"Planned Register of Muslims"
What plan? There is no plan. It was just another douchey thing Trump said on the campaign trail.
Journalist careless with language again - probably kicking back and thinking of Christmas.
An Oracle employee and anti-Donald-Trump activist has quit the company over co-CEO Safra Catz's decision to join president-elect Donald Trump's transition team and her expression of Oracle's intention to support his policies. George A. Polisner, who for the last four years has worked in Oracle's managed cloud services team, …
So, according to you, it's perfectly OK if someone (a presidential candidate, say), threatens or plans reprehensible and unconstitutional actions. You will continue to support that candidate fully even after he is elected, and even when he is actually President, as long as he only threatens these actions. You should only start to complain when he actually starts to implement his ideas.
A couple of questions:
1. If nobody complains, how will this candidate with the reprehensible plans know that his plans are, in fact, reprehensible and terrible?
2. How do you know that he will not actually implement his ideas? Why would you encourage someone with this kind of rhetoric, unless you agree with him?
3. Do you not think that stating these illegal ideas and plans is a problem? In your mind, is it OK to threaten to maim or kill someone, as long as you don't actually start to do it?
4. Isn't it too late to start complaining, once the plans are put into effect? Much of the damage to society, and to some of the victims, will have then already been done...
5. What kind of effect do you think this will have on society, when someone in a position of authority (or future authority) can threaten a minority group with impunity, and nobody complains about his threats?
All those points are valid.
At this moment in time, few find it easy to predict what the man will actually do (or try to do), because reason and Trump are only occasionally to be found in the same room together (and perhaps then it's just a case of ships in the night). So I think some people are hoping he is all (nasty) mouth and no trousers.
However, I don't see any cause to be relaxed. The people he is appointing give cause for concern. He has invited some rather unpleasant people to run things that they hate or want to destroy or undermine. So even if there isn't a coherent message coming from this 'team', if you invite bears in the house, expect a lot of shit.
@Heironymous Coward
Which part of "there is no plan" did you not understand?
All of it apparently. So here's a dictionary definition:
plan
NOUN
a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something:
Trump mouthed off campaigning. There is not yet a plan. But since Trump is not yet President, this is not surprising. Whether there ever is a plan remains to be seen. Like you, I would expect it to be illegal.
The rest is you bloviating.
"Like you, I would expect it to be illegal."
Since when has that stopped a government doing anything ? In the *real* world rather than the airy fairy legal world a Government is big enough to ignore the law or change it if they are feeling legally challenged.
@Roo
Indeed. I read an article this morning about how the Democratic party is going to impeach him for conflict of interest. No government employee should receive monetary compensation in lieu of favorable policy policy, blah blah.
The irony. Clinton foundation gets hundreds of millions and that is OK? But if it is Trump we must take action!
Clnton had already addressed the issue of what the foundation would do in case she won, the donald not so much. and from the looks of it, he is not going to divest/separate as much as he promised.
So yes, I wait to see the pubs with love of country take on the pubs with love of power over this during the next couple of years.
"How do you know that he will not actually implement his ideas?"
You obviously know zero about the structure of the US Government, it's Constitutional framework for generating legislation by Congress (& not the President), as well as the SCOTUS..
"You obviously know zero about the structure of the US Government, it's Constitutional framework for generating legislation by Congress (& not the President), as well as the SCOTUS.."
All three of those branches are about to be controlled by the same party. Not many checks and balances anymore, then. They'll be able to do whatever fool thing they want and there's nothing we can do to stop them.
"So, according to you, it's perfectly OK if someone (a presidential candidate, say), threatens or plans reprehensible and unconstitutional actions. You will continue to support that candidate fully even after he is elected, and even when he is actually President, as long as he only threatens these actions. You should only start to complain when he actually starts to implement his ideas."
So according to you, it's perfectly OK if someone (a presidential candidate, say), commits criminal acts or takes money from foreign government. You will continue to support that candidate fully even after she is elected, and even when she is actually President, as long as she only threatens the other side. You should only start to complain when she is actually jailed.
"So according to you, it's perfectly OK if someone (a presidential candidate, say), commits criminal acts or takes money from foreign government."
You may think repeating those things over and over makes them true, but it doesn't. She was investigated repeatedly, and none of those fishing expeditions ever found anything. If Comey -- a man who worked harder than anyone to get Trump elected -- couldn't find anything, it's not there.
There is no 'thing.' Trump was talking about closing the southern border to stop illegal aliens pouring across it, as the Democrats and some Republicans desire. A reporter (in a noisy room) shouted a question about registering Muslims (the reporter injected this with no lead-up) and Trump seemed not to clearly understand what was asked. He did go on a bit about databases, but it's obvious he was still focused on the border issue, not Muslims. Yet the press decided they had their 'gotcha' moment and ran with their "Trump calls for registering all Muslims" lie. It's SOP for them when dealing with the hated Republicans.
And now here we are, apparently discussing this as if it were a real thing. Priceless.
I can always count on you to call these tards out John.
Again, it seems like the people who hate Trump take what he says literally but don't take him seriously. Whereas, we take him seriously but not literally.
I can't wait until he starts actually getting things done that help our country, from the office, and these little snowflakes (who have only known Obama's failed leadership most of their adult lives) actually get to see what a real President is supposed to do. I only hope there's a light bulb moment for these folks where they finally get it. Support your country and do things to help it.
SMH, at least we're inching towards proper leadership again, as long as Obama doesn't get us into a slugfest with Russia before leaving office.
<Upvoted you brother>
"I can't wait until he starts actually getting things done that help our country, from the office, and these little snowflakes (who have only known Obama's failed leadership most of their adult lives) "
Obama did pretty well considering he had the houses stacked against him, he was handed a administration that was massively overspending in a recession and managed to fly the crate straight & level. By contrast Shrub's administration with the backing of both houses blew out the federal budgets and presided over a global recession. I don't see any reason to expect the US + world to fare any better under the Trumpton administration with the backing of both houses.
I honestly hope I am wrong, but I suspect the little people who voted for Trumpton won't see their circumstances improve over the next term. I will be happily surprised if you can prove me wrong in 4 years time.
I might buy your argument that this was all just a media slur if one of Trump's surrogates hadn't also put forward Japanese internment as a model to follow:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/17/japanese-internment-is-precedent-for-national-muslim-registry-prominent-trump-backer-says/
Clearly, if this isn't part of his plan, his own people haven't gotten the memo.
> "...his own people haven't gotten the memo"
Orv, I looked up this Higbie fellow you refer to. He has NO actual connections to Trump at all, unless you count independent verbal support as a 'connection.' Yet you slyly suggest that Higbie is one of Trump's "people." Please stop being so dishonest with the facts, okay? This "guilt by supposed connection" thing is a standard tactic used by the dirtier political operators. Don't be one of them.
President-elect Donald Trump's team said today that he had never advocated for "any registry or system that tracks individuals based on their religion"
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-muslim-registry/story?id=43639946
A reporter from NBC actually invented the idea of a registry, suggesting it to Trump after a noisy rally. But Trumps' answer was instead about the wall never mentioning a registry. There is "speculation" that Trump did not hear the question correctly and thought it was about the wall.
If you read the above article, you'll see that Trump never, ever, directly states that he wants to implement a Muslim database - but - at the same time, he slides in some innuendo, never giving a firm "no", either. Why? Because it's Trump baiting the media again! Once again,the joke's on them, got wound up and fell for it.
Everybody enjoys believing the worst about the opposition candidate.
"Cough, cough, IBM..."
Whatever are you talking about?
Was that a WW II reference to the Germans use of an IBM machine to tabulate and track Jewish Citizens?
So while you inadvertently invoke Goodwin's law, you seem to conflate a couple of things.
But I digress. To put Trump comments in to perspective he was talking about maintaining a registry of the Muslim Refugees coming in the US and being able to track them while they are in the US.
Now back to your IBM reference. These refugees are supposedly vetted. That means that there is already a database of the individuals. (Cough , Cough, IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, etc. )
Trump's comments about denying access to Muslims from certain countries like Syria is that they could not be properly vetted. (ISIS captured major cities and gained the ability to create false identity documents)
Considering the recent events in Germany... his fears are warranted.
Of course what Mr. Trump doesn't understand is that there is already a large population of Muslims in the US that could be radicalized even though they were born here. (We've seen this already on multiple occasions.)
Now what I've stated pretty much sums up the facts and is fairly unbiased.
Trump tends to speak in Hyperbole and you have to take him with a grain of salt.
Unlike Obama, Trump will use Congress which means laws will be followed. Note that Obama's EOs when challenged fell flat in court.
This post has been deleted by its author
He spoke against climate change scientists and dismissed the notion, and now he has appointed an anti-science/climate change person to run that department. Looks like we should give him credit for delivering on what he said he'd do. If he said he'd build this database, let' presume he will, because he really is following through.
Of course Hurding Catz willl be with him. Like dissolves in alike - the average income of Team Trump fits the same bracket. They are also known to be members of the golfogarchy - the ruling caste in a golfocracy so all is going exactly as expected.
It is like in that old comedy sketch: "Floor of the roman senate. A senator speaking: "Fellow senators, the situation with the poor is critical, they have nothing to eat, they are starving". The whole senate raising 3 finger salute: "F*ck the poor".
The only ones to suffer at the end of the day will be the poor and the budget deficit (you think it is bad now, watch what happens after Trump cuts the taxes for the rich even further).
That "once great company" was always thoroughly unpleasant to work with, not least for its arrogance, barefaced hype, dishonesty and, let's face it, the frequently awful performance of eye-wateringly expensive products. After some years of encountering Oracle at different (saddened, poorer, wiser) clients I came to regard it as the tech equivalent of one of those parasitic wasps that lays eggs inside a host, which later hatch to eat it from within.
I don't blame anyone for resigning over a matter of principle, especially where the despicable man-child Trump is concerned.
Possibly Oracle are cosying up to the scumbag because, let's face it, a large chunk of the industry has got wise to Oracle and it may be that its board envisions a day when it will need all the help it can get.
I have a somewhat tangential view on this. Why the Americans, who are supposed to be true-blood democrats, unable to accept their own Election Verdict? Like it or not, they all now need to rally behind their President-elect, whatever maybe their personal dislike towards Trump. These anti-Trump Americans still unable to reconcile with the Election Verdict are sending out a very bad message to other democracies.
I also see lot of parallels between Trump's Win and Mod's win here in India. Here too, many are yet to reconcile with his victory but as someone affirming faith in democracy, atleast I shall extend to my support to my PM
Supporting? Never. Accepting the democratic process that got them there? Law.
Even Obama is trying to cast doubt upon the process (the very same process that let him stay in power for 8 horrible, cancerous years).
Don't like Trump? Say so.
Don't like the process that allowed we the people to elect him? Move to another country snowflake, this is how democracy works. Stop rioting in our streets, cause come January 20th, that shit will be dealt with by actually enforcing the law (something that really hasn't been happening over the last 8 years) and you definitely aren't going to like that.
"Don't like the process that allowed we the people to elect him? Move to another country snowflake, this is how democracy works."
Pfft. Rich from a side that spent eight years trying to portray Obama as an illegitimate president. Trump RAN on the idea that Obama wasn't born in the US and therefore wasn't elected legitimately. Even now, as he's about to leave office, Republicans are still trying to "debunk" his birth certificate. They just can't let go.
> "Please explain."
No problem. You say Hillary won the pop vote and is therefore at least morally the winner, right? Wrong, because your argument rests on flawed premises.
It's known that Hillary's high total comes from just a handful of states with large urban populations. Take away just California and she loses the pop vote too. Trump saw that he wasn't likely to win electorally in CA or NY, so he concentrated on the rest of the country instead. If the contest had been one big poll, Trump would have spent time in those states, not only picking up plenty of votes directly, but also because Republicans there would come out in greater numbers due to their presidential votes actually meaning something, which wasn't true this time.
So an unknown but substantial number of Trump votes would appear, possibly switching the popular vote. I know you would insist that it's too small a change, but I say it would be plenty big. The point is, you can't show what really would have happened, so your popular vote hobby horse doesn't really exist.
Sorry, but that's reality. You keep on cuddling that belief tho. I guess it's all you got.