Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Donald Trump, US President #47, US President #45, convicted felon, twice impeached, four times indicted, liable of rape, convicted for financial fraud, guilty of hiding hush money payments to porn actress in attempt to influence 2016 elections
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 279 | 280 | 281 | 282 | 283 | 284 | 285 | 286 | 287 | 288 | 289 | ... | 2483
Rikkitic
Awrrr
19077 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16328

Lifetime subscriber

  #1715767 5-Feb-2017 15:08
Send private message quote this post

So far your opinion just seems to consist of wild accusations. You seem to be accusing some people of 'selective tolerance', 'bigotry' towards anyone who doesn't share their values, hypocrisy. I merely asked what you were basing this on. Playing word games isn't an answer, if you have one.

 

 




Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

 


 

Sideface
9657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15627

Trusted
DR
Lifetime subscriber

  #1715804 5-Feb-2017 18:02
Send private message quote this post

The Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling found a full 40 per cent in favour of ousting the new president just two weeks into his first term.

Poll result February 02, 2017 (pdf)

"Less than 2 weeks into Donald Trump's tenure as President, 40% of voters already want to impeach him.

 

"That's up from 35% of voters who wanted to impeach him a week ago.

 

"Only 48% of voters say that they would be opposed to Trump's impeachment."

 

 

 




Sideface

mattwnz
20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798


  #1715808 5-Feb-2017 18:36
Send private message quote this post

Republican senator John  McCain, (amazed he is 80), who ran for Presidential himself, maybe the key in all this. I think you never want a President with extreme views. They should be relatively central and moderate, with either right or left political leanings.. NZ is a good example of being ruled by reasonably centralist parties, with extreme parties at the fringe with small numbers. I wonder if they may look at having a President as more of symbolic figure head, such as the Queen, rather than a 'ruler'. It would make sense to do that IMO.

Geektastic
18012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1715880 5-Feb-2017 21:49
Send private message quote this post

cadman:

freitasm:


Waiting to see. Until signed it's just a rumour. But "freedom of religion" shouldn't ever equate to "freedom to discriminate".



If you can only have freedom of religion on certain aspects, that's not freedom of religion.


It's funny how the left's claimed tolerance only extends to things they themselves tolerate. Where's their tolerance for other people's intolerance?



Personally I'd prefer not to have religion at all and no rights to indulge in it unless a deity or deities appear and can be scientifically examined.

I suppose a genuine world creating deity ought to be capable of protecting their worshippers without the need for human laws. If they existed.

Regardless of that, any religious freedom must be and is limited. For example a religion requiring human sacrifice would not be protected from murder charges by the fact that it is a religion, ergo the freedom of that religion is constrained.






gzt

gzt
18715 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7854

Lifetime subscriber

  #1715884 5-Feb-2017 22:29
Send private message quote this post

joker97:

I saw a meme on facebook yesterday, something about certain countries ban Israelis from entering for the last 60+ years, and suddenly one country bans certain people from entering and it's a problem.


I'm not saying right or wrong, just something I read.


There are sixteen countries which do not allow entry with an Israeli passport. I'd guess it's because these countries do not recognise the state of Israel diplomatically and some never have. I'd guess this is because they consider it's foundation illegal or illegitimate. If the state 'does not exist' then a passport document issued by that state cannot be recognised.

This applies to anyone who would travel on an Israeli passport. For instance this has and does cause significant inconvenience for Arab-Israelis who may wish to travel to one of those countries. Particularly travel to Mecca in Saudi Arabia to complete the Haj.

Additionally, Israel has its own list of 'enemy states' since 1952. An Israeli citizen passport holder who travels to one of Israel's designated nine 'enemy states' can have their citizenship revoked.

Geektastic
18012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1715894 5-Feb-2017 23:24
Send private message quote this post

gzt:
joker97:

 

I saw a meme on facebook yesterday, something about certain countries ban Israelis from entering for the last 60+ years, and suddenly one country bans certain people from entering and it's a problem.

 

 

 

I'm not saying right or wrong, just something I read.

 


There are sixteen countries which do not allow entry with an Israeli passport. I'd guess it's because these countries do not recognise the state of Israel diplomatically and some never have. I'd guess this is because they consider it's foundation illegal or illegitimate. If the state 'does not exist' then a passport document issued by that state cannot be recognised.

For instance this has and does cause significant inconvenience for Arab-Israelis who may wish to travel to one of those countries. Particularly travel to Mecca in Saudi Arabia to complete the Haj.

Additionally, Israel has its own list of 'enemy states' since 1952. An Israeli passport holder who travels to one of Israel's designated nine 'enemy states' can have their citizenship revoked.

 

 

 

So, in essence we have shown that many countries regulate their borders, choosing who to allow in and who to deny access based on a variety of reasons.

 

And yet, when the President of the US decides that he needs to do it it's all wrong...

 

I can't help but feel that an awful lot of the brouhaha that is being created is being deliberately fomented for political reasons, not for reasons of idealogical purity or whatever. I've met a lot of Americans over my time and even lived with one for a while and they were all at best ambivalent about foreigners and none of them would have been all that bothered if a few middle eastern countries were banned from visiting for a while - and most of them would have been thrilled by that.

 

The hooha just doesn't quite pass the sniff test for me based on personal experience of the country and the people who live there. If, for example, Obama had done exactly this, I very much doubt that there would have been half the noise.





gzt

gzt
18715 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7854

Lifetime subscriber

  #1715897 5-Feb-2017 23:45
Send private message quote this post

Geektastic: So, in essence we have shown that many countries regulate their borders, choosing who to allow in and who to deny access based on a variety of reasons.

And yet, when the President of the US decides that he needs to do it it's all wrong...

Denying visa holders and work permit holders who have already been vetted is a very extreme thing to do. There was no valid cause for that, whatsoever. That is why the order no longer stands.

mattwnz
20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798


  #1715901 5-Feb-2017 23:56
Send private message quote this post

The fact that he is looking to get it reversed I think shows little respect for the system anyway. This whole thing is a huge power game. If he didn't try to reverse it, he is going to look weak too, which will play into the decision. It isn't good for him whatever happens. IMO he should leave all  decisions to the US congress, and just have fun playing Precedent, otherwise he may not last all that long in the job.

Rikkitic
Awrrr
19077 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16328

Lifetime subscriber

  #1715977 6-Feb-2017 09:48
Send private message quote this post

Geektastic:

 

 

 

So, in essence we have shown that many countries regulate their borders, choosing who to allow in and who to deny access based on a variety of reasons.

 

And yet, when the President of the US decides that he needs to do it it's all wrong...

 

I can't help but feel that an awful lot of the brouhaha that is being created is being deliberately fomented for political reasons, not for reasons of idealogical purity or whatever. I've met a lot of Americans over my time and even lived with one for a while and they were all at best ambivalent about foreigners and none of them would have been all that bothered if a few middle eastern countries were banned from visiting for a while - and most of them would have been thrilled by that.

 

The hooha just doesn't quite pass the sniff test for me based on personal experience of the country and the people who live there. If, for example, Obama had done exactly this, I very much doubt that there would have been half the noise.

 

 

I don't think you know America as well as you think you do. I lived there for many years. Americans are extremely (excessively) proud of what they perceive as their values and their way of life, though that has been dented in recent years. In spite of the undue influence of religion, especially christianity, they see the official separation of church and state as a very big deal, a cornerstone of their republic. Freedom of religion in particular is important to them, even if the religion happens to be a different one. It is the principle that matters. That is why there is so much disturbance over this. The issue isn't what other countries do. It is that the government of the United States, in the person of the President, is trying to legislatively curb religious freedom by legally discriminating against a selected religion. This is a very big deal to Americans. It undermines a cornerstone of their founding principles.

 

 




Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

 


 

Batman
Mad Scientist
30015 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1715979 6-Feb-2017 09:53
Send private message quote this post

Rikkitic:

 

Geektastic:

 

 

 

So, in essence we have shown that many countries regulate their borders, choosing who to allow in and who to deny access based on a variety of reasons.

 

And yet, when the President of the US decides that he needs to do it it's all wrong...

 

I can't help but feel that an awful lot of the brouhaha that is being created is being deliberately fomented for political reasons, not for reasons of idealogical purity or whatever. I've met a lot of Americans over my time and even lived with one for a while and they were all at best ambivalent about foreigners and none of them would have been all that bothered if a few middle eastern countries were banned from visiting for a while - and most of them would have been thrilled by that.

 

The hooha just doesn't quite pass the sniff test for me based on personal experience of the country and the people who live there. If, for example, Obama had done exactly this, I very much doubt that there would have been half the noise.

 

 

I don't think you know America as well as you think you do. I lived there for many years. Americans are extremely (excessively) proud of what they perceive as their values and their way of life, though that has been dented in recent years. In spite of the undue influence of religion, especially christianity, they see the official separation of church and state as a very big deal, a cornerstone of their republic. Freedom of religion in particular is important to them, even if the religion happens to be a different one. It is the principle that matters. That is why there is so much disturbance over this. The issue isn't what other countries do. It is that the government of the United States, in the person of the President, is trying to legislatively curb religious freedom by legally discriminating against a selected religion. This is a very big deal to Americans. It undermines a cornerstone of their founding principles.

 

 

 

 

I don't know much about Americans, but what I know is they chose him. And they who chose him are very happy about him doing what he said he'd do. They don't care so much about how he's going about it.

 

Yes I have been in conversation with Americans, I'm not making this up. Everyone that I've spoken to echo the same sentiments. THey are so excited about the wall that's about to be built and even more ecstatic that Mexicans are paying for it. I couldn't carry on the conversation beyond that.

Rikkitic
Awrrr
19077 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16328

Lifetime subscriber

  #1715987 6-Feb-2017 10:11
Send private message quote this post

I am also aware of those people. Trump's supporters are very enthusiastic about him and that hasn't waned, but they are in a minority, though it is a sizeable one.

 

I think these are mostly white conservative working-class types who have felt ignored and left behind for a long time. They actually believe that the wall will somehow make a difference to their lives. They believe Trump's policies can somehow bring back the glory days of the 1950s when minorities and women knew their place and everyone had a well-paid manufacturing job for life. They are in for a big disappointment.

 

 




Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

 


 

Geektastic
18012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1716014 6-Feb-2017 11:43
Send private message quote this post

gzt:
Geektastic: So, in essence we have shown that many countries regulate their borders, choosing who to allow in and who to deny access based on a variety of reasons.

And yet, when the President of the US decides that he needs to do it it's all wrong...

Denying visa holders and work permit holders who have already been vetted is a very extreme thing to do. There was no valid cause for that, whatsoever. That is why the order no longer stands.

 

 

 

Stands for now, he'll just change the rules if need be.

 

If you want to alter your vetting procedures and make people submit to them I would say that was fine. It's one reason people will give you in NZ for moving from Permanent Residency to Citizenship: PR is at the whim of the politicians.





Geektastic
18012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1716016 6-Feb-2017 11:47
Send private message quote this post

joker97:

 

Rikkitic:

 

Geektastic:

 

 

 

So, in essence we have shown that many countries regulate their borders, choosing who to allow in and who to deny access based on a variety of reasons.

 

And yet, when the President of the US decides that he needs to do it it's all wrong...

 

I can't help but feel that an awful lot of the brouhaha that is being created is being deliberately fomented for political reasons, not for reasons of idealogical purity or whatever. I've met a lot of Americans over my time and even lived with one for a while and they were all at best ambivalent about foreigners and none of them would have been all that bothered if a few middle eastern countries were banned from visiting for a while - and most of them would have been thrilled by that.

 

The hooha just doesn't quite pass the sniff test for me based on personal experience of the country and the people who live there. If, for example, Obama had done exactly this, I very much doubt that there would have been half the noise.

 

 

I don't think you know America as well as you think you do. I lived there for many years. Americans are extremely (excessively) proud of what they perceive as their values and their way of life, though that has been dented in recent years. In spite of the undue influence of religion, especially christianity, they see the official separation of church and state as a very big deal, a cornerstone of their republic. Freedom of religion in particular is important to them, even if the religion happens to be a different one. It is the principle that matters. That is why there is so much disturbance over this. The issue isn't what other countries do. It is that the government of the United States, in the person of the President, is trying to legislatively curb religious freedom by legally discriminating against a selected religion. This is a very big deal to Americans. It undermines a cornerstone of their founding principles.

 

 

 

 

I don't know much about Americans, but what I know is they chose him. And they who chose him are very happy about him doing what he said he'd do. They don't care so much about how he's going about it.

 

Yes I have been in conversation with Americans, I'm not making this up. Everyone that I've spoken to echo the same sentiments. THey are so excited about the wall that's about to be built and even more ecstatic that Mexicans are paying for it. I couldn't carry on the conversation beyond that.

 

 

 

 

That concurs with my recent experiences - and it's not all working class folks either. I had positive Trump responses from 3 lawyers, a doctor, a dentist and several middle management types in ad agencies when I was last there. Many Californians I met (ordinary ones, not Hollywierd ones) are fed up with the Mexicans and several suggested far more extreme solutions than building a wall.

 

At the moment we are getting the media reporting the loudest views as much as anything else, which tends to make viewers and readers think everyone shares that view.





Rikkitic
Awrrr
19077 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16328

Lifetime subscriber

  #1716041 6-Feb-2017 12:13
Send private message quote this post

Geektastic:

 

 

 

 

 

At the moment we are getting the media reporting the loudest views as much as anything else, which tends to make viewers and readers think everyone shares that view.

 

 

That is a good point but it cuts both ways. Trump supporters tend to be very vocal, to the point of aggressiveness, about their support. Yet approval polls (admittedly by CNN) seem to indicate that he has one of the lowest ratings ever, certainly at this point into his term. Less than half of Americans think he is doing a good job, and that is almost unheard-of.

 

 




Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

 


 

Rikkitic
Awrrr
19077 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16328

Lifetime subscriber

  #1716043 6-Feb-2017 12:17
Send private message quote this post

On another note, there has just been a big heroin bust in Florida. Many of the heroin packets have Trump's image on them. surprised

 

 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/heroin-packets-found-with-donald-trumps-face-on-in-florida-a7564326.html

 

 




Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

 


 

1 | ... | 279 | 280 | 281 | 282 | 283 | 284 | 285 | 286 | 287 | 288 | 289 | ... | 2483
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic


Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Updates »

Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.


RSS feeds
Main feed
Forums feed
Copyright
©2002-2026 Geekzone®
Site features
Geekzone BI dashboard
Geekzone Badges
Geekzone Status Page

 

Site Information
Subscribe to Geekzone
Privacy Statement
Forum Usage Guidelines (FUG)
Advertising
Trademark and copyright