**** Elections thread *****

[a500lbgorilla]

Nope. Nothing to see here. What next, boss?

https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/com...ttack/dd9vxo2/

"1980s Soviets knew that their government was lying to them about the strength and power of their society, the Communist Party couldn't hide all of the dysfunctions people saw on a daily basis. This didn't stop the Soviet leadership from lying. Instead, they just accused the West of being equally deceptive. "Sure, things might be bad here, but they are just as bad in America, and in America people are actually foolish enough to believe in the lie! Not like you, clever people. You get it. You know it is a lie."


Trump's supporters don't care about being lied to. You can point out the lies until you're blue in the face, but it makes no difference to them. Why? Because it is just a game to them. The media lies, bloggers lie, politicians lie, it's just all a bunch of lies."

[wufwugy]

He's mostly right and Trump agrees.

[wufwugy]

My money is on Trump losing but he says he wins and you agree.

You're priming yourself to wrongly analyze things I say.

From what I've seen so far, it looks like the Trump administration is right, but with the law, you never know.

[Jack Sawyer]

[wufwugy]

Iadarola's understanding of the Great Recession is non-existent. The crafters of Dodd-Frank's understanding of the Great Recession is close to non-existent.

[wufwugy]

Looks like Kellyanne has had enough. I wonder if she will keep in the spotlight to keep people harping on something nobody cares about.

[wufwugy]

From a Forbes Staff member, not an opinion piece by a nobody




http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wha...ule-2017-01-23
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savin...ule/ar-AAmAE8O
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleaeb.../#2d64c3794fe0
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...iary-rule.html

I love the spin

This rule is a wonderful example of well-intended regulations put in place by people who don't understand economics that create unintended consequences that make the economy less robust and contribute to financial crises. The Fiduciary Rule is a bad idea.

[wufwugy]

https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/com...ttack/dd9vxo2/

"1980s Soviets knew that their government was lying to them about the strength and power of their society, the Communist Party couldn't hide all of the dysfunctions people saw on a daily basis. This didn't stop the Soviet leadership from lying. Instead, they just accused the West of being equally deceptive. "Sure, things might be bad here, but they are just as bad in America, and in America people are actually foolish enough to believe in the lie! Not like you, clever people. You get it. You know it is a lie."


Trump's supporters don't care about being lied to. You can point out the lies until you're blue in the face, but it makes no difference to them. Why? Because it is just a game to them. The media lies, bloggers lie, politicians lie, it's just all a bunch of lies."

What are you referring to?

[Jack Sawyer]

This rule is a wonderful example of well-intended regulations put in place by people who don't understand economics that create unintended consequences that make the economy less robust and contribute to financial crises. The Fiduciary Rule is a bad idea.

What are you saying wuf? We should not have any regulation for anything that has to do with the financial industry?

[Jack Sawyer]

What are you referring to?

He's referring to the fact that trump's supporters don't care about being lied to. Because it's all a game in which basically everyone lies. That facts don't matter anymore and that KellyAnne was on to something.

[wufwugy]

He's referring to the fact that trump's supporters don't care about being lied to. Because it's all a game in which basically everyone lies. That facts don't matter anymore and that KellyAnne was on to something.

What was she onto?

[Jack Sawyer]

What was she onto?

You got three chances, go ahead, guess.



What was she onto?

[wufwugy]

What are you saying wuf? We should not have any regulation for anything that has to do with the financial industry?

What I'm saying is that the Fiduciary Rule needlessly makes non-financial-advisers need to meet a requirement of financial adviser. The differentiation exists for a reason. Going into the details of why this creates more problems than it solves is a lengthy and complex task.

[wufwugy]

You got three chances, go ahead, guess.



What was she onto?

I really don't know what this is about. She said something silly and of little consequence. She was immediately called on it and she corrected.

[Jack Sawyer]

What I'm saying is that the Fiduciary Rule needlessly makes non-financial-advisers need to meet a requirement of financial adviser. The differentiation exists for a reason. Going into the details of why this creates more problems than it solves is a lengthy and complex task.

If you can, please do. I'm genuinely interested as to why

[Savy]

You're priming yourself to wrongly analyze things I say.

From what I've seen so far, it looks like the Trump administration is right, but with the law, you never know.

You think I put more effort into this subject than I do. My source of US politics is essentially FTR.

[wufwugy]

If you can, please do. I'm genuinely interested as to why

By making non-financial-advisers in the finance profession need to meet a standard of financial advisers, it increases the cost of being in the finance profession yet not a financial adviser. This makes it so that in the future there will be fewer non-financial-advisers in the finance profession as well as fewer cheaper services in finance. Consumers of financial services will ultimately end up worse off because the cost of purchasing financial services will increase. Think of it this way: people who can afford financial advisers buy them, but people who cannot may only get some measure of input from non-advisers. With the Fiduciary Rule, that goes away; people who can't afford the cost associated with the Fiduciary Rule will get even less of an understanding of their finances than before.

Compliance with the rule would itself be very hard, perhaps even impossible. It depends on who it covers. A powerful rule would go a long way towards turning the finance profession into something that only wealthy people can get into, as well as only wealthy can consume.

The core cause of financial crises is something called 'asymmetric information" (made up of adverse selection and moral hazard). The goal of financial regulation is to reduce asymmetric information (even though it often does the opposite). A way in which this would probably increase asymmetric information is by the moral hazard caused by consumers overvaluing non-financial-advisers' statements than they otherwise would. Right now, it is common knowledge that an insurance broker is not a financial adviser, but if the Fiduciary Rule is enacted, the distinction would dissipate to a high degree and consumers would be more likely to think that listening to the financial claims of an insurance broker is just as good as from an actual financial adviser.

[Jack Sawyer]

By making non-financial-advisers in the finance profession need to meet a standard of financial advisers, it increases the cost of being in the finance profession yet not a financial adviser. This makes it so that in the future there will be fewer non-financial-advisers in the finance profession as well as fewer cheaper services in finance. Consumers of financial services will ultimately end up worse off because the cost of purchasing financial services will increase. Think of it this way: people who can afford financial advisers buy them, but people who cannot may only get some measure of input from non-advisers. With the Fiduciary Rule, that goes away; people who can't afford the cost associated with the Fiduciary Rule will get even less of an understanding of their finances than before.

Compliance with the rule would itself be very hard, perhaps even impossible. It depends on who it covers. A powerful rule would go a long way towards turning the finance profession into something that only wealthy people can get into, as well as only wealthy can consume.

The core cause of financial crises is something called 'asymmetric information" (made up of adverse selection and moral hazard). The goal of financial regulation is to reduce asymmetric information (even though it often does the opposite). A way in which this would probably increase asymmetric information is by the moral hazard caused by consumers overvaluing non-financial-advisers' statements than they otherwise would. Right now, it is common knowledge that an insurance broker is not a financial adviser, but if the Fiduciary Rule is enacted, the distinction would dissipate to a high degree and consumers would be more likely to think that listening to the financial claims of an insurance broker is just as good as from an actual financial adviser.

Ok, costs. But it honestly sounds like exactly that which I am looking for. From investopedia:

The Department of Labor’s definition of a fiduciary demands that advisors act in the best interests of their clients, and to put their clients' interests above their own. It leaves no room for advisors to conceal any potential conflict of interest, and states that all fees and commissions must be clearly disclosed in dollar form to clients. The definition has been expanded to include any professional making a recommendation or solicitation — and not simply giving ongoing advice. Previously, only advisors who were charging a fee for service (either hourly or as a percentage of account holdings) on retirement plans were considered fiduciaries.

Advisors who wish to continue working on commission will need to provide clients with a disclosure agreement, called a Best Interest Contract Exemption (BICE), in circumstances where a conflict of interest could exist (such as, the advisor receiving a higher commission or special bonus for selling a certain product). This is to guarantee that the advisor is working unconditionally in the best interest of the client. All compensation that is paid to the fiduciary must be clearly spelled out as well.

Should we not be protected from our own stupidity a all times? Particularly when it comes to financial matters?

As you might imagine, I'm looking out for the general public in all cases.

[wufwugy]

Ok, costs. But it honestly sounds like exactly that which I am looking for. From investopedia:



Should we not be protected from our own stupidity a all times? Particularly when it comes to financial matters?

As you might imagine, I'm looking out for the general public in all cases.

I get it. The rule is an attempt to reduce asymmetric information.

I doubt I could convince you that it's a bad idea. Just know that there are a lot of economists who think this type of rule is a bad idea. Economists are actually all over the place on this stuff, because it's so complex and observations are not rigorous enough that economists can get their PhDs by making antipodal cases on this topic. The economists I side with are the ones who don't contradict economic principles in the cases they make. Using government regulation to correct for asymmetric information is largely a political idea, and it has a terrible track record of actually working. Very key asymmetric information caused by regulation can be pointed at regarding the causes of the Great Recession (and the Great Depression and others).

[wufwugy]

https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/s...31182327173120

[Jack Sawyer]

I really don't know what this is about. She said something silly and of little consequence. She was immediately called on it and she corrected.

Alternative facts, of course.That's what she was onto, in context of rilla's post

[wufwugy]

^^Do you think she meant to say the wrong thing?



On the topic of "alternate facts," why is that considered bad? There are tons of facts. When one person focuses on one subset of facts, providing a different subset of facts makes them "alternate facts."

[CoccoBill]

^Um no, there's just facts, and various degrees of bullshit. Alternative facts fall unequivocally in the latter.

[a500lbgorilla]

^^Do you think she meant to say the wrong thing?



On the topic of "alternate facts," why is that considered bad? There are tons of facts. When one person focuses on one subset of facts, providing a different subset of facts makes them "alternate facts."

When you highlight some facts and lowlight others, you're creating a narrative.

It comes down to a value call. Do you want facts to guide you, or do you want to guide the facts?

[a500lbgorilla]

http://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-cour...-j-trump-et-al

It's pretty cool they're putting stuff like this on the internet now.

[a500lbgorilla]

What are you referring to?

Your link says the media is an aspect of some centralized propaganda machine and I thought the reverse-cargo cult idea was apt.

"... but they're making stuff up too, and at least we're clever enough to see it."

[wufwugy]

^Um no, there's just facts, and various degrees of bullshit. Alternative facts fall unequivocally in the latter.

It's like what Rilla said. When you present a subset of facts, you're not presenting all the facts.

This is essentially what goes on when people argue past each other. There are sooooooooooo many relevant facts to each society-level issue. When people make a case, they pick the few they want to use the most. Then another person counters with alternative facts. Neither are presenting a full set of facts; instead theyre presenting a narrow subset of the whole.

This largely hinges on bad reporting. CNN took one fact and extrapolated it to the whole and made a judgment of the inauguration based on it. The counter came by taking different facts and extrapolating them to the whole. Both are wrong.

[CoccoBill]

Alternative facts á la Spicer/Conway ("largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe.") are not a subset of facts, they're just not facts. If the statement had been true, there'd be no need to call them alternative facts, they'd just be facts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inaugu...ump#Crowd_size

[Poopadoop]

Alternative facts á la Spicer/Conway ("largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe.") are not a subset of facts, they're just not facts. If the statement had been true, there'd be no need to call them alternative facts, they'd just be facts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inaugu...ump#Crowd_size

Agreed. The word 'fact' in that phrase is a misnomer, because the 'alternative facts' aren't facts at all, they're falsehoods.

There's a difference between 1) picking and choosing which facts to present, and 2) making shit up and calling it some kind of 'facts'. The latter is much further down the greasy pole than the former.

[BananaStand]

TV viewership for Obama in '09, 18 networks, 17.06M. Trump in '17: 12 networks, 16.63M. Barry was on six more stations and barely got half a million extra viewers. The technology, quality, and availability of online streams, and international television broadcasts are undeniably improved over the last 8 years. It seems inconceivable that amount of access, plus the increase in population over that time, wouldn't tilt the numbers in Trump's favor if it were able to be counted. It's something that makes obvious sense, and cannot be refuted with data, because the data doesn't exist. But, any reasonable person could deduce that Spicer's insistence that Trump's was the "most watched" is most probably true. Alternative facts = common sense.

Why is this even still a problem for anyone? Is this cause Conway said "massacre"? Is this what's gonna happen every time someone in the executive branch stumbles over vocabulary? We're gonna dredge up every literal misstep everyone's ever made and call it an agenda of lies?

[BananaStand]

I wonder if the judge halting Trump's travel ban will calm people down at all. I mean, haven't people been worried shitless that he's gonna start a war, or throw out all the muslims, or make it so women can't have jobs?

I think anyone who's claimed fear over "fascism" needs to take a deep breath and rest easy knowing that your 3-branch system of checks and balances is still alive and well.

[Poopadoop]

TV viewership for Obama in '09, 18 networks, 17.06M. Trump in '17: 12 networks, 16.63M. Barry was on six more stations and barely got half a million extra viewers.

Whoever watches can only watch on one station at a time. The number of people who are going to watch it are going to pick one of the stations, not several. So that argument means nothing.

But, any reasonable person could deduce that Spicer's insistence that Trump's was the "most watched" is most probably true. Alternative facts = common sense.

'Probably' is an opinion, not a fact. A fact is when you can point to a valid number, not just make a guess. He insisted on his version of reality with no facts to back it up. Thus, alternative facts = asserting things with no evidence = bullshitting.

[Poopadoop]

I think anyone who's claimed fear over "fascism" needs to take a deep breath and rest easy knowing that your 3-branch system of checks and balances is still alive and well.

Is this supposed to be an argument for supporting Trump? That no matter what shit he tries to pull someone somewhere can stop him? 'Cause you're not selling me here.

[BananaStand]

Is this supposed to be an argument for supporting Trump? That no matter what shit he tries to pull someone somewhere can stop him? 'Cause you're not selling me here.

It's not an argument for or against Trump. I'm saying it pretty much dispels the myths that the Anti-Trump crowd has used to fear-monger

[Poopadoop]

It's not an argument for or against Trump. I'm saying it pretty much dispels the myths that the Anti-Trump crowd has used to fear-monger

The 'myth' was that he would try to impose a bunch of laws people didn't want. The fact that the most egregious of these was stopped (at least temporarily) doesn't remove the danger of him trying.

[BananaStand]

The 'myth' was that he would try to impose a bunch of laws people didn't want. The fact that the most egregious of these was stopped (at least temporarily) doesn't remove the danger of him trying.

See bolded. Alternative facts.

If everyone hates his ideas so much....how did he become President??

[Poopadoop]

This little gem pretty much says all there is to know about Trump and his supporters' mentality

Any negative polls are fake news,

So, any evidence that his policies are unpopular is fake. Therefore all of his policies are popular. Because he says so.

Fail, Donald. Fail.

[Poopadoop]

See bolded. Alternative facts.

If everyone hates his ideas so much....how did he become President??

I didn't say everyone. But where are all the people marching in support of the ban? If it were popular and people really wanted it, why aren't they vocal about it like the opposition is?

It also seems quite likely that, like so many Trumpers have said, they believed he should be taken seriously but not literally. I think a lot of them never thought he would go through with a lot of his crazier sounding ideas. Now they're seeing the light.

[BananaStand]

It also seems quite likely that, like so many Trumpers have said, they believed he should be taken seriously but not literally. I think a lot of them never thought he would go through with a lot of his crazier sounding ideas. Now they're seeing the light.

You could probably say that in regards to his statements regarding punishment for women who get abortions. That was an off the cuff statement that was clearly not well thought out. And most people believe that his pro-life stance is mostly just lip-service to the evangelical base.

But if you thought this guy wasn't gonna come out gun's blazin in regards to immigration and national security.....you probably spend too much time with your face on a bong.

[BananaStand]

Where are all the people marching in support of the ban?

They're at work

EDIT: I'll bet many of them are intimidated. The UC Berkely episode is a perfect example, but far from a solitary incident. Who would go out there and hold a sign for the travel ban when it means masked trouble makers will throw rocks and bottles at you with impunity. The police don't seem interested in arresting people who start violence.

Also, they're probably not all that passionate about a 3 month pause. This isn't really a policy that is going to steer our national history down any dark path. It's 3 months, chill out!! It's the other side that thinks every little move Trump makes is a giant leap toward a totalitarian regime.

[Poopadoop]

You could probably say that in regards to his statements regarding punishment for women who get abortions. That was an off the cuff statement that was clearly not well thought out. And most people believe that his pro-life stance is mostly just lip-service to the evangelical base.

But if you thought this guy wasn't gonna come out gun's blazin in regards to immigration and national security.....you probably spend too much time with your face on a bong.

I don't spend any time with my face in a bong. So fuck off with the ad hominen shit already.

How should people know which of his statements are meant to be serious and which aren't? Not everyone has the clear insight into his mind that you appear to have. Most of us just go by whatever shit comes out of his mouth.

[Poopadoop]

They're at work

Right, at work all day every day. Weekends too.

Face it, he's yugely unpopular, you backed a loser.

[Poopadoop]

Also, they're probably not all that passionate about a 3 month pause.

So they all voted for him, they support him, but they're too scared to organise and support him. Sure.

[BananaStand]

I don't spend any time with my face in a bong. So fuck off with the ad hominen shit already..

Relax, don't take hyperbole so personally.

How should people know which of his statements are meant to be serious and which aren't? Not everyone has the clear insight into his mind that you appear to have. Most of us just go by whatever shit comes out of his mouth.

I don't know what to tell you here except to just use common sense. If it's ambiguous to you which issues Donald Trump is passionate about, then you probably aren't paying enough attention. And I really think you're overblowing the number of people who said "aaah he's not serious about that". I'm pretty sure most of his supporters voted for him because they believe he's a 'straight talker' who says what he means and means what he says.

It sounds like you're trying to say that Trump got elected by people who thought he was full of shit, but thought Hillary was full of more shit. Sure that's a slice of the pie, but where are you getting this idea that the majority of people thought Trump would do a 180 on all of this promises?

[BananaStand]

So they all voted for him, they support him, but they're too scared to organise and support him. Sure.

What planet are you living on? His supporters DID organize, unite, and speak loudly and publicly in support of Donald Trump and his policies.

It was on November 8th, 2016, and the 15 months leading up to that date.

Now, because liberals don't like the results, we have to fight it out in the streets?

[BananaStand]

Right, at work all day every day. Weekends too.

Face it, he's yugely unpopular, you backed a loser.

A loser who won? That's some alternative facts right there my friend.

And maybe some of us choose to make our voices heard in ways that actually matter instead of screaming on a street corner like hysterical idiots. Your local and regional newspapers publish editorials submitted by readers. Your senator or congressman will read the letters you send them.

[Poopadoop]

Relax, don't take hyperbole so personally.

Stick to the argument and don't be insulting and I promise I won't tell you to fuck off again.

I don't know what to tell you here except to just use common sense. If it's ambiguous to you which issues Donald Trump is passionate about, then you probably aren't paying enough attention. And I really think you're overblowing the number of people who said "aaah he's not serious about that". I'm pretty sure most of his supporters voted for him because they believe he's a 'straight talker' who says what he means and means what he says.

There's a difference between saying bombastic things and meaning them, and saying bombastic things for effect.

No-one who's been paying attention can seriously believe Trump means everything the says. It's not just about using 'common sense' to parse out when he's sincere from when he's not. If that were true, none of his supporters would be upset that he's giving Hillary a pass. Obviously some of them believed that 'lock her up' stuff was sincere.

Basically, you're trying to let Trump have his cake and eat it too. He can declare anything and if he follows through with it, he's keeping a promise. If he doesn't, well, no-one with common sense would think he really meant that particular thing to be taken seriously.

It's not the public's job to try to decode when to take a president seriously or not. It'd be so much easier for him to just say what he means, don't you think?

It sounds like you're trying to say that Trump got elected by people who thought he was full of shit, but thought Hillary was full of more shit. Sure that's a slice of the pie, but where are you getting this idea that the majority of people thought Trump would do a 180 on all of this promises?

You're making up things I never said, or at the very least exaggerating my meaning to the point of absurdity.

Until you start arguing with what I actually say, this isn't going to go anywhere.

[BananaStand]

Until you start arguing with what I actually say, this isn't going to go anywhere.

Well excuse me if I just don't see your point. Yes, there is a difference between candidate Trump and President Trump. Welcome to American politics. I don't see why that shocks or offends anyone. It happened plenty with all 44 previous presidents, so why is it such a crime when Trump does it too.

It's merely a symptom of prioritizing an infinite agenda. A problem faced by every president, ever.

No-one who's been paying attention can seriously believe Trump means everything the says. It's not just about using 'common sense' to parse out when he's sincere from when he's not. If that were true, none of his supporters would be upset that he's giving Hillary a pass. Obviously some of them believed that 'lock her up' stuff was sincere.

You can't please all of the people all of the time. If anyone is having their cake and eating it too, it's the folks trying to push this narrative that impugns Trump for not doing everything he said, exactly the way he said it. They want a moderate president, but they criticize Trump for being moderate.

Obama promised to end wars in the middle east. We're still there. He promised to close Gitmo, it's still open. He promised comprehensive health care reform. It was written in sand, and is poised to be washed away by the tide in the next 6 months. Obama made progress on all of those things, but clearly fell short of the goal.

This is the liberal bias. Obama can show partial results, or make excuses, or blame republicans. Trump is afforded no such luxuries. It seems that it's 'all or nothing'. He promised a muslim immigration ban. He landed on a 3 month pause with the 7 most dangerous countries so as to improve vetting.

He promised to deport all 12 million illegal immigrants. Right now he's focused on stopping new illegal immigration, and clearing out dangerous criminals from among those already here. After that, if he his policy takes a humanitarian turn towards amnesty for the remaining however many "law-abiding" immigrants, are you really gonna roast the guy for being dishonest??

He promised to go after Hillary. Upon being elected, he may have decided he had better things to do. You think that makes him dishonest? It's like you're saying that two boxers who fight in a ring, should also be full of hate and want to fight when they see each other in the street.

If you don't recognize that there are going to be differences between candidates on campaigns, and elected officials serving in office, even when those two are physically teh same person, then you're just not living in reality man.

I think you're illustrating the stubborn intolerance of the liberal side. They seem to believe that when a candidate is elected, that he then gets to implement his entire platform with impunity. They believe that whoever is president gets to do what he wants...because he won. Obama famously stated that "elections have consequences" and that's how he ran his presidency, and it's a big reason why he was so ineffective once his party lost control of congress. It's why he has a dizzying record number of Executive Orders under his name, and so many of his primary accomplishments are written in sand.

you see it when democratic lawmakers get on the house floor and rail against republicans for not having a ready-to-go healthcare bill to replace Obamacare. Well....maybe they want some input from the other side. Maybe they're willing to compromise. Maybe they realize that elected officials need to serve ALL the people, not just the ones who voted from them

If Trump decides to let Hillary off the hook, why should that impugn his credibility? He's taking a position that is popular among ALL americans. Just because it pisses off a sliver of the base that voted for him, doesn't mean he's being a bad president, or a phony candidate by adjusting his position.

or, even if his position is unchanged, that doesn't mean he's obligated to act. Again, he's faced with the problem of prioritizing an infinite agenda. That means there's gonna be some stuff at the end of the list that doesn't get done.

[wufwugy]

I, and millions of others, watched the inauguration on mediums not included in the "facts" presented by the MSM. It takes alternative facts to include us.

[Jack Sawyer]

See bolded. Alternative facts.

If everyone hates his ideas so much....how did he become President??

Not by winning the popular vote though

[Poopadoop]

A loser who won?

Nixon won, still a loser.

That's some alternative facts right there my friend.

Nope, it's an opinion. Though it's probably as close to the truth as many of your facts.

And maybe some of us choose to make our voices heard in ways that actually matter instead of screaming on a street corner like hysterical idiots. Your local and regional newspapers publish editorials submitted by readers. Your senator or congressman will read the letters you send them.

I'm sure posting things on poker forums is a much better way to support your president than organising a mass rally.

[BananaStand]

Not by winning the popular vote though

Good thing we have smarter ways of deciding who gets to run shit.

[Poopadoop]

I, and millions of others, watched the inauguration on mediums not included in the "facts" presented by the MSM. It takes alternative facts to include us.

Well so what? Does everyone who watched the inauguration automatically become a supporter? Half of those watching prolly just tuned in to see if he'd fuck up the swearing in or grab his daughter's ass.

I watch a monkey swing around in a zoo, doesn't mean I support the monkey.

It takes alternative facts to include us.

No, it takes guessing and filling in the blanks in whatever way suits you.

[BananaStand]

Nixon won, still a loser.

Seems like you're unclear on the definition of loser. If you wanna call Nixon dishonest, crooked, or any of several other derogatory but apt terms, go ahead. But that doesn't change the fact that he emerged victorious in contests of politics.

Nope, it's an opinion. Though it's probably as close to the truth as many of your facts.

No sir, the definitions of words are not matters of opinion. When there are contests, the victors are called "winners", the defeated are called "losers". SURELY you don't expect me to determine the difference between when you're being bombastic, and when you should be taken literally.

I'm sure posting things on poker forums is a much better way to support your president than organising a mass rally.

Thought we weren't playing that ad hominem game?

[Poopadoop]

Well excuse me if I just don't see your point. Yes, there is a difference between candidate Trump and President Trump. Welcome to American politics. I don't see why that shocks or offends anyone. It happened plenty with all 44 previous presidents, so why is it such a crime when Trump does it too.

It's merely a symptom of prioritizing an infinite agenda. A problem faced by every president, ever.


You can't please all of the people all of the time. If anyone is having their cake and eating it too, it's the folks trying to push this narrative that impugns Trump for not doing everything he said, exactly the way he said it. They want a moderate president, but they criticize Trump for being moderate.

Obama promised to end wars in the middle east. We're still there. He promised to close Gitmo, it's still open. He promised comprehensive health care reform. It was written in sand, and is poised to be washed away by the tide in the next 6 months. Obama made progress on all of those things, but clearly fell short of the goal.

This is the liberal bias. Obama can show partial results, or make excuses, or blame republicans. Trump is afforded no such luxuries. It seems that it's 'all or nothing'. He promised a muslim immigration ban. He landed on a 3 month pause with the 7 most dangerous countries so as to improve vetting.

He promised to deport all 12 million illegal immigrants. Right now he's focused on stopping new illegal immigration, and clearing out dangerous criminals from among those already here. After that, if he his policy takes a humanitarian turn towards amnesty for the remaining however many "law-abiding" immigrants, are you really gonna roast the guy for being dishonest??

He promised to go after Hillary. Upon being elected, he may have decided he had better things to do. You think that makes him dishonest? It's like you're saying that two boxers who fight in a ring, should also be full of hate and want to fight when they see each other in the street.

If you don't recognize that there are going to be differences between candidates on campaigns, and elected officials serving in office, even when those two are physically teh same person, then you're just not living in reality man.

I think you're illustrating the stubborn intolerance of the liberal side. They seem to believe that when a candidate is elected, that he then gets to implement his entire platform with impunity. They believe that whoever is president gets to do what he wants...because he won. Obama famously stated that "elections have consequences" and that's how he ran his presidency, and it's a big reason why he was so ineffective once his party lost control of congress. It's why he has a dizzying record number of Executive Orders under his name, and so many of his primary accomplishments are written in sand.

you see it when democratic lawmakers get on the house floor and rail against republicans for not having a ready-to-go healthcare bill to replace Obamacare. Well....maybe they want some input from the other side. Maybe they're willing to compromise. Maybe they realize that elected officials need to serve ALL the people, not just the ones who voted from them

If Trump decides to let Hillary off the hook, why should that impugn his credibility? He's taking a position that is popular among ALL americans. Just because it pisses off a sliver of the base that voted for him, doesn't mean he's being a bad president, or a phony candidate by adjusting his position.

or, even if his position is unchanged, that doesn't mean he's obligated to act. Again, he's faced with the problem of prioritizing an infinite agenda. That means there's gonna be some stuff at the end of the list that doesn't get done.

Hey, it's not me who's defending him. I don't watch him hoping he follows through on all his idiotic promises. I've been arguing most of these are bad ideas. I'd think more of him if he didn't try to ban muslims or jail his political opponents. Sorry if you've confused me with someone else.

[BananaStand]

Well so what? Does everyone who watched the inauguration automatically become a supporter? Half of those watching prolly just tuned in to see if he'd fuck up the swearing in or grab his daughter's ass.

I watch a monkey swing around in a zoo, doesn't mean I support the monkey.

Wait, when did the question about crowd size translate to support? Either it was the most watched, or it wasn't.

No, it takes guessing and filling in the blanks in whatever way suits you.

Do you realize how delusional and stubborn this sounds? It's like you're walking into a building as you see dark clouds rolling in, coming back out to find the ground is soaked, then saying "That doesn't prove it rained"

[Poopadoop]

Seems like you're unclear on the definition of loser. If you wanna call Nixon dishonest, crooked, or any of several other derogatory but apt terms, go ahead. But that doesn't change the fact that he emerged victorious in contests of politics.

No sir, the definitions of words are not matters of opinion. When there are contests, the victors are called "winners", the defeated are called "losers". SURELY you don't expect me to determine the difference between when you're being bombastic, and when you should be taken literally.

No sir, you don't get to decide the frame of reference for how I use a word. Nixon can well be considered a loser in the larger frame of reference, having been impeached and tossed out of office in disgrace.

You can think he's a winner if you want because he won the election. But that's your choice to use that narrow frame of reference. Just like it's mine to use a broader frame which includes what he did once elected.


Thought we weren't playing that ad hominem game?[/QUOTE]

It's not ad hominen; it speaks perfectly to your argument that the people out protesting in the streets are wasting their time.

[Poopadoop]

It's like you're walking into a building as you see dark clouds rolling in, coming back out to find the ground is soaked, then saying "That doesn't prove it rained"

It's not even close to the same thing. Nice try though.

Anyone who denies it rained when the evidence is visible in front of their eyes is delusional. Anyone who says you can't infer a certain number of people watched Trump on alternative media just because such media exists and at least somebody watched it is simply stating an obvious truth.

A better analogy would be if you argued billions worldwide watched a solar eclipse. If I said 'how do you know it's billions?', and you said 'something something you're delusional if you don't think it's billions', as if that were the most obvious fact ever.

[BananaStand]

Hey, it's not me who's defending him. I don't watch him hoping he follows through on all his idiotic promises. I've been arguing most of these are bad ideas.

I don't think anyone here has stated they are in love with the guy's entire playbook. You can't please all of the people all of the time. But just because I don't pile on the guy at every turn doesn't mean I'm some kind of apologist.

I'd think more of him if he didn't try to ban muslims or jail his political opponents. Sorry if you've confused me with someone else.

See, either you're being deliberately incendiary, or you're ignorant of the issues. An immigration pause on 7 countries is not a "muslim ban". There are still some 40 something muslim-majority countries that are not impacted in the slightest. There is no religious component to the travel ban whatsoever. You're simply using the term "muslim ban" to make it sound worse than it is. Either that, or you're so poorly acquainted with the facts, that you believe what's happening is worse than it is.

[Poopadoop]

Wait, when did the question about crowd size translate to support?

Well, isn't that why little Donald was so upset he sent his press secretary out to yell at the media? Because they had pictures showing such a tiny crowd went to his inauguration relative to Obamas? My viewing of the situation was precisely that.

[Poopadoop]

I don't think anyone here has stated they are in love with the guy's entire playbook. You can't please all of the people all of the time. But just because I don't pile on the guy at every turn doesn't mean I'm some kind of apologist.

For someone who's not an apologist,you sure spend a lot of time defending him.

See, either you're being deliberately incendiary, or you're ignorant of the issues. An immigration pause on 7 countries is not a "muslim ban". There are still some 40 something muslim-majority countries that are not impacted in the slightest. There is no religious component to the travel ban whatsoever. You're simply using the term "muslim ban" to make it sound worse than it is. Either that, or you're so poorly acquainted with the facts, that you believe what's happening is worse than it is.

He called for a muslim ban during his campaign. Now who's being deliberately ignorant?

[BananaStand]

Anyone who denies it rained when the evidence is visible in front of their eyes is delusional.

Sprinklers yo!

Anyone who says you can't infer a certain number of people watched Trump on alternative media just because such media exists and at least somebody watched it is simply stating an obvious truth.

Of course you can make that inference. Have you ever bought anything from a telemarketer? I haven't. I don't know anyone who says they have. I know far more people who are bothered by the call. So does that mean that no one buys things over the phone? Or is it safe to infer that they wouldn't do it if it didn't work?

A better analogy would be if you argued billions worldwide watched a solar eclipse. If I said 'how do you know it's billions?', and you said 'something something you're delusional if you don't think it's billions', as if that were the most obvious fact ever.

It is the most obvious fact ever. In order for it not to be true, you would need to assume that billions of people, with the ability to see, ignored a glowing ball of gas a million times the size of the earth that enters their field of vision dozens of times per day.

The measured stats are off by a mere 500K viewers out of a total of some 17-ish million. You can either infer that at least 500,000 people watched it on unmeasured media, or less than 500,000 people watched it on unmeasured media. Making the latter inference there means you ignore the last decade of technological advancement and known trends regarding the amount of eyeballs that use the internet.

[BananaStand]

For someone who's not an apologist,you sure spend a lot of time defending him.

Confirmation bias. You're reading what you want to read from me. When he's gone wrong, I've stated such. I'm a staunch opponent of the wall. I thought the travel ban was poorly communicated down through the chain of command. And I think he was wrong to threaten to revoke federal funds from UC Berkely. All of those dissensions are documented in this forum.

He called for a muslim ban during his campaign. Now who's being deliberately ignorant?

You are. How do you not recognize the fact that a candidate and a president can and should have different perspectives.

This is liberals talking out of both sides of their mouth. They didn't like the "muslim ban" proposed by Candidate Trump. They want a less extreme policy. So when Trump obliges but implementing a less extreme policy, one side of their mouth says "Nope, we're still gonna call it a muslim ban, and focus on a non-existent religious component". The other side of their mouth says "well, Trump's not doing what he promised to do during the campaign, so he's a just a blowhard who's full of shit"

[Poopadoop]

Sprinklers yo!

No sprinklers, you live on a farm.

Of course you can make that inference. Have you ever bought anything from a telemarketer? I haven't. I don't know anyone who says they have. I know far more people who are bothered by the call. So does that mean that no one buys things over the phone? Or is it safe to infer that they wouldn't do it if it didn't work?

Not the same thing, sorry.

It is the most obvious fact ever. In order for it not to be true, you would need to assume that billions of people, with the ability to see, ignored a glowing ball of gas a million times the size of the earth that enters their field of vision dozens of times per day.

Thanks for taking the bait. Now, how many of those 'viewers' were at work and thus couldn't see it? How many were on the other side of the Earth where it was nighttime. You can't infer every person on the planet was a potential viewer, or even every person in your own country.

The measured stats are off by a mere 500K viewers out of a total of some 17-ish million. You can either infer that at least 500,000 people watched it on unmeasured media, or less than 500,000 people watched it on unmeasured media. Making the latter inference there means you ignore the last decade of technological advancement and known trends regarding the amount of eyeballs that use the internet.

Sure, but it's irrelevant anyways. Spicer told a bunch of other lies in that ranting press conference where he took no questions. Those are enough to give him the title of alternative fact king.

[Poopadoop]

You are. How do you not recognize the fact that a candidate and a president can and should have different perspectives.

This is liberals talking out of both sides of their mouth. They didn't like the "muslim ban" proposed by Candidate Trump. They want a less extreme policy. So when Trump obliges but implementing a less extreme policy, one side of their mouth says "Nope, we're still gonna call it a muslim ban, and focus on a non-existent religious component". The other side of their mouth says "well, Trump's not doing what he promised to do during the campaign, so he's a just a blowhard who's full of shit"

No, you're changing what I said again.

First, I said 'I hope he doesn't keep some of his promises, like the one about the muslim ban and jailing his political opponents.'

You're response is 'zomg it's not a ban' and blah blah blah for a few paragraphs about why it's not a ban.

And I said, 'he argued for a ban in his campaign'

And now you're argument is 'he doesn't have to keep all his promises to be a good president'.

I mean, no offense, but you can't even seem to keep it straight in your head from one post to the next what you're arguing about.

[BananaStand]

Thanks for taking the bait. Now, how many of those 'viewers' were at work and thus couldn't see it

What bait? If this is a "trap" its pretty weak sauce. In America, only some 40% of the population "works". I dont' have the stats in front of me, but I'll bet that's at least average, if not towards the high-end world wide.

How many were on the other side of the Earth where it was nighttime.

C'mon man, you're being silly. I'm aware that the earth rotates. Again, this "trap" you set is sad.

You can't infer every person on the planet was a potential viewer, or even every person in your own country

Yes, you can. Half the planet is bathed in sunlight, and less than half of that population has to go to work at any given time. And even among that population, a lot work out side and even more have windows. Eclipses are rare. They're also predicted, which means people are aware of them when they happen. For the inference to be proven false, you'd have to demonstrate that billions of people purposefully avoided a historic celestial event that would be nearly impossible to avoid if you have eyes and spent more than 2 seconds looking at the sky. That assumption would be preposterous, hence it's reasonable to infer the opposite.

Sure, but it's irrelevant anyways. Spicer told a bunch of other lies in that ranting press conference where he took no questions. Those are enough to give him the title of alternative fact king.

Why do you call them "lies"? Do you think that they knew for sure that subway rides were lower, but reported them higher anyway? They KNOW the press is just waiting to catch them in any kind of nonsense, why would they deliberately walk into that? The guy was given the wrong numbers, he reported them as the right numbers, and then corrected himself the next day. That's called a mistake. You did the same thing to Fox News last week. You seem to equate mistakes with lies whenever it suits your narrative. People aren't perfect man.

[Poopadoop]

Why do you call them "lies"? Do you think that they knew for sure that subway rides were lower, but reported them higher anyway? They KNOW the press is just waiting to catch them in any kind of nonsense, why would they deliberately walk into that? The guy was given the wrong numbers, he reported them as the right numbers, and then corrected himself the next day. That's called a mistake. You did the same thing to Fox News last week. You seem to equate mistakes with lies whenever it suits your narrative. People aren't perfect man.

They don't care if they caught lying because they're supporters will forgive them, just like Fox News.

Also, you seem to lack a basic understanding of how propaganda works. You tell a lie, and as long as it's the first 'fact' someone gets, they're more likely to keep believing it even when faced with contrary evidence.

[Poopadoop]

Do you think that they knew for sure that subway rides were lower, but reported them higher anyway?

Of course they did. It's not as if the met accidentally posted the 'wrong' numbers. Lol, Spicer pulled those numbers straight out of Trump's ass.

[BananaStand]

No, you're changing what I said again.

No, you're talking in circles.

First, I said 'I hope he doesn't keep some of his promises, like the one about the muslim ban and jailing his political opponents.'

So you got your wish!!!! So why this:

The 'myth' was that he would try to impose a bunch of laws people didn't want. The fact that the most egregious of these was stopped (at least temporarily) doesn't remove the danger of him trying.

It also seems quite likely that, like so many Trumpers have said, they believed he should be taken seriously but not literally. I think a lot of them never thought he would go through with a lot of his crazier sounding ideas. Now they're seeing the light.

You're response is 'zomg it's not a ban' and blah blah blah for a few paragraphs about why it's not a ban.

I think it's important for you to realize that you got your wish. He implemented a different policy than a muslim ban. You still seem upset at an imaginary policy suggested during a campaign, and are equating it with a much more moderate policy implemented by a president. It's important that you get this.

And I said, 'he argued for a ban in his campaign'

So? Now he's obligated to that exact policy, with no compromises, forever? It's AMAZING to me that people think like this and call Trump a fascist.

And now you're argument is 'he doesn't have to keep all his promises to be a good president'.

NO. To be a good president he has to serve ALL the people, not just the ones who voted for him. Often times, that means compromises. Trump eliminated any kind of religious component, which was the main complaint against the policy he suggested in his campaign. The policy he actually implemented was limited in scope, temporary, and addressed the concerns of his opposition. So, what's your beef?

I mean, no offense, but you can't even seem to keep it straight in your head from one post to the next what you're arguing about.

I can see why you think that when you yourself are thinking in circles and twisting my words at the same time. How do you keep anything straight?

[Poopadoop]

No, you're talking in circles.


So you got your wish!!!! So why this:




I think it's important for you to realize that you got your wish. He implemented a different policy than a muslim ban. You still seem upset at an imaginary policy suggested during a campaign, and are equating it with a much more moderate policy implemented by a president. It's important that you get this.


So? Now he's obligated to that exact policy, with no compromises, forever? It's AMAZING to me that people think like this and call Trump a fascist.


NO. To be a good president he has to serve ALL the people, not just the ones who voted for him. Often times, that means compromises. Trump eliminated any kind of religious component, which was the main complaint against the policy he suggested in his campaign. The policy he actually implemented was limited in scope, temporary, and addressed the concerns of his opposition. So, what's your beef?


I can see why you think that when you yourself are thinking in circles and twisting my words at the same time. How do you keep anything straight?

Ok, whatever you say.

[BananaStand]

Ok, whatever you say.

So, can you explain to me why you have a problem with Trump compromising and backing off from an extreme policy that you hated to begin with? Can you explain why people who didn't take Trump literally at every turn should now "see the light"?

Because earlier, it was pretty clear that you were equating the actual travel ban policy with a hypothetical 'muslim ban' policy presented during the campaign.

If a president decides to take the least disruptive course of action (it's only 7 countries, and it's temporary), how is that, in your words "egregious", or "dangerous"?

It seems like you're equating the moderate policy with an extreme one. Rather than admit that the president is not the fascist monster you thought he was, you now seem to be saying that this moderate policy is just the first step toward the extreme policy.

The fact that the most egregious of these was stopped (at least temporarily) doesn't remove the danger of him trying.

[Poopadoop]

So, can you explain to me why you have a problem with Trump compromising and backing off from an extreme policy that you hated to begin with? Can you explain why people who didn't take Trump literally at every turn should now "see the light"?

Because earlier, it was pretty clear that you were equating the actual travel ban policy with a hypothetical 'muslim ban' policy presented during the campaign.

If a president decides to take the least disruptive course of action (it's only 7 countries, and it's temporary), how is that, in your words "egregious", or "dangerous"?

It seems like you're equating the moderate policy with an extreme one. Rather than admit that the president is not the fascist monster you thought he was, you now seem to be saying that this moderate policy is just the first step toward the extreme policy.

How do you see it as anything other than a muslim ban is a better question. It's aimed specifically at 7 muslim majority countries.

Guiliani as much as said Trump asked him for advice on putting in the muslim ban. Does this sound like someone who's taking a compromise position?

Finally, you do realise the ban was overturned by the court as unconstitutional because it is based on religion? How do you reconcile that with it not being a 'muslim ban'?

Better obviously would have been not to try the muslim ban in any shape or form in the first place.

[BananaStand]

How do you see it as anything other than a muslim ban is a better question. It's aimed specifically at 7 muslim majority countries.

If it were religious based, there wouldn't be 40 plus muslim-majority countries that are totally unaffected. Are Christians, Jews, and Buddhists allowed to travel to and from Yemen under this policy?

Guiliani as much as said Trump asked him for advice on putting in the muslim ban. Does this sound like someone who's taking a compromise position?

Sounds like he's getting advice from smart people on how to implement something that's realistic. So...to answer your question...yes

Finally, you do realise the ban was overturned by the court as unconstitutional because it is based on religion? How do you reconcile that with it not being a 'muslim ban'?

Alternative facts my friend.

First of all, it was not "overturned", it was halted through a "temporary restraining order". There is a difference. Second, the judge didn't make any ruling whatsoever on the constitutionality of the order. And therefore, he certainly didn't reference freedom of religion in his decision.

In order to grant the restraining order, he only had to determine 1) Plaintiffs are likely to succeed at a later date, 2) people in those states (washington and minnesota) will suffer irreparable harm if the order continues. And 3) the restraining order serves public interest.

Those are some extremely vague and broad criteria. He simply ruled that there was more harm than good by allowing the order to continue until the full case could be heard. His ruling is nowhere near the final say on this.

You know, lawyers have a saying that if you present a case enough times, to enough juries or judges, you can indict a ham sandwich. Dems went shopping for a restraining order and found a judge willing to cooperate with a temporary one until the full case could be heard. That's nowhere near a determination of constitutionality.

Where are you getting your information?????

A cherry picked judge making a highly subjective determination and issuing an order, the likes of which typically expire in 14 days, is a LOOOOOONG way from declaring the Executive Order as "unconstitutional". You're watching too much CNN maybe?

Funny, when Dems have a problem, they can demand a temporary, but immediate pause to the action until the details on further action can be sorted out. Does that strike anyone else as ironic? I mean, REALLY ironic?

Better obviously would have been not to try the muslim ban in any shape or form in the first place.

Yeah, cause that's working so well in Europe right now.

[Poopadoop]

If it were religious based, there wouldn't be 40 plus muslim-majority countries that are totally unaffected. Are Christians, Jews, and Buddhists allowed to travel to and from Yemen under this policy?

It's still a muslim ban since it's aimed at countries that are primarily muslim. If there were a way to ban only the muslims, I'm guessing Trump would have tried it.

Sounds like he's getting advice from smart people on how to implement something that's realistic. So...to answer your question...yes

Lol, sure, he 'compromised' by asking another far-righter how to implement it. That's a pretty generous interpretation of the word.

First of all, it was not "overturned", it was halted through a "temporary restraining order". There is a difference. Second, the judge didn't make any ruling whatsoever on the constitutionality of the order. And therefore, he certainly didn't reference freedom of religion in his decision.

In order to grant the restraining order, he only had to determine 1) Plaintiffs are likely to succeed at a later date, 2) people in those states (washington and minnesota) will suffer irreparable harm if the order continues. And 3) the restraining order serves public interest.

Those are some extremely vague and broad criteria. He simply ruled that there was more harm than good by allowing the order to continue until the full case could be heard. His ruling is nowhere near the final say on this.

It was presented by the lawyers as unconstitutional. Judge thought their case would win, so he gave a temporary restraining order. Pretty simple to understand on what basis the order was granted, since the ban is clearly based on religion.

Yeah, cause that's working so well in Europe right now.

There's certain countries where it's working out very well. Canada for example, who by the way offered to take in all the refugees Trump wants to turn away.

Some places took too many, like Germany, and of course there's going to be problems when you try to take in hundreds of thousands of refugees. That doesn't mean it was wrong of them to care about those people and try to help them.

Obviously it's a value judgment. If you want your country to stand only for itself, then you shouldn't give any foreign aid or accept any refugees. But if you want your country to be a leader in the world, you should be willing to help the world.

[BananaStand]

It's still a muslim ban since it's aimed at countries that are primarily muslim.

NO! It's aimed at countries where governments are either not centralized, hence they cannot provide the necessary vetting data, or more simply, their governments are just not cooperative.

Just because there is a common thread among the 7 countries, doesn't mean THAT is the criteria used. Tell me, what do YOU think differentiates those 7 countries from the other 40-something majority-muslim countries in the world? If it's a muslim ban, and the policy is religious based, then why did we stop so short?

If there were a way to ban only the muslims, I'm guessing Trump would have tried it.

You can read the guy's mind now?

Lol, sure, he 'compromised' by asking another far-righter how to implement it. That's a pretty generous interpretation of the word.

Holy shit man, in what universe is Giuliani a "far-righter"? How in the world could such a person be elected mayor in NYC?

It was presented by the lawyers as unconstitutional. Judge thought their case would win, so he gave a temporary restraining order. Pretty simple to understand on what basis the order was granted, since the ban is clearly based on religion.

Now you're reading judge's minds too? If this judge didn't grant the restraining order, they would have tried again until they found a judge who would. C'mon man, you know they can indict a ham sandwich if they want to. This guy was cherry-picked, and the criteria for the ruling is hugely subjective, broad, and vague. You're seeing things that aren't there again.

There's certain countries where it's working out very well. Canada for example, who by the way offered to take in all the refugees Trump wants to turn away.

It's not working out well in Canada. They tried to pass legislation to ban hijabs. That doesn't sound like a place where Muslims are very welcome. And I don't know what you mean by "working out well". How do you know that everyone admitted into canada is one of the "good guys"? The lack of an overt attack doesn't validate the quality of security.

Some places took too many, like Germany, and of course there's going to be problems when you try to take in hundreds of thousands of refugees. That doesn't mean it was wrong of them to care about those people and try to help them.

Too many? Exactly how many is too many? Put a number on it please?

It only took ONE guy to get into a truck and drive over a sidewalk full of people. That means if you only admit ONE immigrant into your country, there is a non-zero chance you'll be attacked.

I agree, 99.9% of those hundreds of thousands of people are probably totally ok. But it only takes ONE bad guy for us to have a problem. And if we're saying we can come up with measures to catch that ONE guy among hundreds of thousands, shouldn't we do it? Is a three month lead time really too much to ask?

Obviously it's a value judgment. If you want your country to stand only for itself, then you shouldn't give any foreign aid or accept any refugees. But if you want your country to be a leader in the world, you should be willing to help the world.

Who says we're unwilling to help the world? We just want 3 months to help ourselves develop the best security possible for our citizens, and then we'll open the doors back up to the world again.

I swear, every time a liberal argument is thwarted, they invent five new ones out of thin air. Preposterous assumptions, mind reading, conjecture, international disdain.....what else ya got?