sycasey;842763312 said:

---

Trump himself talked about starting a Muslim registry during the campaign, and then his people tried to deny it:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/17/trump-camp-denies-muslim-ban-registry

This is not "rounding up Muslims," but neither was requiring Jews to register and wear gold stars in Nazi Germany. Rounding them up was the next step. I will admit that Trump has not discussed starting any new wars. That I'm just extrapolating from what the last Republican administration did.

On another topic, here's some more fun from Steve Bannon, Trump's top advisor:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/steve-bannon-trump-tower-interview-trumps-strategist-plots-new-political-movement-948747



Yes, a return to the days of Andrew Jackson and the "excitement" of the 1930s. That sounds grand. Are we all happy with this guy having the ear of the new leader of the free world?

---

In the video where he is interviewed about his immigration policies, he is asked by a reporter for NBC News if he would implement a database of Muslims, Trump responded: “I would certainly implement that. Absolutely.” Interviewer: "What do you think the affect would be." Trump: "It would stop people from entering illegally."

So, you mischaracterized a mischaracterization of a quote to support your agenda. That's F'd up.

oski003;842763324 said:

---

In the video where he is interviewed about his immigration policies, he is asked by a reporter for NBC News if he would implement a database of Muslims, Trump responded: “I would certainly implement that. Absolutely.” Interviewer: "What do you think the affect would be." Trump: "It would stop people from entering illegally."

So, you mischaracterized a mischaracterization of a quote to support your agenda. That's F'd up.

---

I'm confused. How did I mischaracterize “I would certainly implement that. Absolutely.”? I'm taking him at his word.

If Trump supporters don't agree with that, I encourage you to reach out to your representatives in Congress and tell them to speak out against the idea of a Muslim registry.

There's also this, from the article:

Quote:

---

Kris Kobach, the Kansas secretary of state and an anti-immigration hardliner advising Trump’s transition team, said earlier this week that the president-elect’s policy advisers were considering instating a Muslim immigrant registry.

---

A link to that story:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/reported-trump-immigration-advisor-says-hes-drafting-plan-for-muslim-registry_us_582c59bde4b01d8a014b6328

1979bear;842763272 said:

---

A lot of us in our 40s, 50s and 60s know better, but post anyway. Which of you have actually been harmed in any way by Trump? Almost none, if not none. This may change, but right now, every post is guesswork and fear. If you want to criticize how he runs his businesses, that's fair, and can be based on verifiable facts. Criticizing what he "WILL DO" as President is assinine. None of us know yet. The election was not Cinderella v Darth Vader. Alumni of other schools get this. Cal football board posters? not so much. You forget that the election of Obama or Clinton, to many Republicans, was going to destroy what was "great" about America. To many, the world is not a better place today. But is it really changed in a major way? No. Guantanamo is open. No wars are really over. No bankers or hedge fund people were prosecuted. We have the Affordable care Act. There is a less stable world around us, such as Iran and Syria, and the idiot in South Korea. But overall, it is not wildly different.

---

This over 70 guy thinks there is ample reason to be wary of Trump. Trump conducted an entire campaign of off the top of his head, go with the gut tweets, rather than thought out positions. His bomb them into oblivion comments were one important component in getting him got elected. A strategy that if taken literally will lead to uncountable civilian deaths. Then what happens? Do we assume 100% of the bombed deserved it? Do we assume the bombed will forgive us and not plan retaliation? Do we assume a US led occupation of the bombed countries will follow? ...and for how long? ...and at what cost to our armed forces and treasury? ...and is all of this desirable? Did the invasion of Iraq benefit us?

link:http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/15/middleeast/donald-trump-isis-strategy/

During his Trump proposed the single largest shift of wealth upward via the tax system in the history of the country. Do we believe this will really create a "trickle down" or will those in the upper brackets simply sit on their windfalls, accumulating increasing net worth? When Reagan tried a similar shift on a smaller scale basis, the result was record breaking mergers and acquisitions which made a lot of money for arbitrageurs, reduced competition, laid off workers, and over time, raised prices. Was this a good thing? Do we want it again?

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/13/501739277/who-benefits-from-donald-trumps-tax-plan

We have close friends who are alumni of USC, and they are very concerned about all of these consequences, they think about them and question them.
If alumni from other schools are unconcerned, I would wonder if they have even considered these points or if they simply find it more convenient to dismiss these thoughts as they await their tax cuts.

Number 031343;842763331 said:

---

This over 70 guy thinks there is ample reason to be wary of Trump. Trump conducted an entire campaign of off the top of his head, go with the gut tweets, rather than thought out positions. His bomb them into oblivion comments were one important component in getting him got elected. A strategy that if taken literally will lead to uncountable civilian deaths. Then what happens? Do we assume 100% of the bombed deserved it? Do we assume the bombed will forgive us and not plan retaliation? Do we assume a US led occupation of the bombed countries will follow? ...and for how long? ...and at what cost to our armed forces and treasury? ...and is all of this desirable? Did the invasion of Iraq benefit us?

link:http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/15/middleeast/donald-trump-isis-strategy/

During his Trump proposed the single largest shift of wealth upward via the tax system in the history of the country. Do we believe this will really create a "trickle down" or will those in the upper brackets simply sit on their windfalls, accumulating increasing net worth? When Reagan tried a similar shift on a smaller scale basis, the result was record breaking mergers and acquisitions which made a lot of money for arbitrageurs, reduced competition, laid off workers, and over time, raised prices. Was this a good thing? Do we want it again?

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/13/501739277/who-benefits-from-donald-trumps-tax-plan

We have close friends who are alumni of USC, and they are very concerned about all of these consequences, they think about them and question them.
If alumni from other schools are unconcerned, I would wonder if they have even considered these points or if they simply find it more convenient to dismiss these thoughts as they await their tax cuts.

---

The idea that Trump's words don't matter because he is secretly a moderate from New York is a naive delusion. He didn't run on conservative or moderate principles, he ran on the most radical and despicable agenda since George Wallace. His appointments to date are him "doing something" and likewise aren't mainstream conservative or republican; they are consistent with his campaign and certainly worth conversation

GB54;842763348 said:

---

The idea that Trump's words don't matter because he is secretly a moderate from New York is a naive delusion. He didn't run on conservative or moderate principles, he ran on the most radical and despicable agenda since George Wallace. His appointments to date are him "doing something" and likewise aren't mainstream conservative or republican; they are consistent with his campaign and certainly worth conversation

---

GB54;842763348 said:

---

The idea that Trump's words don't matter because he is secretly a moderate from New York is a naive delusion. He didn't run on conservative or moderate principles, he ran on the most radical and despicable agenda since George Wallace. His appointments to date are him "doing something" and likewise aren't mainstream conservative or republican; they are consistent with his campaign and certainly worth conversation

---

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/11/10/trump-election-autocracy-rules-for-survival/

Rule #1: Believe the Autocrat

Many have tried to take comfort in the idea that Trump isn't an ideologue. That is probably true, but fact that he has few concrete ideas and is surrounding himself with an inner circle that has very specific ideologies, is very concerning. Frankly, I'm a little terrified.

And I am sure that everyone aboard the Starship BI is in favor of what Hillary supporters are doing in Arizona going overboard trying to get electors to change their vote. It is at the point of silly. 8000+ of them have dialed up electors calling them all the names I see here. Funny thing, one Jewish elector was even called an anti-Semite. Such rational behavior. And of course, to be applauded here. The very garbage that spews here is more than likely "why Trump" as I try to analyze how he possibly won. Go figure.

OdontoBear66;842763393 said:

---

And I am sure that everyone aboard the Starship BI is in favor of what Hillary supporters are doing in Arizona going overboard trying to get electors to change their vote. It is at the point of silly. 8000+ of them have dialed up electors calling them all the names I see here. Funny thing, one Jewish elector was even called an anti-Semite. Such rational behavior. And of course, to be applauded here. The very garbage that spews here is more than likely "why Trump" as I try to analyze how he possibly won. Go figure.

---

No, I am not in favor of that movement. But I find it far less alarming than what Trump is putting together. Eye on the ball.

[video=youtube;j9ja3i9u2Og][/video]

See you guys after my timeout!

OdontoBear66;842763393 said:

---

And I am sure that everyone aboard the Starship BI is in favor of what Hillary supporters are doing in Arizona going overboard trying to get electors to change their vote. It is at the point of silly. 8000+ of them have dialed up electors calling them all the names I see here. Funny thing, one Jewish elector was even called an anti-Semite. Such rational behavior. And of course, to be applauded here. The very garbage that spews here is more than likely "why Trump" as I try to analyze how he possibly won. Go figure.

---

The far left in this country is naive and ridiculous. The far right... dangerous.

okaydo;842763350 said:

---

---

okaydo, I am sure you can find a more credible person to make your point. Many of them. The one you cite, Jeff Tiedrich, may be as offensive and odious to some as Trump is to others. Of course, Tiedrich looks like a guy who washed out of Cal without finishing his philosophy degree. Maybe that counts for the beginning of wisdom.

dajo9;842760149 said:

---

Normally this would be spot on however 2018 is very different. If you look at the Senate races in 2018 there are likely only 2 potential flips to the Dems. That would create a tie and leave the GOP in charge. Meanwhile there are many Dems running in red states who are vulnerable.

In the House, GOP gerrymandering has created an environment where the GOP holds Congress even if people vote for Dems. Such was the case in 2012. I've seen estimates that Dem's would have to win about 58% of the Congressional vote to retake the House. I think it's most likely the GOP holds Congress through 2020.

---

It's not just gerrymandering. Don't overlook how effective voter suppression is, in its various forms. Specific forms of ID, closing down polling places where the wrong people vote, shortening voting hours, and "People, you need to go to certain areas and make sure no one is voting who shouldn't. You know what I am talking about." And, with the appointment of more so-called 'conservative' Supreme Court justices, it's all nice 'n' legal.

Also, remember that there are voting machines that have NO audit trail and the results are automatically official and no recount is possible. And any investigation is controlled by those who control the voting machines.

And there will be continuous campaigning, just like the last Republican administration. Get ready for Obama to be blamed for the increase in the deficit, privatizing Medicare, and cuts to Social Security -- and of course any and all problems with the economy or employment. It a nucular weapon is used on Syria or Iran or ISIS, it'll be because 'Obama left us with such a mess. We had no choice, I can tell you that. We know they were planning to bomb us. People that we waterboarded admitted it. Also, Curveball told us right where to look.'

And people who watch Fox "news" will believe every word.

Republicans in Congress supported Trump because he will sign all entitlement cuts and all tax breaks. They may despise the short fingered vulgarian, but they are lining up for their pilgrimage to Trump Tower to prostate themselves before him in hopes of being able to join the empire.

1979bear;842763420 said:

---

okaydo, I am sure you can find a more credible person to make your point. Many of them. The one you cite, Jeff Tiedrich, may be as offensive and odious to some as Trump is to others. Of course, Tiedrich looks like a guy who washed out of Cal without finishing his philosophy degree. Maybe that counts for the beginning of wisdom.

---

Do you like and support Trump's picks for these Cabinet positions?

Whine away people, but America deserves trump.

1979bear;842763420 said:

---

okaydo, I am sure you can find a more credible person to make your point. Many of them. The one you cite, Jeff Tiedrich, may be as offensive and odious to some as Trump is to others. Of course, Tiedrich looks like a guy who washed out of Cal without finishing his philosophy degree. Maybe that counts for the beginning of wisdom.

---

By attacking the messenger (some random guy on Twitter, who sums it up cogently), instead of the message, you're basically admitting that he has a point.

Otherwise you would've attacked the message, instead of the guy's looks.

But it's true:

Donald Trump is a racist.

Steve Bannon is a racist.

Jeff Sessions is a racist.

Michael Flynn is a racist.

And the media is downplaying their racism, using more euphemistic words like -- in the NY Times case -- "hard-liners" or "controversial."





And if you don't think they're all racists, well, this guy disagrees:

burritos;842763438 said:

---

Whine away people, but America deserves trump.

---

Sadly true.

Country of 300 million....120ish million voted. Most people didn't really care enough about who was elected. The 2 sides of this election is like an SEC football game lol. The rest of us are conference USA.

MinotStateBeav;842763454 said:

---

Country of 300 million....120ish million voted. Most people didn't really care enough about who was elected. The 2 sides of this election is like an SEC football game lol. The rest of us are conference USA.

---

Those who didn't vote especially deserve what's coming. You don't think the people in Kansas don't deserve the sh!tstorm they are enduring under Brownhole? Absolutely they do. 100%

MinotStateBeav;842763454 said:

---

Country of 300 million....120ish million voted. Most people didn't really care enough about who was elected. The 2 sides of this election is like an SEC football game lol. The rest of us are conference USA.

---

Yes. Those with the strongest feelings about this, if their side did not win, failed to do their job. Or, they could not do their job because not enough people cared. Our elections system works this way. When I don't like how the election goes, I think about it for a day or two and then purge it because the election has happened and I cannot change the result. Debating things here is great for those who love to do it. But to me it is a futile exercise that changes nothing, so I dislike it.

And this is Big Game week. We have a losing team that plays hard for some mediocre to bad coaches. It would be nice to see an upset (sort of an upset) like we saw in 1980. Reagan had just won, and then J Torchio led Cal past Elway.

1979bear;842763462 said:

---

Yes. Those with the strongest feelings about this, if their side did not win, failed to do their job. Or, they could not do their job because not enough people cared. Our elections system works this way. When I don't like how the election goes, I think about it for a day or two and then purge it because the election has happened and I cannot change the result. Debating things here is great for those who love to do it. But to me it is a futile exercise that changes nothing, so I dislike it.

---

I'm not talking about the election result anymore, I'm talking about what will happen under the new President. That's still relevant, right? That stuff can still affect you.

In other news, Trump just settled his Trump University fraud case out of court:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/18/502620122/new-york-attorney-general-says-trump-agrees-to-settle-trump-university-lawsuits

Has any other incoming POTUS had to settle a literal fraud case before taking office? I mean real cases, not made-up stuff like the Clinton Foundation "scandal."

If Trump runs the country like he ran his businesses, he'll fleece us of our tax money and then leave someone else to clean up the mess.

sycasey;842763482 said:

---

I'm not talking about the election result anymore, I'm talking about what will happen under the new President. That's still relevant, right? That stuff can still affect you.

In other news, Trump just settled his Trump University fraud case out of court:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/18/502620122/new-york-attorney-general-says-trump-agrees-to-settle-trump-university-lawsuits

Has any other incoming POTUS had to settle a literal fraud case before taking office? I mean real cases, not made-up stuff like the Clinton Foundation "scandal."

If Trump runs the country like he ran his businesses, he'll fleece us of our tax money and then leave someone else to clean up the mess.

---

Trump can bother you. The American Voting Public should horrify you. How in the world do 50-60 million people vote for this guy? In part because Hillary was a candidate only her blindest supporters genuinely liked, but this is not about her or him. The country thought it was okay to make him President. Again, what the heck were they thinking? I agree that he is a terrible choice. But millions disagree. And our election system worked just like it always does. It is no answer to whine about "Hillary got more votes" So what. We all know the rules. We may think they are antiquated, but they are the rules elections are decided by. Is Jeff Sessions, if confirmed, going to be worse than Eric Holder as AG? It will be tough to be decidedly worse, but it is possible. Bad choices abound in both parties. That is the main reason I believe Trump won. Enough people despise the way the government is operated to vote for the supposed "outsider." Hillary was the biggest "insider" since G H W Bush. Between Bush II's first term and today, other than Bush starting the horrible middle east wars and Obama's Affordable care Act, there is little to distinguish the two administrations unless you nitpick. I am glad Obama did what he did to prop up the economy. But it was not a brilliant economic strategy, it simply put off the day of reckoning with ourselves and also with the Chinese, which most of us are glad has been put off.

sycasey;842763482 said:

---

I'm not talking about the election result anymore, I'm talking about what will happen under the new President. That's still relevant, right? That stuff can still affect you.

In other news, Trump just settled his Trump University fraud case out of court:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/18/502620122/new-york-attorney-general-says-trump-agrees-to-settle-trump-university-lawsuits

Has any other incoming POTUS had to settle a literal fraud case before taking office? I mean real cases, not made-up stuff like the Clinton Foundation "scandal."

If Trump runs the country like he ran his businesses, he'll fleece us of our tax money and then leave someone else to clean up the mess.

---

Bad for the country, bad for social progressives and science/evidence believers. Better if you are on the right side of the income divide. If you are a Cal grad, you have a higher chance of being on the correct side of the divide but not necessarily. I don't think the Rust Belters will do better under Trump, but they'll feel good about getting screwed even more by the shareholder class.

NYCGOBEARS;842763406 said:

---

The far left in this country is naive and ridiculous. The far right... dangerous.

---

How's the moderate middle in your eyes. Anything complimentary at all?

OdontoBear66;842763506 said:

---

How's the moderate middle in your eyes. Anything complimentary at all?

---

Define them for me.

NYCGOBEARS;842763508 said:

---

Define them for me.

---

You define them. Seems to me somewhere between the numbnuts on the left and the whack jobs on the far right. Balance, moderation, lacking extremes---you know.

sycasey;842763482 said:

---

I'm not talking about the election result anymore, I'm talking about what will happen under the new President. That's still relevant, right? That stuff can still affect you.In other news, Trump just settled his Trump University fraud case out of court:http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/18/502620122/new-york-attorney-general-says-trump-agrees-to-settle-trump-university-lawsuitsHas any other incoming POTUS had to settle a literal fraud case before taking office? I mean real cases, not made-up stuff like the Clinton Foundation "scandal."If Trump runs the country like he ran his businesses, he'll fleece us of our tax money and then leave someone else to clean up the mess.

---

To be fair, the alleged fraud was him saying he was involved in it, but not being actually involved. It was literally about him NOT controlling it, but claiming he did. Also, fucking Bill Clinton settled a sexual case as he went to the white house.for **** sake. Has any president before or after ever settled a sexual assault/harassment case as they went into a presidency? Not "grab em by the *****" "scandle." And how did that turn out? I am not sure it had a significant negative effect on the country.

Phantomfan;842763522 said:

---

To be fair, the alleged fraud was him saying he was involved in it, but not being actually involved. It was literally about him NOT controlling it, but claiming he did. Also, fucking Bill Clinton settled a sexual case as he went to the white house.for **** sake. Has any president before or after ever settled a sexual assault/harassment case as they went into a presidency? Not "grab em by the *****" "scandle." And how did that turn out? I am not sure it had a significant negative effect on the country.

---

I'm not familiar with a pending case Clinton settled before he took office. Who was it?

Clinton settled his case involving Paula Jones IN office for half a million bucks or more. Don't know that it was pending legally when he began term one.

Checked. It was settled for $850,000.

Phantomfan;842763522 said:

---

To be fair, the alleged fraud was him saying he was involved in it, but not being actually involved. It was literally about him NOT controlling it, but claiming he did. Also, fucking Bill Clinton settled a sexual case as he went to the white house.for **** sake. Has any president before or after ever settled a sexual assault/harassment case as they went into a presidency? Not "grab em by the *****" "scandle." And how did that turn out? I am not sure it had a significant negative effect on the country.

---

It was about Trump lying. You should be used to that concept by now. Trump lying.

I think your facts on Clinton are wrong.

sycasey;842763537 said:

---

I'm not familiar with a pending case Clinton settled before he took office. Who was it?

---

Well, pro golfers say Clinton cheats at golf from the get go---you know, like teeing up a second ball before the first one lands. Trump is a pretty good golfer. Any conclusions here? Personality types?

And then there is Hillary. Can't face the press for 250+days. Can't face a classy concession on election night for she is so much in tears. And now, can't face the results. Somebody, anybody, do something please to right this wrong. I am a woman. I was supposed to be President in 2008, 2012, and in 2016...WTF happened? Hahaha.

Hillary, you happened. Ain't selling. You, all by your lonesome, made Trump, and YOU are responsible for the next four years. Because of you.

OdontoBear66;842763556 said:

---

Well, pro golfers say Clinton cheats at golf from the get go---you know, like teeing up a second ball before the first one lands. Trump is a pretty good golfer. Any conclusions here? Personality types?

And then there is Hillary. Can't face the press for 250+days. Can't face a classy concession on election night for she is so much in tears. And now, can't face the results. Somebody, anybody, do something please to right this wrong. I am a woman. I was supposed to be President in 2008, 2012, and in 2016...WTF happened? Hahaha.

Hillary, you happened. Ain't selling. You, all by your lonesome, made Trump, and YOU are responsible for the next four years. Because of you.

---

Trump's last press conference was on July 27.

Trump also dodged the press last night during an important meeting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/us/politics/ivanka-trump-shinzo-abe.html?_r=0

OdontoBear66;842763556 said:

---

Well, pro golfers say Clinton cheats at golf from the get go---you know, like teeing up a second ball before the first one lands. Trump is a pretty good golfer. Any conclusions here? Personality types?

And then there is Hillary. Can't face the press for 250+days. Can't face a classy concession on election night for she is so much in tears. And now, can't face the results. Somebody, anybody, do something please to right this wrong. I am a woman. I was supposed to be President in 2008, 2012, and in 2016...WTF happened? Hahaha.

Hillary, you happened. Ain't selling. You, all by your lonesome, made Trump, and YOU are responsible for the next four years. Because of you.

---

I think that post speaks more to your character than anybody else

"The conservative campaign to repeat lies about the financial crisis over and over again does nothing to make their argument any truer (although it does allow those within the right-wing echo chamber to justify their extreme positions on the federal government's role in our financial and housing markets)."

Aw, come on jayamada. Conservatives repeating lies over and over?
Could never happen. They have waaaay too much, you know, integrity for that.

I suppose you're going to try to tell me that Obama Death Panels don't exist.
Or that Obama was born in the United States.
And that Hillary didn't really sell weapons to ISIS.

Come on.

"I agree 100% about not doing enough to build the party's grassroots, which was very strange given that Obama had used those grassroots to get himself the nomination. The DNC seemingly just stopped trying to win over state governments. "

One of the things that happened was that traditionally, Republicans AND Democrats used gerrymandering to create safe seats for both parties. In the 2010 elections, Republicans poured tremendous amounts of money into state legislative races and took control of many states. Then, because 2010 was a census year, they had control of districting, which they used, not to create safe seats, but to give themselves permanent (more or less) control of the legislatures at the state level, and skewing the balance at the national level. (They also passed voter suppression laws.)

There was always an 'understanding' before and Democrats never saw it coming.
Karl Rove may well see his dream of a permanent Republican 'majority' in his lifetime.