certain religious viewpoint, how about going after the root problem by promoting a more enlightened world view? This applies not only to Islam but to other religions. It's one thing when people react to being oppressed by throwing bombs. But when they are throwing bombs in search of some religious utopia, either here or in the afterlife, then this is a question of mental disability. I think those of us who are interested in science should do what we can to promote the scientific world view.

As far as banning everyone from a certain country, I am against that policy. We should deal with other human beings on an individual basis. For example, it seems they are now considering adding Pakistan to the list of banned countries. So they would, for example, keep out Ahmadis? The Nobel Laureate in Physics Abdus Salam was an Ahmadi from Pakistan.

 

[mfb]

The only type of entry ban that will keep all terrorists from entering is a total entry ban.

Even then some could get into the country illegally.

Terrorism will not stop until we have a better global leadership.

Or stop trying to play world police.

Since we are talking about terrorism inspired by a certain religious viewpoint, how about going after the root problem by promoting a more enlightened world view? This applies not only to Islam but to other religions. It's one thing when people react to being oppressed by throwing bombs. But when they are throwing bombs in search of some religious utopia, either here or in the afterlife, then this is a question of mental disability. I think those of us who are interested in science should do what we can to promote the scientific world view.

You are aware of the irony?
Here is a recent study about the US. Two third think some god was involved in creating humans, more than half think that Adam and Eve were real people.
Here is a comparison with other countries. Another comparison.
The situation looks similar for climate change, vaccines and so on. The US is by far the worst first-world country in terms of accepting scientific results.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

Based on his statements, I think President Trump will do something to improve this situation.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...fles-chicago-violence-met-20170223-story.html

Since the gangs are using assault rifles, perhaps the National Guard should be sent it, under some kind of martial law, and go door to door in search of the criminals? It would be a military operation.

No doubt some of these gang members are here illegally. This is the sort of situation Trump has been talking about.

[EDIT] I realize this is somewhat off topic regarding the so-called Muslim ban, but it is relevant to illegal immigration, and besides people have been discussing Trump and Bannon in general terms.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

You are aware of the irony?

No.

However, speaking of ironies, there are many ironies in life. For example, some of my Mennonite ancestors fled to America from Switzerland because of persecution by the Calvinists in Bern. Some Mennonites were in fact killed by the Calvinist theocracy as well as by Roman Catholics. Here the Mennonites found freedom, due to separation of church and state. Many Baptists and other Protestant groups were also persecuted in Europe. This is why we have never had a state religion. We know what it leads to.

Meanwhile, today in Europe, some nations still have a "state church" and impose a "church tax" on citizens. We never accepted that sort of thing.

We also never accepted a dictator of any kind. In my opinion, the Europeans were conditioned by centuries of monarchy, class system, and authoritarian religion to accept dictators. We never had that kind of conditioning.

It's true that many Americans still profess belief in fundamentalist Christianity, but there are many shades of gray in this situation. These nuances are not captured in simplistic polling.

Regarding church attendance, I know that in some parishes the Roman Catholic church is only kept open because of immigrants from third-world countries. You may have services in English and Spanish. The Spanish service may include many immigrants. The English service may be attended for the most part by Filipinos or other immigrant English speakers. Church attendance has dropped among native-born Americans. This is perhaps one reason the Roman Catholic church encourages third world immigration in the USA.

There have been religious people working at NASA. Yet we were the first nation, and so far the only one, to land men on the moon. There was a famous incident during Apollo 8 in which the astronauts read from the book of Genesis.



Also, the Apollo 11 astronaut Aldrin read from the Bible after he and Armstrong had returned from the lunar surface. This was recorded.

http://www.4thdayalliance.com/articles/space-exploration/apollo-space-program-bible-quotations/

In other words, religion in America is a complex topic. Things are not always as they appear on the surface. These polls that show Americans as having a primitive view of religion may be misleading. A person might read from the book of Genesis on Sunday, and then work on carbon dating a fossil on Monday. This is possible because one may self-identify as a Bible believing Christian, and yet not take the creation story literally.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It would be a military operation.

Yeah. Probably the start of The Civil War, Part Two.

I saw a documentary about guns in the inner city on PBS about 6 months ago: All those Northern inner city neighborhoods are supplied by small-time arms dealers who drive down to Southern states to buy guns where gun sale laws are really lax. They buy 15-20 handguns, whatever the maximum number is they feel they can effectively hide in their cars, then drive them back up. Then they sell them at a large mark-up to people in the bad neighborhoods. Everyone needs a gun because everyone else has a gun. That traffic is ongoing and thriving. I think the National Guard would not do so well. You'd need actual military with building-to building city combat experience. The 'civilian' casualties, of course, would be very high: lot of non-combatant children and grandparents, etc.

Can't cut off gun sales in Georgia, though: 2nd amendment, campaign promises.

Normally no one does anything much about these neighborhoods because the armed people are primarily preoccupied in fights with each other over P&P. That stands for "Pride and Pu**y." You need a gun because some other guy might "diss" you, or he might smile at your bich, so you have to defend your honor. The violence only rarely gets directed outside the neighborhoods. So, the situation is that everyone is an aggressive hot head and they all have guns. Send in the National Guard, and I think they'd be facing a spontaneous armed resistance they never expected. Trained military with actual experience of that kind of thing in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, would do much better.

Hell, why not? Let's all go full Steve Bannon and set fire to all the dry tinder we can possibly find!

 

[TurtleMeister]

Bannon said some scary things about the media at that conference:
In other words, he seems to be trying to cast the media as some sort of insurgency that has illegitimately taken control of the country.

I don't think so. I think that from the right's perspective it's not the media that has taken control of the country, it's their ideals. They (the right) feel that the country has drifted more and more in the direction of liberalism and socialism. And that this drift has and will be bad for our country (of course the left thinks just the opposite). Just as our collages and universities are overwhelmingly liberal, so is the majority of the main stream media. And the media is using it's influence (the way they report the news) to fight back at what they see as a threat to their liberal ideals (personal opinion). Whether the country moves more to the left or more to the right will ultimately be determined at the polls in the coming years. But I don't think the main stream media's influence will be quite as influential as it has in the past.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't think so. I think that from the right's perspective it's not the media that has taken control of the country, it's their ideals. They (the right) feel that the country has drifted more and more in the direction of liberalism and socialism. And that this drift has and will be bad for our country (of course the left thinks just the opposite). Just as our collages and universities are overwhelmingly liberal, so is the majority of the main stream media. And the media is using it's influence (the way they report the news) to fight back at what they see as a threat to their liberal ideals (personal opinion). Whether the country moves more to the left or more to the right will ultimately be determined at the polls in the coming years. But I don't think the main stream media's influence will be quite as influential as it has in the past.

Your characterization of how the right feels about the mainstream media seems non-controversial. I think both liberals and conservatives would agree that's how conservatives feel about it. And, I would add, conservatives have been as you describe pretty much all my life.

Point is, though, Bannon is trying to get conservatives to adopt a much more extreme distrust. And freedom of the press just took a big hit, didn't it? He blocked several major news outlets from the White House press conference today.

 

[TurtleMeister]

Point is, though, Bannon is trying to get conservatives to adopt a much more extreme distrust. And freedom of the press just took a big hit, didn't it? He blocked several major news outlets from the White House press conference today.

Well, I had pretty extreme distrust for the media before I knew anything about Bannon. He's not saying anything that most people don't already know. I usually try to get my news from both left and right sources thinking maybe I can get a balanced view. But mostly I base my opinions about the health of the country on my personal experiences. The thing that has changed recently with the news reporting is what I posted previouly:

And the media is using it's influence (the way they report the news) to fight back at what they see as a threat to their liberal ideals (personal opinion).

And they are doing this not so much with incorrect information but with a slant that favors their agenda. To me that's border line propaganda. The right does this too, but like I said before, the main stream media is mostly liberal. Yes, bias has probably always been in the media but it has gotten much worse recently. I think russ has been trying to get a response from you about that. :)

I just read about the WH blocking some news outlets. I don't know what to think about that right now. I'll have to read more on it.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

Yeah. Probably the start of The Civil War, Part Two.

I saw a documentary about guns in the inner city on PBS about 6 months ago: All those Northern inner city neighborhoods are supplied by small-time arms dealers who drive down to Southern states to buy guns where gun sale laws are really lax. They buy 15-20 handguns, whatever the maximum number is they feel they can effectively hide in their cars, then drive them back up. Then they sell them at a large mark-up to people in the bad neighborhoods. Everyone needs a gun because everyone else has a gun. That traffic is ongoing and thriving. I think the National Guard would not do so well. You'd need actual military with building-to building city combat experience. The 'civilian' casualties, of course, would be very high: lot of non-combatant children and grandparents, etc.

Can't cut off gun sales in Georgia, though: 2nd amendment, campaign promises.

Normally no one does anything much about these neighborhoods because the armed people are primarily preoccupied in fights with each other over P&P. That stands for "Pride and Pu**y." You need a gun because some other guy might "diss" you, or he might smile at your bich, so you have to defend your honor. The violence only rarely gets directed outside the neighborhoods. So, the situation is that everyone is an aggressive hot head and they all have guns. Send in the National Guard, and I think they'd be facing a spontaneous armed resistance they never expected. Trained military with actual experience of that kind of thing in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, would do much better.

Hell, why not? Let's all go full Steve Bannon and set fire to all the dry tinder we can possibly find!

I believe that due to Posse Comitatus the Army can't get involved, so we need to use the Guard. I would never underestimate the Guard. The Guard has a long tradition of excellence. Guard soldiers have won numerous Medals of Honor in foreign wars. I would almost feel sorry for the gangsters if they went up against the Guard.

Perhaps your scenario is what President Trump had in mind the other day when he said "they’re rough and they’re tough but they’re not tough like our people.” Clearly we now have a President who respects the military, and he intends to actually do something about crime. I think that, under Trump, the Guard, the police, the FBI, and so on, would take off the gloves and crush the gangsters, whether they are native-born or immigrants.

 

[zoobyshoe]

And they are doing this not so much with incorrect information but with a slant that favors their agenda. To me that's border line propaganda.

But, I wonder if you've ever heard of the Hostile Media Effect:

The hostile media effect, originally deemed the hostile media phenomenon and sometimes called hostile media perception, is a perceptual theory of mass communication that refers to the tendency for individuals with a strong preexisting attitude on an issue to perceive media coverage as biased against their side and in favor of their antagonists' point of view.[1] Partisans from opposite sides of an issue will tend to find the same coverage to be biased against them.[2] The phenomenon was first proposed and studied experimentally by https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Vallone&action=edit&redlink=1 , Lee Ross and Mark Lepper...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect
Specific example:

In 1982, the second major study of this phenomenon was undertaken;[2] pro-Palestinian students and pro-Israeli students at Stanford University were shown the same news filmstrips pertaining to the then-recent Sabra and Shatila massacre of Palestinian refugees by Christian Lebanese militia fighters abetted by the Israeli army in Beirut during the Lebanese Civil War. On a number of objective measures, both sides found that these identical news clips were slanted in favor of the other side. Pro-Israeli students reported seeing more anti-Israel references and fewer favorable references to Israel in the news report and pro-Palestinian students reported seeing more anti-Palestinian references, and so on. Both sides said a neutral observer would have a more negative view of their side from viewing the clips, and that the media would have excused the other side where it blamed their side.

The right does this too, but like I said before, the main stream media is mostly liberal.

Or, it might look mostly liberal to you because you are mostly conservative. As a liberal, I often get white-knucked when I see the Washington Post, for example, printing anything that makes liberals look bad in any way for any reason. There's at least one fairly important story a day where I feel it doesn't make liberals look good enough and it makes conservatives look too acceptable.

Why does the alleged "liberal" media print any bad news about liberals if it actually is 'the liberal media'? Remember, for example, when Hillary got sick during the campaign? Why didn't the "liberal" media bury this story and the speculation she might be at death's door? The answer is because it's not actually the "liberal" media. It's the sensational media: anything that gets more clicks becomes the headline. The slant is always toward what is the most sensational. The "liberal" media doesn't care that liberal Hillary is getting investigated over and over - those investigations get headline coverage because they get more clicks. Sensation has always trumped politics in the newspapers.

On the general subject of wing-tip news outlets: Breitbart, for example, isn't really the "alt-right" media, IMO, it's the "alt-sensational" media. They made a decision to cater to a specific kind of sensation-seeking reader. They get their clicks by tickling that reader's particular kind of sensitive spots. The same with whatever extreme "left-wing" news outlet you care to consider. The wing-tip outlets are all about high emotion/low fact stimulation. The readership gets more fact-oriented as you approach the middle of the bird. Not that I think you ever arrive at a 'neutral' center line.

Yes, bias has probably always been in the media but it has gotten much worse recently.

Coverage has become more heated, which is probably because the current occupant of the White House is the most outrageous character ever to be installed there in all of US history. For my money, they haven't slammed him nearly as hard as he deserves.