• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

American politics

wiziwig said:
Thus far, nothing much, no surprises . He's EO's up to now were mandated by the electoral college.
Click to expand...

You could argue that actually as the popular vote went against him that the electorate haven't given him a mandate but that the electoral college has.

It also didn't give him a mandate to act illegally or unconstitutionally no matter what bile he spewed on the campaign trail.
 
At last, some honesty.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Robbo said:
Extremely fascinating and like you say, a little scary. Makes me even more wary about Facebook ads than I already was.
Click to expand...

Yes. The next steps on use of mobile data was really interesting. We are close to past the stage where it is near impossible to opt out of this kind of thing but there are no proper controls on its use.
 
milo said:
Yes. The next steps on use of mobile data was really interesting. We are close to past the stage where it is near impossible to opt out of this kind of thing but there are no proper controls on its use.
Click to expand...

That Stevie is a busy chap, gets everywhere, involved with Cambridge Analytica..

In the not to distant future, it'll be microchipping in the maternity wards:eek:
 
milo said:
This has been on my to read list for a while and I have only just got around to it. I should have read it earlier, it's very interesting and a little scary. Dataphobes should probably give it a miss.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/how-our-likes-helped-trump-win
Click to expand...
That for some reason reminds me of Asimov's foundation series :eek:.

I have to say that is a fascinating article. Some of it I was aware of working in IT but seeing all the dot joining at a higher level is an eye opener and frankly remarkable, but still strangely not surprising.

I generally shy away from social media but that is more because of my aversion to the invasive nature of the medium and what I know about data collection techniques they use. This website is my only reach out and if 'they' were to analyse my posts I guess they could profile me easily enough. So that is the last like any of you clams get from me.

Edit: Actually ironically I posted that mother board article above to facebook (my first post in many years incidentally) :). Now they have all they need.
 
scaramanga said:
You're the one that said banning these countries was dangerous, not me!

Either these countries don't have dangerous Jihadis, in which case banning them is safe. Or they do, in which case banning them is justifiable.

You can't have both.
Click to expand...

No. I did not say that. What I said was that if you choose to tell regions war-torn thanks to caliphates, extremists, western intervention and poor subsequent support which does not match what was offered on the tin, that they can basically go and fudge themselves because they are all 'potential terrorists', then you are likely going to create a few with that gesture.

It's easy to comprehend if you want to. If you don't, that's a different matter...


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
thfcsteff said:
No. I did not say that. What I said was that if you choose to tell regions war-torn thanks to caliphates, extremists, western intervention and poor subsequent support which does not match what was offered on the tin, that they can basically go and fudge themselves because they are all 'potential terrorists', then you are likely going to create a few with that gesture.

It's easy to comprehend if you want to. If you don't, that's a different matter...


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...
If there are people in those countries who can be convinced to turn to terrorism by a travel ban then they probably should be banned.

They sound fairly unstable and dangerous to me.
 
scaramanga said:
If there are people in those countries who can be convinced to turn to terrorism by a travel ban then they probably should be banned.

They sound fairly unstable and dangerous to me.
Click to expand...

I believe in my heart of hearts you know EXACTLY what I am suggesting. If you genuinely don't, then you need to revise several areas of world history to bring you up to speed as to what happens when people get shunned en masse.

Finally, why on EARTH do you keep focussing on 'those 7 countries'? Only you and Drumph are. Oddly. There are huge issues elsewhere we should be alive to.

Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
thfcsteff said:
I believe in my heart of hearts you know EXACTLY what I am suggesting. If you genuinely don't, then you need to revise several areas of world history to bring you up to speed as to what happens when people get shunned en masse.
Click to expand...
I do know exactly what you're saying but it's obvious I've yet to clearly state my point so I'll try again:

If someone is so near radicalisation that a travel ban tips them over the edge, then as far as I'm concerned it's absolutely correct that they're under a travel ban.

Being shunned by the US does not make a person turn to terrorism - there are plenty of countries in South America to prove that. Being shunned, plus bronze age religious beliefs, plus a complete refusal by proponents of that religion to modernise or make said religion compatible with modern views, plus gullible fool makes a terrorist. Take away being shunned from that equation and you still have someone who any sensible country would not want crossing their border.

thfcsteff said:
Finally, why on EARTH do you keep focussing on 'those 7 countries'? Only you and Drumph are. Oddly. There are huge issues elsewhere we should be alive to.

Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...
I'm not, I actually don't agree with the travel ban as it doesn't go nearly wide enough in scope.

All I want is for people to get their reasoning straight as to why they're against the ban. Too many people have been fooled into accepting that Islam is a race rather than just a poor life choice and it makes for dangerous territory.


Sent from my SM-G925F using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
Last edited:
So Conway tells the public to buy Ivanka Trump's clothing line.

A White House official, on TV, says that people should buy the president's daughter's line of product.

Priorities, eh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back