The Fake News Lie that makes Trump look like a Boy Scout in compariso

[Pete at Home]

Has anyone looked into the stats behind the claim that Right Wing White Extremists are responsible for more murders since 9/11 than Muslim terrorists?

Every time I hear that lie parrotted, I almost wish I'd voted for Trump.

They define the right wing right extremist so broadly that it includes most white males in the USA, and redefine Muslim terrorist so restrictively that it excludes most clear acts of terrorism carried out by Muslims in the name of Islam.  Basically it's apologetics for ISIS and blood libel against American Christians.

[Pete at Home]

The highly restrictive redefinition of Muslim terrorism for the survey excludes (among others) the Orlando nightclub shooter, the Tampa airport shooter, the Burlington Mall shooter (who sucks up to DAESH's cult leader Bagdadi on social media), the Boston Marthon bombing, the Beltway sniper murders, the 2006 Denver Safeway shooting in the name of Allah, a california college stabbing where the attacker actually carried an DAESH flag and carried a manifesto planning for DAESH-style beheadings, or Al-Zahrani's murders in retaliation for killing of Muslims around the world.

The broad definition of right wing for the study incorporates all killings by three entirely different groups of people--

 Christian fundamentalists, including abortion bombers,

 States Rights advocates including militias

 Racist groups, including the KKK.

Now if we went back to 1885, I would wholeheartedly agree that the KKK at that time posed a greater threat to the USA and to innocent people everywhere than Muslim terrorists ever have within the United States.  But to suggest that's the case today is a death-dealing lie. 

False and dubious statements by the Trump admin that everyone's been screaming about, i.e. the number of people at the Inauguration, and the number of undocumented citizens who voted in the election, look quite innocent in comparison.

[TheDrake]

the whole debate sound to my ears:

"Do you think you'll be more likely to be struck by lightning, or eaten by a shark?"

[Pete at Home]

the whole debate sound to my ears:

"Do you think you'll be more likely to be struck by lightning, or eaten by a shark?"

If someone lies about those stats, as part of an argument against requiring tall buildings to be grounded against lightning, it's still a death-dealing lie.

[Seriati]

I'm finding today's Fake News polooza about Session's contacts with Russia to be the most troubling of the day.  Could it be a more obvious ploy to try and give weight to the "Russian contacts" myth by forcing the appointment of an uncontrollable Special Prosecutor.  There's even articles written trying to draw a false equivalence that because he called for Lynch to recuse herself after a private meeting with her former boss and husband of someone she was actively investigating, that its the same thing as meetings he had in his role as a Senator with the Russian diplomat. 

I do find your point on this interesting, though I see it more as selling a false meme.  There's no legitimate reason to ascribe the KKK to right wing extremists when the vast majority of its members have been Democrats and there's no real statistical difference between white Democrats and white Republicans when it comes to being racists (there is a massive difference if you include forms of racism other than white racism against blacks). 

[TheDrake]

The numbers included in these "comparisons" are psuedo-scientific in the first place. They occur with insufficient frequency to be meaningful in a statistical sense. The ability to correlate to any definition, no matter how you assign "muslim, hate group, right-wing", simply isn't there.

If you want to say who is a threat, you'd have to go deeper in the pipeline and look at things like "number of people recruited per year", "number living in the US", "number expressing the desire to kill" - not to mention including "number of people caught before carrying out threat".

Anybody using "kill" numbers alone to support ANY conclusion is dangerously wrong.

[Wayward Son]

The highly restrictive redefinition of Muslim terrorism for the survey excludes (among others) the Orlando nightclub shooter, the Tampa airport shooter, the Burlington Mall shooter (who sucks up to DAESH's cult leader Bagdadi on social media), the Boston Marthon bombing, the Beltway sniper murders, the 2006 Denver Safeway shooting in the name of Allah, a california college stabbing where the attacker actually carried an DAESH flag and carried a manifesto planning for DAESH-style beheadings, or Al-Zahrani's murders in retaliation for killing of Muslims around the world.

Pete, which survey are you referring to?

[NobleHunter]

I'm finding today's Fake News polooza about Session's contacts with Russia to be the most troubling of the day.  Could it be a more obvious ploy to try and give weight to the "Russian contacts" myth by forcing the appointment of an uncontrollable Special Prosecutor.  There's even articles written trying to draw a false equivalence that because he called for Lynch to recuse herself after a private meeting with her former boss and husband of someone she was actively investigating, that its the same thing as meetings he had in his role as a Senator with the Russian diplomat. 

They need to wash out the taste of the Fake News about Trump's "Presidential" speech.

[Pete at Home]

The highly restrictive redefinition of Muslim terrorism for the survey excludes (among others) the Orlando nightclub shooter, the Tampa airport shooter, the Burlington Mall shooter (who sucks up to DAESH's cult leader Bagdadi on social media), the Boston Marthon bombing, the Beltway sniper murders, the 2006 Denver Safeway shooting in the name of Allah, a california college stabbing where the attacker actually carried an DAESH flag and carried a manifesto planning for DAESH-style beheadings, or Al-Zahrani's murders in retaliation for killing of Muslims around the world.

Pete, which survey are you referring to?

I meant study, not survey.

I mean this crap:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/24/majority-of-fatal-attacks-on-us-soil-carried-out-b/

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/12/right-wing-extremists-militants-bigger-threat-america-isis-jihadists-422743.html

They define right wing extremist militant in a way that's so broad it fits 10-20% of the American public, and define "jihadis" in a way that's more restrictive than ISIS itself defines it.

[scifibum]

The news stories you linked to rely on information from this organization:

https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-america/what-threat-united-states-today/

From what I can tell, they are first isolating events that meet a certain definition of terrorist attack, and then grouping them.

I don't see a big problem here. 

1) The stories you linked to came out before Orlando.  As you can see from my link above, Orlando is not excluded from the comparison.  (But note, NOTHING after Orlando is included.)

2) Tampa and Burlington might be included at some point.  There's no evidence that they have been deliberately excluded; they are more recent than the most recent events that were included.

3) Boston Marathon IS included

4) No idea why you think Safeway should be included as a jihadist killing, and I don't think Al-Zahrani fits either.

On the other hand, Faisal Mohammad (UC Mercer stabber) probably should have been included.  And I'm not sure DC sniper should have been excluded - although his motives seem muddled enough that I am not sure he should have been included either. 

But since Orlando and Boston are included and a couple of other exclusions might be missing only because they are the most recent events, I think you've overstated the case quite a bit.

Now, if someone said "We must mount an anti-right-wing terrorism task force to combat the rising dangers of right wing extremists!!!" your point about lumping various attacks under the label "right wing extremist attacks" might carry more weight.  But that's not happening.  This is a response to hysteria about Islamist terrorism, not an attempt to whip up fear about right wing terror.

[scifibum]

Oops, I missed something.  There is one attack after Orlando included.  It's the left wing extremist attack, the 2016 Dallas police shooting.

[scifibum]

It's actually interesting to juxtapose how the existence of Islamist terrorists affects how people feel about Muslims with how the existence of right wing terrorists affects how people feel about the American right.

Does anyone at all conflate "American Christian" with "terrorist"?  How about "Muslim" with "terrorist"?

I'm just not seeing the blood libel thing, Pete.  As a matter of fact, of all the many times you've used that term, I've never thought it made sense, but especially not here.  Not only is that not the effect of the comparison, it has nothing to do with the intent. 

The intent of the comparison is to put the danger of Islamist terror attacks into perspective, because of the hyperbolic focus of politicians, news media, and Americans in general on that specific danger. 

Drake, you're right that focusing on the number of deaths could be misleading.  If you, for instance, want to know how much we need to spend on anti-terrorism measures and where to allocate those resources, you need a much more detailed picture. 

But if the political question in the air is how much danger are you in from Islamist terrorism if things stay about the same relative to the past 10 years, then it's the right metric.  But the number by itself also needs context/perspective. 

We could also compare it to any number of much more likely causes of death.  But comparing it to other terrorist killings is pretty interesting and responsive to misleading rhetoric about the supposedly unique dangers of Islamic beliefs in relation to terrorism.

[TheDeamon]

It's actually interesting to juxtapose how the existence of Islamist terrorists affects how people feel about Muslims with how the existence of right wing terrorists affects how people feel about the American right.

Does anyone at all conflate "American Christian" with "terrorist"?  How about "Muslim" with "terrorist"?

I'm just not seeing the blood libel thing, Pete.  As a matter of fact, of all the many times you've used that term, I've never thought it made sense, but especially not here.  Not only is that not the effect of the comparison, it has nothing to do with the intent. 

The intent of the comparison is to put the danger of Islamist terror attacks into perspective, because of the hyperbolic focus of politicians, news media, and Americans in general on that specific danger.

However, as a matter of perspective. Part of the problem is "Define right wing extremist" in the American Population at large. Some definitions people "on the left" would like to use, would include upwords of a third of the US Population. Bearing in mind that that there over 330 Million people living in the United States, that makes for over 100 Million "rabid right wingers" compared to what? 8 million Muslims living in the United States.

The the 8 Million Muslim population is even close to being able to compete with the death toll that the "rabid right winger" population pool is producing tends to outsize "the threat" from the Islamic end of things.

It's one of those lies, damned lies, and statistics things. While Statistically speaking, I may be more likely to be attacked/killed by a left or right wing political nutjob with something closely resembling my national/religious identity. The odds of my(or somebody else) being attacked by any given "political nutjob" within that population is pretty low.

Meanwhile, the odds of any particular "Muslim/Islamic Nutjob" deciding to go after me, or somebody else, is much, much higher.

[Pete at Home]

Oops, I missed something.  There is one attack after Orlando included.  It's the left wing extremist attack, the 2016 Dallas police shooting.

And it's being counted as a right wing white extremist attack.  While Orlando isn't counted.   And you don't find that fishy?

[Pete at Home]

It's actually interesting to juxtapose how the existence of Islamist terrorists affects how people feel about Muslims with how the existence of right wing terrorists affects how people feel about the American right.

Does anyone at all conflate "American Christian" with "terrorist"?  How about "Muslim" with "terrorist"?

I'm just not seeing the blood libel thing, Pete.  As a matter of fact, of all the many times you've used that term, I've never thought it made sense, but especially not here.  Not only is that not the effect of the comparison, it has nothing to do with the intent. 

Blood libel = a lie defaming a broad group of people in a manner likely to inspire fear and murder.  For example, when Trump said that all Mexican illegal immigrants were rapists, that was blood libel.  It's a lie likely to get someone in the target group killed.

Does anyone at all conflate "American Christian" with "terrorist"?

That's how the study is being bandied around facebook, SciFi.  That White Christians are more dangerous than Jihadis.  Not than Muslims.  Than Jihadis.

The intent of the comparison is to put the danger of Islamist terror attacks into perspective

It's about putting it into a false perspective, and also about exacerbating the hatred of blue America for red America.  This sort of crap is why Trump got elected, and why he can get away with all of his little lies in the face of the huge hateful whoppers put out by the establishment.

"'But if the political question in the air is how much danger are you in from Islamist terrorism"

That's a ridiculous straw man, SciFi.  Come on.  Please point me to where on Fox News or even Breitbart News that anyone is saying that we need to be afraid to go out on the street because some jihadi will murder us?

The motive for blocking immigration from certain Muslim countries is the assumption that such immigrants are more likely than the average American to commit certain crimes.  Not that most murders in the USA are being committed by Muslims.  If you're going to respond to that honestly, then that's the question you need to address.  Anything else is dishonesty.  Sad to say, social science in the media seems increasingly a mere propaganda tool for duping the public.  There's no desire to inform here.

[cherrypoptart]

The threat of Muslim terrorists like those in al-Qaeda and ISIS would seem to be much greater than that of right wing racists simply because al-Qaeda and ISIS would use weapons of mass destruction like a dirty bomb, an actual nuke if they could get it, and chemical and biological weapons. I doubt the right wing racists are looking to engage in terror on that scale. Not that he was necessarily a right wing racist, but even the terrorist anti-government attack of Timothy McVeigh doesn't compare in scale to what the Islamic terrorists want to carry out. Judging the threat based only on what they have been able to accomplish so far and using that as the basis to assign resources to stop future attacks could be a tremendously fatal mistake. A right wing terrorist group probably could have carried out an attack like 9-11 but that's just not what they want to do. The Islamic terrorists are an entirely different ballgame, so gauging the threat in the way this story tries to doesn't seem to be realistic not only because of the points Pete is bringing up, but even more so because the intent for thousands or perhaps even millions of casualties is not there for the white racists but it is for the Islamists.

[Pete at Home]

I think you're mistaken on white racists being above WMDs.  Most of them, certainly, and I agree that there's obviously more of a clear and present danger from ISIS and Al Qaeda.  But emphasis on *present*.  I'm quite sure the 1880s KKK would have used WMDs if they had them available, and suspect there are a few individuals today who still would.  And if Obama had risen to the bait in Oregon, we might have seen right wing groups that angry.  Remember OK city was a response to Ruby Ridge and Waco.

[scifibum]

Yeah, Timothy McVeigh used the biggest weapon he could.

Pete:

Blood libel = a lie defaming a broad group of people in a manner likely to inspire fear and murder.  For example, when Trump said that all Mexican illegal immigrants were rapists, that was blood libel.  It's a lie likely to get someone in the target group killed.

Yeah, I know how you mean it.  But it's not true.  The comparison you are referencing is not going to get anyone murdered.

That's how the study is being bandied around facebook, SciFi.  That White Christians are more dangerous than Jihadis.  Not than Muslims.  Than Jihadis.

You're ignoring the reason that this is going around Facebook, and you're outright denying that reason here:

"'But if the political question in the air is how much danger are you in from Islamist terrorism"

That's a ridiculous straw man, SciFi.  Come on.  Please point me to where on Fox News or even Breitbart News that anyone is saying that we need to be afraid to go out on the street because some jihadi will murder us?

Haven't you been listening to Donald Trump?  He literally claims that we have to stop admitting Syrian refugees right now because some of the ones that are currently getting through the vetting process are going to kill us.  He is scapegoating and fear mongering, and telling blatant lies about how things currently work and the level of danger involved. 

As I said, the comparison is in RESPONSE to fear mongering about Muslim immigrants and refugees and the danger they pose to Americans.  It is NOT intended to stir up fear and violence against right wing Americans.   I find your belief otherwise frankly paranoid.

[Pete at Home]

Yeah, Timothy McVeigh used the biggest weapon he could.

Pete:

Blood libel = a lie defaming a broad group of people in a manner likely to inspire fear and murder.  For example, when Trump said that all Mexican illegal immigrants were rapists, that was blood libel.  It's a lie likely to get someone in the target group killed.

Yeah, I know how you mean it.  But it's not true.  The comparison you are referencing is not going to get anyone murdered.

That's how the study is being bandied around facebook, SciFi.  That White Christians are more dangerous than Jihadis.  Not than Muslims.  Than Jihadis.

You're ignoring the reason that this is going around Facebook, and you're outright denying that reason here:

"'But if the political question in the air is how much danger are you in from Islamist terrorism"

That's a ridiculous straw man, SciFi.  Come on.  Please point me to where on Fox News or even Breitbart News that anyone is saying that we need to be afraid to go out on the street because some jihadi will murder us?

Haven't you been listening to Donald Trump?  He literally claims that we have to stop admitting Syrian refugees right now because some of the ones that are currently getting through the vetting process are going to kill us.

Why don't you provide a quote where you show that Trump's saying that the average joe in the street will face direct threat from Syrian refugees?

I think he's concerned that some will commit acts of terror, drive vans into crowds, etc.  More of the same.  I don't see anything to suggest that they are going to wipe out significant chunks of the population.  You may think that his position is unreasonable, but your protrayal is simply inacurate.

  He is scapegoating and fear mongering,

Scapegoating how?  You may be right; I'm not being rhetorical.  Maybe you've heard something I haven't.  Scapegoating means blaming one person or group for another group's actions.  Syrian refugees have murdered the Christian and Yazidi refugees right in the camps, so I don't think it's scapegoating to suggest that there are some bad seeds among them.  Particularly since Obama's idea of vetting brought in the Syrians folks least in danger and most likely to cause danger -- mostly single straight Muslims of military age.  Only 0.5% Christians and Yazidis.

and telling blatant lies about how things currently work and the level of danger involved. 

He's hardly alone there, as Merkel and the Swedes have been lying in the other direction.  People prefer folks that exaggerate a threat to those that sweep murders and mass rapes under the rug, and call jihadi mass murders mere "workplace incidents."  Trump's lies are no more inflammatory or toxic than those of say, Black Lives Matter.  You don't see anyone trying to put BLM into "perspective" and point out that the actual percentage of black people getting murdered by police officers is rather small compared to other causes of death. 

It seems a little insensitive and brain-dead to suppose that people should regard terrorism-related deaths dispassionately.

 

I find your belief otherwise frankly paranoid.

Which "belief" is that?  So far you haven't engaged any of my actual beliefs.

Any moron, if he's honest with himself, knows that the primary danger of terrorism isn't loss of life but demoralization.  Liberals understood this in the 1990s when we lobbied for hate crime legislation.  Why play stupid about it now and pretend that it's about statistical death when you cannot produce a single frakking quote, even from Trump, to that effect?  Trump says enough dumb stuff on his own; you don't have to go making stuff up.

You're ignoring the reason that this is going around Facebook, and you're outright denying that reason here:

I'm denying it because I haven't seen it.  And you give the impression that you haven't actually seen it either, when you resort to eye-rolling and emperor's New Clothes arguments rather than just frakking providing the quote that I asked for.

[Wayward Son]

Particularly since Obama's idea of vetting brought in the Syrians folks least in danger and most likely to cause danger -- mostly single straight Muslims of military age.

Could you provide a source for that statement, Pete.  Because it contradicts everything I have heard about refugees (that only about 2 percent are males of "military age," and a majority are women and children).

Either what you've heard, or what I've heard, is an outright lie.

[Pete at Home]

Particularly since Obama's idea of vetting brought in the Syrians folks least in danger and most likely to cause danger -- mostly single straight Muslims of military age.

Could you provide a source for that statement, Pete.  Because it contradicts everything I have heard about refugees (that only about 2 percent are males of "military age," and a majority are women and children).

Either what you've heard, or what I've heard, is an outright lie.

I'll look for it.  Never had that questioned in numerous conversations and fora and I think I cited the link... see if I can find it again.  Where on earth did you hear that only "2%" are males 16-35, who make up the supermajority of refugees in Europe?  Or that a "majority" are women and children?  That describes current Canadian immigration policy.  Not, to my knowledge, Obama's.

[Pete at Home]

The issue on the table is who had Obama committed the US to accepting this year, and AFAIK those were mostly male straight and Muslim of military age.  The refugees that Obama had promised to take from Australia, for example. 

As for the religious numbers, the net is replete with that.

So Far: Syrian Refugees in U.S. Include 2,098 Muslims, 53 Christians
www.cnsnews.com/news/.../syrian-christians-are-greatest-peril-least-likely-be-admitted
Nov 17, 2015 - Fleeing persecution at the hands of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other jihadist groups, Syrian Christians generally avoid ... Of 2,184 Syrian refugees admitted into the U.S. since the Syrian civil war erupted in ... The remaining 33 include 1 Yazidi, 8 Jehovah Witnesses, 2 Baha'i, 6 Zoroastrians, ...
Record 499 Syrian Refugees Admitted to US So Far in May Includes ...
www.cnsnews.com/.../may-brings-biggest-monthly-number-syrian-refugee-arrivals-c...
May 23, 2016 - The Obama administration has admitted 499 Syrian refugees so far this ... Christians refugees who fled from ISIS fighters who overran Assyrian villages in Hassakeh in ... back against allowing Syrian refugees to settle in their states, citing ... by ISIS against Christians, Yazidis and other minorities in the areas ...
US State Department Denies Visas for Persecuted Assyrian Christians
https://shariaunveiled.wordpress.com/.../u-s-state-department-denies-visas-for-persecut...
Jul 11, 2015 - “Christians, Yazidis, Mandeans and others were targeted for destruction, ... Assyrian Christians persecuted by Radical Muslims ... has refused to resettle affected Assyrian Christians in the United States. ... inform Americans of the persecution directed by ISIS against Christians. ..... Enter your comment here.
No room in America for Christian refugees | TheHill
thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/.../228670-no-room-in-america-for-christian-refugee...
Jan 7, 2015 - America is about to accept 9000 Syrian Muslims, refugees of the brutal war ... Obama no more wants the Middle East's Christian refugees than Roosevelt wanted ... to the Middle East's Christians fleeing the brutality of ISIS and Al Qaeda. ... police are refusing to go public about crimes involving refugees and ...

NPR and a number of other sources are collaborating with this assisted genocide by pretending that Obama's just taking the refugees that are there.  Fact is that there are refugee camps full of Christians and Yazidis in Greece and in Kurdistan; Obama's taking them from other places where they are overwhelmingly muslim males 16-35 because the refugees themselves have murdered the Christians and Yazidis among them.  That I know I've cited here.

Where are you getting that most of Obama's current Syrian and Iraqi refugees are women and children?

I've argued that we do what Canada did in 2015: allow families women and young children, and among the males give highest priority to those who are at the highest risk and that pose the lowest risk of sympathy to ISIS: Yazidi, gay, elderly, Christian, Sabean, Alawite, Shia, Kurdish, and Sunni, in that order.

[Wayward Son]

Particularly since Obama's idea of vetting brought in the Syrians folks least in danger and most likely to cause danger -- mostly single straight Muslims of military age.

Could you provide a source for that statement, Pete.  Because it contradicts everything I have heard about refugees (that only about 2 percent are males of "military age," and a majority are women and children).

Either what you've heard, or what I've heard, is an outright lie.

I'll look for it.  Never had that questioned in numerous conversations and fora and I think I cited the link... see if I can find it again.  Where on earth did you hear that only "2%" are males 16-35, who make up the supermajority of refugees in Europe?  Or that a "majority" are women and children?  That describes current Canadian immigration policy.  Not, to my knowledge, Obama's.

To make it clear, we're talking about the majority of refugees let into this country (USA) under Obama, not refugees in Europe.  After all, you said, "Obama's idea of vetting brought in the Syrians folks least in danger and most likely to cause danger -- mostly single straight Muslims of military age."

I believe I heard the 2% figure on NPR, something about males that could be considered the type that could become terrorists.  I'm thinking it was from a spokesperson for the vetting process, IIRC.  Unfortunately, I don't recall the exact source.

The Boston Globe states:

Of the 15,479 Syrian refugees admitted to the United States during 2016, about 48 percent were boys and girls under the age of 14, while another 25 percent were girls over the age of 14 or women, according to data from the US Department of State’s Refugee Processing Center.

The remaining 27 percent of Syrian refugees were males 14 or older.

This would include old men over the age of 35, of course.

PRI (from August of last year) states:

Of the more than 8,000 Syrian refugees admitted to the country so far [in 2016?], 78 percent are women or children, according figures released by the State Department this month. Some 58 percent are children, with a roughly even split between girls and boys.

I have also heard repeatedly that our vetting process is quite extensive.  I've always wondered exactly what Trump wanted to do to make the process better, but Trump never has been one for minor details like telling how he's going to do something. 

So it appears we are (or, should I say, were ) taking in mostly women and children.

[scifibum]

Pete:

Why don't you provide a quote where you show that Trump's saying that the average joe in the street will face direct threat from Syrian refugees?

Because that's a completely arbitrary challenge.

But if you doubt the scale of his fearmongering, here's an example where he explains that continuing the Obama administration's policies is "committing suicide" as a nation:

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-july-24-2016-n615706

Here's a tweet from DJT about the TRO on his immigration order:

Our legal system is broken! "77% of refugees allowed into U.S. since travel reprieve hail from seven suspect countries." (WT)  SO DANGEROUS!

He is obviously trying to scare people, and make them fear for their own safety.  He is not expecting people to use logic and math to understand this.  Logic would involve understanding the current vetting procedures and evaluating their success and whether there are any gaps.  Math and logic would confirm that a high proportion of refugees would be expected to come from bad and scary places. 

For my part, I don't think Trump understands these things.  I think he's being prodded and flattered by Bannon and others who are smarter than he is.  But that doesn't mean his tactics get a pass.  And it doesn't mean that his fear mongering should go without a response. 

Scapegoating how?  You may be right; I'm not being rhetorical.

He has used attacks that were NOT performed by classes of people who would be affected by his immigration order as examples of why his immigration order is urgent and correctly targeted.   He is blaming the wrong people for bad things that have been done in order to justify his actions again them. 

Syrian refugees have murdered the Christian and Yazidi refugees right in the camps, so I don't think it's scapegoating to suggest that there are some bad seeds among them. 

No one has suggested that there aren't bad seeds among them. 

There is an extremely thorough and prolonged vetting process before the refugees are allowed to come here.  Trump consistently pretends (or indulges the delusion) that there is no vetting, and that Obama ignored the danger.  That's a big chunk of the justification for one of his campaign planks, and his immigration orders.  He hasn't identified any specific failing of the existing system - in court his lawyers couldn't provide a shred of evidence for the urgency of his ban to get the TRO overturned - he is just putting on theater to convince the dumbest of his followers that he's going to fulfill his misguided campaign promises. 

That dangerous refugees exist in camps outside the US does not support Trump's claim that we aren't doing enough to make sure they don't come here.  He hasn't bothered to try to support that claim. 

You don't see anyone trying to put BLM into "perspective" and point out that the actual percentage of black people getting murdered by police officers is rather small compared to other causes of death. 

I sure do.  I see constant efforts to misrepresent and undermine BLM using just that kind of argument.  All in an effort to distract from the uncomfortable reality that racism across many institutions allows unjustified killings to go unpunished.

Why play stupid about it now and pretend that it's about statistical death when you cannot produce a single frakking quote, even from Trump, to that effect?  Trump says enough dumb stuff on his own; you don't have to go making stuff up.

You're getting ahead of yourself.  Me not jumping to meet your arbitrary demands doesn't demonstrate a thing, Pete. 

Oops, I missed something.  There is one attack after Orlando included.  It's the left wing extremist attack, the 2016 Dallas police shooting.

And it's being counted as a right wing white extremist attack.  While Orlando isn't counted.   And you don't find that fishy?

OMG, Pete.  ORLANDO IS COUNTED.  I already told you that. 

The news stories that don't mention Orlando came out WAY BEFORE ORLANDO.  The source they used has BEEN UPDATED.  WITH ORLANDO.

The irony that you would attack me and suggest I'm making stuff up when you're too lazy to read my posts in detail and follow links and reconsider your hasty conclusions...

You're the reason this site sucks now.

[scifibum]

Pete, your point about demoralization would hold a little water if Trump's immigration order was justified.  But it wasn't.  We are already vetting people, and he's not preventing demoralizing attacks with his order. 

[Seriati]

But if you doubt the scale of his fearmongering, here's an example where he explains that continuing the Obama administration's policies is "committing suicide" as a nation:

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-july-24-2016-n615706

What part of that strikes you as fear mongering?  Just the fact that he used the word "suicide"?  That's pathetic.  We have real examples of fear mongering everywhere, using descriptive language doesn't get there.  Particularly not in a quote where he references the Constitution at least four times.  It's called context.  Or do you think Rachel Maddow was "fear mongering" when she referred to "suicide" later in the same transcript?

Here's a tweet from DJT about the TRO on his immigration order:

Our legal system is broken! "77% of refugees allowed into U.S. since travel reprieve hail from seven suspect countries." (WT)  SO DANGEROUS!

He is obviously trying to scare people, and make them fear for their own safety.  He is not expecting people to use logic and math to understand this.  Logic would involve understanding the current vetting procedures and evaluating their success and whether there are any gaps.  Math and logic would confirm that a high proportion of refugees would be expected to come from bad and scary places.

You're not using logic or math either.  You seem to believe that there is some amount of terrorism we should agree to accept as a trade off for bringing in refugees.  The facts on the ground are that if you bring in enough refugees you will be brining in a future terrorist.  It's not a scare tactic to acknowledge that and address it.

So what is your acceptable incidence rate for Americans killed by refugees?  Is it one American dead per 1000 refugees admitted, or is it greater or lower?

For my part, I don't think Trump understands these things.  I think he's being prodded and flattered by Bannon and others who are smarter than he is.

I don't understand this fascination by the left to believe that prominent Republicans are dumb and its their advisers that control everything.  What do you get out of it?  Is it just the ability to make accusations against shadowy manipulators who you know don't have a platform to respond, or it something else?

But that doesn't mean his tactics get a pass.  And it doesn't mean that his fear mongering should go without a response.

Well then, acknowledge the problem with your position and make a case.  What number of American citizens being killed by terrorism is reasonable per 1000 refugees? 

There is an extremely thorough and prolonged vetting process before the refugees are allowed to come here.  Trump consistently pretends (or indulges the delusion) that there is no vetting, and that Obama ignored the danger.  That's a big chunk of the justification for one of his campaign planks, and his immigration orders.  He hasn't identified any specific failing of the existing system - in court his lawyers couldn't provide a shred of evidence for the urgency of his ban to get the TRO overturned - he is just putting on theater to convince the dumbest of his followers that he's going to fulfill his misguided campaign promises.

You should really do more research into the news, not just what's spoon fed to you.  He has specifically stated that the original 7 countries were selected and identified because they had been identified as having their records compromised.  Iraq was removed in the latest order specifically because the administration was assured their records could be trusted.

How "extremely thorough" can vetting be, if the records of the region from whence the refugees came are compromised?  Since you seem to have a strong opinion that this was "extremely through" vetting, how was it accomplished?  Will you represent, here and now, that it can't have been manipulated and that no one could easily have broken it?  Did it include say probing questions that might determine radicalized positions, and/or vetting of social media accounts or contacts?

I'm going to posit, that you have no idea what it entailed, and that most likely you wouldn't agree to use it to evaluate a person who you'd have to trust with your life.

You don't see anyone trying to put BLM into "perspective" and point out that the actual percentage of black people getting murdered by police officers is rather small compared to other causes of death. 

I sure do.  I see constant efforts to misrepresent and undermine BLM using just that kind of argument.  All in an effort to distract from the uncomfortable reality that racism across many institutions allows unjustified killings to go unpunished.

Out of curiosity, how does it "misrepresent" BLM to point out that death by cop is far less likely and far more avoidable than death by gang member?  And that increased police presence is one of the few things that can lead to real decreases in that second point?

I'm not aware that "racism" lets any unjustified killings go unpunished.  Please prove this point with a real example.

Why play stupid about it now and pretend that it's about statistical death when you cannot produce a single frakking quote, even from Trump, to that effect?  Trump says enough dumb stuff on his own; you don't have to go making stuff up.

You're getting ahead of yourself.  Me not jumping to meet your arbitrary demands doesn't demonstrate a thing, Pete.

It kind of demonstrates you're arguing with strawmen instead of real arguments.

You're the reason this site sucks now.

Pete's been grumpy lately, but that's a bit much.

[Pete at Home]

To make it clear, we're talking about the majority of refugees let into this country (USA) under Obama, not refugees in Europe.  After all, you said, "Obama's idea of vetting brought in the Syrians folks least in danger and most likely to cause danger -- mostly single straight Muslims of military age."

To be clear -- I am not speaking about the refugees who actually entered under Obama. I am talking about the sudden burst of Syian and Iraqi refugees that a Obama approved to have admitted this year when Obama would not have to deal with the consequences. Including the deal with Australia that Obama just torpedoed.

Obama if anything was excessively strict with immigration until 2016 when he ordered certain safeguards shut off.

Pray tell how could an entire camp in Australia was carefully vetted when Obama had agreed to take them all?

Everyy president since Reagan has started with a crackdown on immigrants and I see nothing in Trump's order that was crueler or less reasonable than what Obama did.  At least Trump isn't torturing folks to make them sign away their right to counsel in fighting deportation orders. 

[Deletes response to Sci Fi's personal attacks since someone needs to take the higher ground here]

I've been here longer than youhave, Sci Fi, and I'm a lot nicer now than when you arrived.  I have changed for the better while you have changed for the worse.

Whether or not Trump's actions were reasonable depends on facts not in evidence.  If Wayward is correct that most of the Iraqi and Syrian refugees are women and children, that would look bad for Trump. But if I'm right that most of the Syrian refugees that Obama vetted to enter 2017 are Muslim males 16-35 years old, then Trump is clearly right to order a halt and revision.

The post step down surge does give rise to reasonable suspicion.

[Pete at Home]

I sure do.  I see constant efforts to misrepresent and undermine BLM using just that kind of argument.  All in an effort to distract from the uncomfortable reality that racism across many institutions allows unjustified killings to go unpunished

Nicely distinguished by changing the point to "unpunished." good point.  The Minnesota case does show just that.  To be fair, though, it's not entirely misrepresentation when BLM doestnt consistently and clearly communicate that point.  It was BLM that talked Seattle from implementing body cams. 

But your distinction doesn't address the issue of terrorism hurting more than those physically harmed. And that's why we have particular laws against hate crimes.

[Pete at Home]

But comparing it to other terrorist killings is pretty interesting and responsive to misleading rhetoric about the supposedly unique dangers of Islamic beliefs in relation to terrorism.

Of course!  It certainly would be interesting and responsive if it was done honestly, accurately, and without intent to mislead.  I would love to see actual comparisons of Islamist violence with violence associated with any other coherent group.  Say "anti-abortion," or "pro-gun."  Or even just "Christian" if you are consistent with the rules about motivation. 

But this study is conflating black left-wing violence with what's being characterized as white right wing Christian violence.  While violence by muslims in the name of Islam is being chopped down by all sorts of conceivable argument. 

The fact that it's interesting and relevant is an aggravating factor when you pass off a propagandistic hatchet job as accurate science.

You guys take a mass murder by a black BLM sympathist, and then use those deaths to create stats to make left-wingers even more fearful of and more likely to murder white people.  That would be like if some right wing researcher took the KKK bombing of a mosque and counted it as "Muslim violence."  The fact that it's "interesting" and "relevant" does not change the fact that it's a dirty lie, SciFi.  A blood libel.  And when you respond to me with personal attacks, this doesn't improve your case.

[Pete at Home]

Here's an "interesting and relevant" fact: During Obama's second term, Pew research data shows that he steadily decreased the number of criminal deportations while increasing the number of non-criminal deportations.  See http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/31/u-s-immigrant-deportations-declined-in-2014-but-remain-near-record-high/

I know that a former employer of mine was deported in 2014.  He only became "illegal" because his former immigration attorney, Reza Athari, botched his work and didn't forward mail when my employer changed attorneys.  (Athari personally owns the building the immigration courthouse rents out, and there seems to be some difficulty in getting the court to recognize new attorneys when a client fires Athari ...)


Amid scifi's insults and emperors new clothes arguments, I missed Wayward's response:

Particularly since Obama's idea of vetting brought in the Syrians folks least in danger and most likely to cause danger -- mostly single straight Muslims of military age.

Could you provide a source for that statement, Pete.  Because it contradicts everything I have heard about refugees (that only about 2 percent are males of "military age," and a majority are women and children).

Either what you've heard, or what I've heard, is an outright lie.

I'll look for it.  Never had that questioned in numerous conversations and fora and I think I cited the link... see if I can find it again.  Where on earth did you hear that only "2%" are males 16-35, who make up the supermajority of refugees in Europe?  Or that a "majority" are women and children?  That describes current Canadian immigration policy.  Not, to my knowledge, Obama's.

To make it clear, we're talking about the majority of refugees let into this country (USA) under Obama, not refugees in Europe.  After all, you said, "Obama's idea of vetting brought in the Syrians folks least in danger and most likely to cause danger -- mostly single straight Muslims of military age."

I believe I heard the 2% figure on NPR, something about males that could be considered the type that could become terrorists.  I'm thinking it was from a spokesperson for the vetting process, IIRC.  Unfortunately, I don't recall the exact source.

The Boston Globe states:

Of the 15,479 Syrian refugees admitted to the United States during 2016, about 48 percent were boys and girls under the age of 14, while another 25 percent were girls over the age of 14 or women, according to data from the US Department of State’s Refugee Processing Center.

The remaining 27 percent of Syrian refugees were males 14 or older.

This would include old men over the age of 35, of course.

PRI (from August of last year) states:

Of the more than 8,000 Syrian refugees admitted to the country so far [in 2016?], 78 percent are women or children, according figures released by the State Department this month. Some 58 percent are children, with a roughly even split between girls and boys.

...
So it appears we are (or, should I say, were ) taking in mostly women and children.

Thanks!  I have unable to locate my source to the contrary.  It may have been removed.  My main sources are BBC, the Atlantic, and Quartz (which is owned by the Atlantic), so if they changed a story, there should have been edits.  I may simply have misunderstood something that was talking about the pool that Obama was taking applications from.

I have also heard repeatedly that our vetting process is quite extensive.

Yes, and I cited that in 2015-6 when I argued against Trump's position.  But in 2016 I read that something had just changed to expedite the process.  And the Australia refugee camp that was supposed to move wholesale ... how was that vetted extensively?

Thanks for the links.

[Pete at Home]

Wayward, do you notice the change in numbers? The earlier figure involves 22% men while the later figure (those Obama set to come in after he stepped down) rises to 27% according to your Boston Globe figures.  That's consistent with the allegations of reduced vetting at the end of the Obama regime.  "Apres moi, la deluge"

[Seriati]

So Trump made an unsupported claim about Obama wire tapping Trump tower, and the left made an unsupported claim about Trump and Russia colluding.   Why is the first on the order in the MSM of a crime against humanity and the latter allowed to continually run as true without any evidence?

As an interesting thought puzzle, given what we know about the NSA's ability to record and listen to conversations, what do you think the odds are of this question being able to be answered in the negative?  "Are there any recordings of any conversations by a member of the Trump administration made while that person was in Trump Tower?"  Instead will get an answer to a question like this, "Is there proof that Obama signed a notarized letter directly ordering the emplacement of an illegal wire tap on Trump's person?"

I promise you, if the parties were reversed, even a hint that the Clinton campaign had been wiretapped would get front page coverage in the MSM as proven fact.

So what's the fake news here?

[LetterRip]

Seriati,

the contact between his senior advisors (some of whom have resigned over it) and Russia and the fact that at least one of them lied under oath about it suggests it isn't 'unsupported'.

Pete,

it doesn't have to be reduced vetting - simply a change in demographics of those fleeing.  Men are more inclined to 'tough it out' and thus will comprise a larger percentage of those leaving towards the end of a refugee crisis.  The beginning will be heavily skewed to females with and without children, and standard families.

[Seriati]

Seriati,

the contact between his senior advisors (some of whom have resigned over it) and Russia and the fact that at least one of them lied under oath about it suggests it isn't 'unsupported'.

Nothing about Flynn's contact would have been problematic 3 weeks later.  So that's really not evidence of any collusion.  As far as I can tell, there has been absolutely nothing but unsourced claims that "conversations occurred" not even unsourced claims about what the conversations entailed or even a claim that anything illegal was discussed.

Please show me some actual evidence otherwise.

And out of curiosity who do you think lied under oath?  Sessions?  Cause that claim is weak sauce in my book.

it doesn't have to be reduced vetting - simply a change in demographics of those fleeing.  Men are more inclined to 'tough it out' and thus will comprise a larger percentage of those leaving towards the end of a refugee crisis.  The beginning will be heavily skewed to females with and without children, and standard families.

It does have to be reduced vetting.  There is literally no truth to the notion that there are not large groups of women and children still at risk.  Not to mention, there was an apparent change in policy by Obama on his way out the door.  Very similar to his change to the classification rules to try and maximize the amount of leakers that would be present in the new administration.

[Fenring]

I'm still not sure what the big deal is about having 'contact' with Russia during an election. Is Russia now considered to be equivalent to Dr. Doom, where talking with him probably means you're a supervillain? I also just came across this, which seems to indicate that both sides had contact with Russia at a similar time. So why the hysteria about Trump in particular doing so?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/13/hillary-clintons-team-met-russian-ambassador-says-kremlin-spokesman/


 

[TheDrake]

The officials said that Mr. Flynn had never made explicit promises of sanctions relief, but that he had appeared to leave the impression it would be possible.

Mr. Flynn could not immediately be reached for comment about the conversations, details of which were first reported by The Washington Post. Despite Mr. Flynn’s earlier denials, his spokesman told the Post that “while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn’t be certain that the topic never came up.”

During the Christmas week conversation, he urged Mr. Kislyak to keep the Russian government from retaliating over the coming sanctions — it was an open secret in Washington that they were in the works — by telling him that whatever the Obama administration did could be undone, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were discussing classified material.

So, hard to pin down, but the general uproar is over the last possibility, that he was saying that action taken by the current administration was nothing to worry about. And the Clintonesque response that he couldn't be certain the topic didn't come up. I think that probably unless he was blackout drunk he should probably be able to definitively say whether they discussed the most current and topical issue between the two countries. That kind of hedge suggests to me that he absolutely discussed sanctions, but doesn't want to admit it or face the consequences of being caught in a lie.

[NobleHunter]

The problem isn't that they were talking to Russia. The problem is that they lied about talking to Russia.

[Seriati]

There really isn't a problem.  The fact that you think there is, when you have no actual evidence of anything happening is a problem.

And who is this "they" who lied about it?

[Seriati]

How about the new fake news.  Headlines everywhere about how many people will "lose" health insurance under the new plan.  Really?  Is less insured (when no one is required to buy insurance) the same thing as losing insurance?  If I choose not to pay for insurance I didn't lose it.

[TheDrake]

That's pretty simple. The old subsidy is larger than the new plan, therefore some amount of people will be less able to afford insurance. You can quibble about calling it "losing" healthcare, but I imagine most reasonable people would talk about losing things they couldn't afford. Like "I lost the RV because I couldn't make the payments."

They could be slightly more accurate and say many people will no longer be able to afford healthcare. And it is entirely equivalent to people "losing" their health plans because of their cost due to Affordable Care Act.

[Fenring]

The problem isn't that they were talking to Russia. The problem is that they lied about talking to Russia.

Assuming even something as severe as proof someone perjured themselves over it (which they didn't), this argument holds about as much water as the argument that Bill Clinton was being targeted over lying and that the problem wasn't marital indiscretion. Technically true, perhaps, but not the real source of public outcry.

[NobleHunter]

There really isn't a problem.  The fact that you think there is, when you have no actual evidence of anything happening is a problem.

And who is this "they" who lied about it?

Flynn lied to Pence. That why he was fired. Makes the other accusations a little more credible.

Assuming even something as severe as proof someone perjured themselves over it (which they didn't), this argument holds about as much water as the argument that Bill Clinton was being targeted over lying and that the problem wasn't marital indiscretion. Technically true, perhaps, but not the real source of public outcry.

Sure, the outcry is over the possibility of collusion with Russia but the lie lends more credence to it. If they'd said "sure we talked to Russia, we're laying the ground work for our foreign policy," it would at least give the impression they had nothing to hide. The deception implies or can be made to imply that they do. Therefore, scandal.

[Seriati]

Ahh... so you have one guy who lied to the VP and was fired for it?  That's the basis for "they" who lied that should cause us to continually question the Administration?  Glad you cleared up that we shouldn't trust the Administration because they were lied to and took action about it, what?  wait....

That's pretty simple. The old subsidy is larger than the new plan, therefore some amount of people will be less able to afford insurance. You can quibble about calling it "losing" healthcare, but I imagine most reasonable people would talk about losing things they couldn't afford. Like "I lost the RV because I couldn't make the payments."

If you were going to "quibble" about that, then I'd like to "quibble" about counting people as having insurance when they can't actually afford the deductible and are poorer than they were because they are forced to pay premiums.  Will that person really be worse off without insurance than with it?

The fact is Obamacare with it's mandates forced people to over insure at excessive premiums to the point where almost all those not receiving significant subsidies were worse off, and there's no reason we can't deal with those in such severe need directly.   

They could be slightly more accurate and say many people will no longer be able to afford healthcare. And it is entirely equivalent to people "losing" their health plans because of their cost due to Affordable Care Act.

Actually, they really wouldn't be much more accurate with that version either.

[NobleHunter]

Because he was the only one whose name stuck. Why don't you go and look up someone and show how they weren't lying?

[DJQuag]

Fenring

Some of my problems with Russia.

A) They have a presidente for life.

B) Pain in the ass journalists and ex intelligence officers end up dead in Russia. All if them gang related, of course.

C) Putin has wet dreams about the glory of the USSR and actively works to restore it.

D) Russia has no moral or legal collars when it comes to social media and propaganda. Indeed, they are the world champions of propaganda and electronic warfare. See RT and the electronic attack on Estonia in 2007.

Look, I know that the US isn't pristine. But they at least have a constitutional process and a system of checks and balances that is adhered to. Russia has a PTL who came k ut of the KGB. I know which one I trust.

[cherrypoptart]

How is this Russia so different from the Russia that Hillary and Obama wanted to hit with a reset button and be all friendly with?

How is it different from China when Nixon went over there?

I thought we were supposed to be willing to talk with our adversaries and try to reach common ground. Now all of a sudden anyone found to be communicating with the Russians is assumed to be in their pocket. That doesn't make any sense. What it looks like is that the left is afraid that Trump will succeed where they have failed and they want to make sure to sabotage that success by creating a narrative where it is only happening because Trump is their Manchurian candidate. Compared to the Machiavellian twists and turns of even your simplest Russian plot, this liberal plan is far too crude and transparent and will be ineffective except in the minds of the left who have either finally managed to convince themselves or refuse to give up the ghost and admit the truth of their own spiteful pettiness.

Russia obviously preferred Trump because Hillary just might have been crazy enough to make good on her promises of escalating in Syria with a no-fly zone that would inevitably lead to either Russia backing down in disgrace or all out war, neither of which was an acceptable option by their calculations. Sometimes there need not be any deeper motive than the obvious.

[Pete at Home]

Pete,

it doesn't have to be reduced vetting - simply a change in demographics of those fleeing.  Men are more inclined to 'tough it out' and thus will comprise a larger percentage of those leaving towards the end of a refugee crisis.  The beginning will be heavily skewed to females with and without children, and standard families.

All that makes sense, except that it didn't happen with Syrian Iraqi refugees in Europe.  And that's where Obama's mostly taking them from, isn't it?  Otherwise why is he taking so few Yazidis and Christians?  0.5% Yazidis and Christians compared to their 20% of the population, and getting murdered in the refugee camps.

It's possible that you're right.  But the numbers are enough to justify the suspicion of a new administration.  Particularly in light of the leaked recordings of Obama acknowledging that he knew that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding ISIS, and the grotesquely small 0.5% Christian and Yazidi immigration numbers.  While Trump's talk of a blanket 'muslim ban' was toxic, the idea of questioning his predecessors immigration decisions, calling for a massive slowdown, then rewriting the veting system -- that's something Obama, Bush, and Clinton all did.  When they had less reason than Trump to do so.  Even if SciFi is right and Trump is dead wrong about the Syrians approved for 2017 posing any threat of terrorist activity, that doesn't change the fact that it's a disgraceful lie to pretend that the issue is number of deaths from terrorism.  SciFi seems to offer Trump's presumed wrongness about the Syrian immigrants to justify the big lie that's being told about "right wing racist extremists" being more dangerous to the country than "Jihadists."  Or SciFi's own false claim that Trump's been telling us that the average person on the street is in significant danger of being personally murdered by jihadists.

[Pete at Home]

Fenring

Some of my problems with Russia.

A) They have a presidente for life.

B) Pain in the ass journalists and ex intelligence officers end up dead in Russia. All if them gang related, of course.

C) Putin has wet dreams about the glory of the USSR and actively works to restore it.

D) Russia has no moral or legal collars when it comes to social media and propaganda. Indeed, they are the world champions of propaganda and electronic warfare. See RT and the electronic attack on Estonia in 2007.

Look, I know that the US isn't pristine. But they at least have a constitutional process and a system of checks and balances that is adhered to. Russia has a PTL who came k ut of the KGB. I know which one I trust.

DJQ is mostly right.  You can't really argue with his A, B, C, or the first part of his D ("Russia has no moral or legal collars when it comes to social media and propaganda")

The rest of his point D is arguable.  Here's the basics on the cyberattack on Estonia: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/may/17/topstories3.russia
Bear in mind that Estonia was at that time better wired for Internet than the USA

However, an exceptionally informed person might question Russia's status as "Champion" of propaganda and electronic warfare.  That is, if you looked at what was being done to cell phones and internet services of protesters at Standing Rock, you might say that someone in the USA has taken electronic warfare to a point that makes Estonia 2007 look like the battle of Marthon.

[Fenring]

DJQuag's comments may be accurate, but are also irrelevant to my question. Whether we trust Russia is besides the point. In this instance cherry is the one who nailed it: how does the desire to open a dialogue with an adversary make you their Manchurian candidate? That's a particular spun narrative that I saw emerge out of the clear blue sky during the election, and it was not only baseless, I viewed that type of lie as dangerous to national security as well. Some here called mindless saber rattling to be no real threat, but I think it can lay the groundwork for actual violence. The narrative was repeated about Trump so many times that it has become fact in the eyes of the media (and some people on the left, I suppose); it began with the idea that they were "supporting" his campaign covertly, which was never even vaguely demonstrated, and has now come to the point of accusing his administration of colluding with the enemy for talking with them, when Hillary's people also apparently talked to them. I'm really startled when people actually believe this kind of malarky.

It can be both true that Putin has high hopes for Russia and also true that Russia is a non-factor in the race to the top for world powers. He can want whatever he wants; Russia will never be an actual competitor for American wealth in the foreseeable future like China is. Even portraying Russia as this great adversary strikes me as being laughable, and although it's true that they have the potential to be a nuisance and interfere with various actions at times, overall they seem to restrict their sphere of interest to their immediate border area, which is hardly much of a surprise. I'm not even defending Trump here; I don't have to be on his side to assert that certain accusations against him are likely baseless. I think the culture of fake news and propaganda hurts everyone in the country on both sides, and that when one side uses such tactics to beat their opposition they do not functionally comprehend that they're pulling the carpet out from underneath themselves as citizens as well. There are no winners when truth is a casualty. But right now power interests have completely inculcated the premise into politics that the ends justify the means, and that as long as the opposition is defeated the good work can be done. But there is no good work to be done under such conditions.

[Pete at Home]

DJQuag's comments may be accurate, but are also irrelevant

Bit much asking DJQ to be relevant *and* accurate at the same time.  You might as well ask him to be reasonable or to respect fundamental decencies, all while standing on his own two feet.

how does the desire to open a dialogue with an adversary make you their Manchurian candidate?

Oh, it doesn't.  But then when the great dialoguer turns around and hands juicy trade deals that he'd promised to American steelworkers, in an "America First" campaign, to Russian-owned steelmakers to transport Canadian oil to the Chinese, putting American water at risk, that "dialogue" with the "adversary" does smell whorish.  Albeit an extremely expensive whore.

Some here called mindless saber rattling to be no real threat, but I think it can lay the groundwork for actual violence. The narrative was repeated about Trump so many times that it has become fact in the eyes of the media (and some people on the left, I suppose); it began with the idea that they were "supporting" his campaign covertly, which was never even vaguely demonstrated, and has now come to the point of accusing his administration of colluding with the enemy for talking with them, when Hillary's people also apparently talked to them.

They had to grasp at something juicy after it came out that Obama and Hillary knew about the Sauds and Qataris funding ISIS, while they were pissing in our ear about Islamist attacks being just "workplace violence."  What better way to distract the people than to call the President a Russian spy?

true that Russia is a non-factor in the race to the top for world powers. He can want whatever he wants; Russia will never be an actual competitor for American wealth in the foreseeable future like China is.

Only your last sentence is true.  While China may have finally realized the falseness of Mao's dictum that all power flows from the barrel of the gun, you cannot deny (1) that some power flows from the barrel of a gun; and (2) Russia has the biggest gun.

Even portraying Russia as this great adversary strikes me as being laughable, and although it's true that they have the potential to be a nuisance and interfere with various actions at times

Dude, Putin just obliterated the world's greatest economic superpower, the EU.  That's more than "nuisance and interference."  True that Russians don't have power to become king of the world, but they certainly have the powers of kingmaker and kingslayer.

Pete: Please see your email. -OrneryMod