The suzerain Trump

[Forty Two]

Sure, Syria is the exception due to the special issues with that country. It's a war zone, rife with ISIS. The other 6 countries have had a temporary suspension.

It's not about "child refugees" - it's about "refugees" which come together. Are you suggesting that only children were being admitted?

I don't have any problem with any country suspending the refugee program. Pressure should be brought to bear for other Muslim countries to take in more refugees. Some take zero. Also, countries like Japan take zero, citing demographic issues. I see no reason why the US has a greater moral or legal obligation to take refugees than any other country. Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain have taken a grand total of zero. They can certainly handle a large chunk, but they have argued that accepting large numbers of Syrians is a threat to their safety, as terrorists could be hiding within an influx of people. And, even many European countries don't want them - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/eur ... be51bc8824

And, of course, suspending visas is a big deal now, because Trump is President. How much furor was there when Obama, in 2011, suspended for six months the refugee program for refugees from Iraq? And, the reason for the suspension was risk of terrorist migration. Now it's a major human rights catastrophe, right?

Working hard to avoid the point there. I'm asking what threat child refugees pose to the American people such that excluding them is warranted.

This question is entirely about children displaced by war and what the US can and should do to help.

the issue isn't child refugees -- it's not just a bunch of toddlers coming over. if it was just a bunch of toddlers coming over, it wouldn't be a major issue. The issue is the adult refugees who come over. You can't just let in the children, though.

And, it's not about "what the US can and should do to help" it's what ALL COUNTRIES can and should do to help. Go bleat on about the refugees to your own government. If you want more, take more. And, there are plenty of countries taking zero. All Trump did was put a temporary hold on it, until a vetting system can be arranged that he believes is better than the one we have now. Go holler at Saudi Arabia and Japan and other countries taking zero refugees, without any qualification.

Or, don't, keep hollering at the US if that's what you want, but it's really not your business. The US has no obligation to take more. And, the US has traditionally taken in more immigrants, refugees and asylees than most other countries. I'm not going to lose sleep over the US taking a cautious approach on this one - 7 high-risk "Islamic nations" out of about 30 majority Muslim nations does not an atrocity make. And, if your country thinks it's no big deal, just let them all in. Shouldn't be a big deal for you.

[Forty Two]

The good thing about having a Republican President is that SNL can joke about the President again. Over the last 8 years, SNL hasn't been willing to caricature or joke much about Obama - http://nypost.com/2014/08/24/why-comedi ... ent-obama/

Good thing Trump and Spicer are female minorities, because if they were white males they'd never be treated the way they're being treated....

Pathetic dishonesty from the Post.

SNL Barack Obama Sketches [Fred Armisen]



SNL Barack Obama sketches [Jay Pharoah]



Trump is an ass-clown and much of his administration is composed of people who're already practically caricatures of the worst aspects of political life. It's a target-rich environment. However, it's a blatant lie to say that SNL didn't poke fun at Obama on a regular basis.

The "fun poking" was so milquetoast that it doesn't even count. The videos you posted demonstrate exactly that. No personal caricatures like under Bush and now with Trump - no harsh mockery of his appearance or mannerisms, etc. Just some soft-peddled good-natured ribbing, and often, if you follow through that link and watch a number of the videos, Obama is in the sketch but the mocking is of others involved.

[Animavore]

Lol. Fox News are living in backwards land. "If DeVos doesn't get nominated it will be a national embarrassment." reads their headline.

This is literally the opposite of reality.

[Forty Two]

Lol. Fox News are living in backwards land. "If DeVos doesn't get nominated it will be a national embarrassment." reads their headline.

This is literally the opposite of reality.

There is no more reality. We are living in a post-reality world. Her opponents say that because she is in favor of school voucher programs, that she is a mortal danger to "queer and other at risk kids." "Betsy DeVos' policies will kill children." "Don't normalize Betsy DeVos. Her policies are just too dangerous."

The politics of fear abound. Hyperbole is everywhere.

No!!!!! She will eat your children! She hates children! And, especially the four year old gender-queer, non-binary trans otherkins! She'll grind them up into sausages! Betsy DeVos is the Devil!

[L'Emmerdeur]

The "fun poking" was so milquetoast that it doesn't even count. The videos you posted demonstrate exactly that. No personal caricatures like under Bush and now with Trump - no harsh mockery of his appearance or mannerisms, etc. Just some soft-peddled good-natured ribbing, and often, if you follow through that link and watch a number of the videos, Obama is in the sketch but the mocking is of others involved.

So now the story is that when SNL mocked Obama on a regular basis it wasn't mean enough to count. That is not a defense of the original assertion, Forty Two, it's moving the goal posts.

[Forty Two]

I didn't set the goalposts, I posted an article and a position stated by the NY Post. I am sure that there was some milquetoast ribbing of Obama, but only a person with their head under a rock would conclude that he took any sort of significant roasting as President. I hardly think you'll even try to defend that position.

[L'Emmerdeur]

I didn't set the goalposts, I posted an article and a position stated by the NY Post. I am sure that there was some milquetoast ribbing of Obama, but only a person with their head under a rock would conclude that he took any sort of significant roasting as President. I hardly think you'll even try to defend that position.

Ah, so you didn't write this:

The good thing about having a Republican President is that SNL can joke about the President again. Over the last 8 years, SNL hasn't been willing to caricature or joke much about Obama

When I showed that SNL did indeed regularly mock Obama, you said it "doesn't count" because their mocking wasn't "harsh" enough for you. Even if you didn't write the quote above, you posted it then moved the goalposts.

[Forty Two]

Yes, I said they haven't been willing to caricature or joke MUCH about Obama. I acknowledge that they will sometimes in a milquetoast, mild way involve him. However, as I said, much of the time they had Obama in skits, it was really at someone else's expense.

I did not move the goalposts. You apparently thought I was saying they NEVER made any kind of joke about him. I did not say that. I said they didn't caricature or joke MUCH about him, and that's the same goalpost.

Try again.

And I can't believe you're even arguing this. If any President in history has been largely immune from ridicule by comedians and comedy writers, it's Obama. I would think that's a point nobody would really dispute. But, if you want to go that far, and claim that Obama has taken some serious knocks, then go for it. If the SNL skit link that you posted is the big smoking gun evidence, then I submit you haven't watched those bland, paltry attempts at humor.

Dana Carvey acknowledged it - https://www.rt.com/op-edge/210319-obama ... -politics/

Jackie Mason agreed - http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... -on-obama/

He got off easy - http://www.hollywoodintoto.com/5-reason ... ove-obama/

In 2014, article about how SNL "finally" made "mild" fun of the President - http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/23/sat ... -his-back/ - pointing out that the Washington Post "fact checked" the mildly joking skit about Obama's executive overreach....

So SNL did its first mildly critical skit in years, and was "fact checked" by the Washington Post -- https://twitter.com/scottlincicome/stat ... wsrc%5Etfw

Funnier than the skit is the fact that they were fact checked - what they got "right and wrong" in their bit....

And while I’m not sure if the Washington Post rushed to mend his hurt feelings, Wolf Blitzer and the crew at CNN did a lengthy segment with what they billed as the “non-partisan” Politifact (now that’s funny) explaining that SNL was wrong and had “missed the mark” on its satire.

PolitiFact and CNN said that it wasn’t that President Obama broke his promise to close Guantanamo on his first day in office so much as that he’s “fallen short.” At this point that’s like 2100+ days short, but come on. Don’t call it a broken promise.

[Animavore]

So DeVos, the only person more uniquely unsuited and unqualified for her role than Donald Trump, has been appointed. Now let that sink in. Just when you thought this Republican administration couldn't get any more corrupt and morally bankrupt, and spineless, they sold out the children of America's education and future to the highest bidder. A person who is going to line her pockets with public funds. To a Dominionist who would have schools learn alternative facts, alternative history, alternative science. Who doesn't think there should be any protections for children against religiously motivated bullying and harassment.

http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/02/ ... -secretary

That's dark.

[Brian Peacock]

Sure, Syria is the exception due to the special issues with that country. It's a war zone, rife with ISIS. The other 6 countries have had a temporary suspension.

It's not about "child refugees" - it's about "refugees" which come together. Are you suggesting that only children were being admitted?

I don't have any problem with any country suspending the refugee program. Pressure should be brought to bear for other Muslim countries to take in more refugees. Some take zero. Also, countries like Japan take zero, citing demographic issues. I see no reason why the US has a greater moral or legal obligation to take refugees than any other country. Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain have taken a grand total of zero. They can certainly handle a large chunk, but they have argued that accepting large numbers of Syrians is a threat to their safety, as terrorists could be hiding within an influx of people. And, even many European countries don't want them - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/eur ... be51bc8824

And, of course, suspending visas is a big deal now, because Trump is President. How much furor was there when Obama, in 2011, suspended for six months the refugee program for refugees from Iraq? And, the reason for the suspension was risk of terrorist migration. Now it's a major human rights catastrophe, right?

Working hard to avoid the point there. I'm asking what threat child refugees pose to the American people such that excluding them is warranted.

This question is entirely about children displaced by war and what the US can and should do to help.

the issue isn't child refugees -- it's not just a bunch of toddlers coming over. if it was just a bunch of toddlers coming over, it wouldn't be a major issue. The issue is the adult refugees who come over. You can't just let in the children, though.

You know I'm not talking about refugee families being split up right, that I'm talking about children who've been separated from the their family or, more likely, whose parents are dead? If you didn't know that then I guess you just made that leap of imagination. You might want to take a moment to reconsider. The US doesn't 'just let in the children', they nearly always have some family connection with or in the US already - it's the responsible thing to do after all, placing these kids with family, rather than just posting them off to some random foreign land far far away, as it were.

And, it's not about "what the US can and should do to help" it's what ALL COUNTRIES can and should do to help.

It's not all about what only the US can and should do to help, just about what the US can and should do to help. The US can do something to help, so why shouldn't it?

Go bleat on about the refugees to your own government. If you want more, take more. And, there are plenty of countries taking zero. All Trump did was put a temporary hold on it, until a vetting system can be arranged that he believes is better than the one we have now. Go holler at Saudi Arabia and Japan and other countries taking zero refugees, without any qualification.

That's placing an interesting moral condition on helping displaced victims of war - the US will only help people if other people help those people first. So which nations have to take what number of refugees first before the US is satisfied that they're ready to do their bit? Will the 300,000 that Germany took count towards that condition, or the 2.7 million that Turkey took, the 1m that Lebanon took, or the 600,000 that Jordon took? Surely the US is ready now, there's probably only the scraps left anyway? The UK has pledged to take 20,000 Syrian refugees - it's a paltry amount imo, but then again we're in thrall to a bunch of xenophobic billionaire right-wingers. Sound familiar? They were also frightened by this man and this poster and the loss of votes it might represent...



...so they thought they'd steal Mr Garage's thunder by being as close-minded and prejudiced as he is. Nonetheless, the government have committed to expediting without question applications on behalf of children that have a family connection in the country (though whether this is going to count towards the 20,000 figure we're yet to find out). You see, lone refugee children (LCRs) as they're called very, very, very rarely make applications for refuge on their own behalf. You can understand why I'm sure. For that to happen some other agency or body, like the UN refugee agencies, has to find the children, and talk to them, and do the initial checks and assessments before passing the info on to the various nations - exactly as they have been doing with applications to the US until last week.

Or, don't, keep hollering at the US if that's what you want, but it's really not your business. The US has no obligation to take more. And, the US has traditionally taken in more immigrants, refugees and asylees than most other countries. I'm not going to lose sleep over the US taking a cautious approach on this one - 7 high-risk "Islamic nations" out of about 30 majority Muslim nations does not an atrocity make. And, if your country thinks it's no big deal, just let them all in. Shouldn't be a big deal for you.

I'm not hollering at the US - I'm just asking you, as a defender of the travel ban order, to explain exactly what kind of threat refugee children fleeing the war in Syria pose to the American people such that excluding them is warranted. So?

I await your answer with eager anticipation.

[Tero]

WP:
Throughout Donald Trump’s campaign and now into the first weeks of his presidency, critics suggested that he cool his incendiary rhetoric, that his words matter. His defenders responded that, as Corey Lewandowski said, he was being taken too “literally.” Some, like Vice President Pence, wrote it all off to his “colorful style.” Trump himself recently explained that his rhetoric about Muslims is popular, winning him “standing ovations.”

No one apparently gave him anything like a Miranda warning: Anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law.

The states of Washington and Minnesota, which sued to block Trump’s order, are citing the president’s inflammatory rhetoric as evidence that the government’s claims — that it’s not a ban and not aimed at Muslims — are shams.

[Brian Peacock]

I'm profoundly depressed that he's put a god-bothering confabulist with a transparent religious agenda in charge of education. Such a poor decision... the worse deal for American children - and don't give me any of that, "Just wait and see what she does before criticising" crap. This decision can only play out one of two ways: terrible and fucking horrendous.

Why did he even think this would be a good idea? Is he selling these positions or something?

[L'Emmerdeur]

Yes, I said they haven't been willing to caricature or joke MUCH about Obama. I acknowledge that they will sometimes in a milquetoast, mild way involve him.

You haven't supported this claim. Show an example of this "milquetoast, mild" satire of Obama. I don't consider either of the skits in the videos I put up to qualify, and you find it ridiculous that one of them was fact-checked. If somebody thought that the skit was so unfair that it deserved to be fact-checked, that doesn't support your assertion at all.

You cited Dana Carvey being quoted by the Russian propaganda site. Talk about "milquetoast, mild" satire--his impression of Bush I was about as mild as you can get.

[L'Emmerdeur]

"Extreme Vetting, But Not for Banks: Trump proves he is a tool for Wall Street after all"

Donald Trump, the man who positioned himself as the common man's shield against Wall Street, signed a series of orders today [3 February, 2017] calling for reviews or rollbacks of financial regulations. He did so after meeting with some friendly helpers.

Here's how CNBC described the crowd of Wall Street CEOs Trump received, before he ordered a review of both the Dodd-Frank Act and the fiduciary rule requiring investment advisors to act in their clients' interests:

"Trump also will meet at the White House with leading CEOs, including JPMorgan's Jamie Dimon, Blackstone's Steve Schwarzman, and BlackRock's Larry Fink."

Leading the way for this assortment of populist heroes will be former Goldman honcho Gary Cohn, now Trump's chief economic advisor.

Dimon, Schwarzman, Fink and Cohn collectively represent a rogues gallery of the creeps most responsible for the 2008 crash. It would be hard to put together a group of people less sympathetic to the non-wealthy.

Trump's approach to Wall Street is in sharp contrast to his tough-talking stances on terrorism. He talks a big game when slamming the door on penniless refugees, but curls up like a beach weakling around guys who have more money than he does.

[Svartalf]

Well, fat cats gonna help other fat cats.