Troacctid

1. Hey guess what the rule in question applies to public schools, which are funded and overseen by...the government. Also to private schools that receive funding grants from...that's right, the government again.
2. You don't believe the government should step in to protect civil rights? Would you also have opposed the 14th amendment? The Civil Rights Act of 1964? Don't tell me you're against the Civil Rights Act. How can you be against the Civil Rights Act? What is the government even for if it's not going to defend its citizens' individual liberties?
3. Trump's order ditched the screening process and replaced it with a red rubber stamp that says "Rejected." It doesn't matter how much you have been vetted under Trump's order. If you are a Muslim from those countries, you cannot come into the United States. Have a green card? Trump's policy doesn't care, you can't come in. Have a visa? Trump's policy doesn't care, you can't come in. Went through an intense three-year vetting process that, so far, according to the data we have, has never allowed a terrorist through? Trump's policy doesn't care, you can't come in. Oh, but wait, hang on, you're not a Muslim? Never mind, come right in, friend.
Oh, and Obama did not ban refugees. Not at any point in his presidency. That did not happen.

Which in turn was running out of steam crusading against people of colour.
It's like I said before, people who consider themselves superior are grasping at straws in their attempt to remain superior, they're like a wild animal being backed into a corner.
It isn't about a person's privacy and safety in a bathroom, it's an excuse because saying they don't want to share isn't an acceptable reason to deny something.

I do not normally comment in person but once again I feel compelled to make an exception.
Whatever other issues of policy may be at hand, I am greatly concerned by the president-elect's apparent intention to disengage from old alliances across the world. NATO in particular has been of obvious importance to my homeland. Denmark is a small nation with little in the way of military power and is situated in a position of immense strategic importance to Russia. NATO has helped ensure a long peace in Europe, one which has lasted most of my lifetime with few interruptions. On such occasions where other nations have attacked the US, my homeland has every time reciprocated by placing forces, planes and naval vessels at the disposal of the US. Also, it is worth noting that the esteemed JML of this forum has served the US in Europe for a number of years and thus aided in extending this peace, for which I owe him my thanks and gratitude.
No alliance lasts forever, of course. But I must confess to feeling strong pangs at the thought of NATO coming apart, not to mention considerable worry at the thought of what Putin and similar strongmen might do to take advantage of it. That other similar detentes around the globe are also in danger does nothing to reassure me, I fear.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/compromise/
137 Examples of compromise over 7 plages. After a while of doing that and having you never compromise thrown in your face and you are gone just plain stop trying. Hell, even Buddha may be upset if his face is hit three times.

Strongly disagree. Trump has done many, many bad things; Clinton gets in trouble even when she doesn't do anything. Relevant John Oliver: 
 

Well, just compare their policies side by side. Giant Meteor's are even more destructive than Trump's. Trump wants to deport illegal immigrants; Giant Meteor wants to kill them all. Trump would blow up the country's economy; Giant Meteor would blow up the country. Trump wants to repeal Obamacare, denying health care to millions of Americans; Giant Meteor wants to literally kill everyone. Etc.

Strongly disagree. Trump has done many, many bad things; Clinton gets in trouble even when she doesn't do anything. Relevant John Oliver: 
 

Well, just compare their policies side by side. Giant Meteor's are even more destructive than Trump's. Trump wants to deport illegal immigrants; Giant Meteor wants to kill them all. Trump would blow up the country's economy; Giant Meteor would blow up the country. Trump wants to repeal Obamacare, denying health care to millions of Americans; Giant Meteor wants to literally kill everyone. Etc.

A ham sandwich would be better than what's on the Republican ticket. And I'm a vegetarian.

A ham sandwich would be better than what's on the Republican ticket. And I'm a vegetarian.

Because it would actively hinder our objectives to do so?

It's literally the opposite of appeasing ISIS. "Radical Islam" is what they prefer us to say.

Iran already had all the materials and capabilities needed to build a nuclear bomb. The question was, when? Without a deal, the chances they would have been delayed as long as this deal is due to last are very poor indeed, and that chance relies on military intervention.
As for the 'track record in the mideast' paragraph - all of those claims seem very shaky to me, especially... actually, yeah, all of them.  The 'Apology Tour' was named that by Obama's political blood enemies, and if it contained any apologies, I'd like to see them. What could we possibly have done to help Green Revolution? Why would our arms sales to Egypt be canceled based on the outcome of an election?
The efforts to arm the rebels in Syria were a failure, yes, but that's because the situation on the ground and who would end up aligned with whom was very murky. Of all the weapons set aside for rebels, we actually delivered very few - a farcically small amount... and good thing, because yes, they ended up on the wrong hands. This was not due to carelessness. Had they actually been careless, it would have been far, far worse.
How does Iran cheat on the deal daily?
The 'Bland Euphemisms'? He's avoiding using the words that the enemy wants him to use! "Violent Extremism" is literally true and a strong condemnation. He condemns it plenty. He just refuses to hand the enemy a major propaganda tool.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2015/02/how_obama_thinks_about_islam_and_terrorism_why_he_chooses_his_words_so_carefully.html

Well, it's not about what the terrorists see. It's about what their potential recruits see. ISIS wants to paint the U.S. as evil, so when we do actual evil things, we're giving them propaganda fuel. This is why the anti-Muslim rhetoric of Trump and the Republican party actually plays directly into ISIS's hands—it alienates the non-terrorist Muslims (AKA most of them) and undermines our local support networks in those regions.

Well, it's not about what the terrorists see. It's about what their potential recruits see. ISIS wants to paint the U.S. as evil, so when we do actual evil things, we're giving them propaganda fuel. This is why the anti-Muslim rhetoric of Trump and the Republican party actually plays directly into ISIS's hands—it alienates the non-terrorist Muslims (AKA most of them) and undermines our local support networks in those regions.

Well, it's not about what the terrorists see. It's about what their potential recruits see. ISIS wants to paint the U.S. as evil, so when we do actual evil things, we're giving them propaganda fuel. This is why the anti-Muslim rhetoric of Trump and the Republican party actually plays directly into ISIS's hands—it alienates the non-terrorist Muslims (AKA most of them) and undermines our local support networks in those regions.

I, at least, don't see it this way.  US leftists seem to regard all politics as driven by social consciousness.  When they're not driven by re-election realities, which is why the differences might appear muted from the outside.  US social conscience can collide with reality rather hard sometimes.
Example:
It was a 2008 campaign promise of Barack Obama's to close the terrorist prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.  It was a huge human-rights issue when his predecessor GW Bush was president.  The fact that it's still open and criticism is muted might make it look like there's actually little difference between the US Left and Right about the place.  Not so.  Obama's ideology tripped over reality on the way to the one serious attempt at closure he attempted. 

President Bush released everybody from Guantanamo one could seriously imagine releasing.  The 100 or so left were/are all really bad men bent on doing really bad things to the US and its citizens given the chance.  Some inmates released by Bush returned to the battlefield as it was.  It's easy to expect that the hardcore inmates that Bush didn't release were kept back because of the very high confidence that they'd return to the fight against us.  It would be madness to release them anyway.  No matter how much Obama would love to close Guantanamo, he has a stronger desire to not see a trail of blood leading from his decision to his door.
Several US states offered up their prison systems for housing the Guantanamo inmates but they all fell down on one really nasty question.  Once on proper US soil they would be subject to Constitutional due process, especially when treated according to the criminal-justice model the US Left wanted to use.  That due process could result in guantanamo inmates being released, begging the question:  Do we really want to see what happens if these guys get loose on US soil?  So the whole thing ground to a halt with the status quo as the result.  But not because the US Left and Rigth agreed to the status quo but because no solution to Guantanamo Bay could be found that didn't impose a high political risk to the US Left.

The hoo-hah over Guantanamo actually quieted down rather quickly after Obama was elected in 2008.  Not because the US Left and the US Right suddenly agreed about the place but because most of the US news media, which leads or amplifies such concerns, decided not to put any more emphasis on it.  90% or more of people working in US news media identify themselves as liberal, democrat, or both.  There was no point in shedding human-right tears over Guantanamo when there was no Conservative or Republican president to use them against.  To an outsider, this manner of choosing issues to be concerned about can also seem to mute the actual degree of contention between the two major US political parties.

MTG's starter packages are absolutely playable out of the box. I've played many of the preconstructed decks—including Commander, Duel Decks, and Planechase—and they're loads of fun.

Jiggly Tedd

My general opinion of the election has been that, on the Democratic side, it's a nice change to be able to vote for the Greater of two Goods instead of the lesser of two evils.  I'm saddened that so few other people seem to be able to look at it that way.  I had my preference, but would be happy to vote for either of thm ithe general election.

There's a bar downtown which has been holding Game of Thrones viewing parties, hosted by a local cosplay group, and somehow have managed to escape HBO's notice and the dreaded cease-and-desist orders they were so aggressive with last year.  Yesterday, not only did I have a fun time watching with an enthusiastic crowd, but I found a parking space on the street less than a block away, meaning I got to pay a little over $2 instead of the $15 I've sometimes ended up needing to pay at a garage.  Last week I got third place in the pre-show trivia contest, and this week I felt I did pretty well even though I didn't place officially.  The only damper on my enjoyment is the knowledge that there are now only three more episodes left in the season, and I'll likely miss number 9 in two weeks because I'll be out of town visiting my folks.