Some key points of the recent initiative of the Trump administration:

• suspension of the US Refugee Admissions Programme for 120 days
• an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees
• a 90-day suspension on anyone arriving from seven Muslim-majority countries: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen
• some visa categories, such as diplomats and the UN, are not included in the suspension
• priority will be given to religious minorities facing persecution in their countries, in an interview Mr Trump singled out Christians in Syria ^†
• a cap of 50,000 refugees to be accepted in 2017, against a limit of 110,000 set by former President Barack Obama
• a suspension of the Visa Interview Waiver Program, which allows consular officers to exempt some applicants from face-to-face interviews if they are seeking to renew their temporary visas within a year of expiry
• exceptions could be made on a case-by-case basis

Regarding ^† (and mentioned in a parallel thread), something like 8/10 ISIS/Daesh victims have been Muslims (might be more, it's from memory). There's been refugees fleeing the onslaught with small children, walking the highways of Europe (and (at least) one drowning in the Mediterranean). Children that instead should be learning how to read and write and add numbers, in a stable environment. That's kids, even infants. I'm sure there's a ... non-zero chance of a terrorist hiding among them ... apparently to the bad luck of the remaining majority. Muslims are both the most numerous (murdered) victims, and the most numerous refugees, yet they're also obviously targeted by the initiative. Yep, that's blatant discrimination (indecency and disrespect) being implemented, based on the likes of (ir)religious affiliation. The US president can do lots of things, but this is about what ought and ought not be done (i.e. moral), and hardly about security of the US. Some Christian organizations in the US have spoken out against the initiative, on moral grounds.

This article suggests the same (though I'll take it with a grain of salt for now):
Trump asked for a ‘Muslim ban,’ Giuliani says — and ordered a commission to do it ‘legally’ (Amy B Wang; The Washington Post; Jan 2017)

Don't recall the details (my memory is getting about as good as my note taking abilities), but I'm guessing these moves are questionable according to the 4^th Geneva Convention (and related protocols/policies), and the 1951 Refugee Convention.

The Executive Order was drafted by Steve Bannon, white supremacist (and now an appointee to the National Security Council which never usually includes political operatives). America is being nazi-fied right in front of our eyes.

Don't recall the details (my memory is getting about as good as my note taking abilities), but I'm guessing these moves are questionable according to the 4th Geneva Convention (and related protocols/policies), and the 1951 Refugee Convention. — jorndoe

But bombing the sh*t out of those countries is OK? This is what I don't get. America has been complicit in the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the Middle East, from the death of 500,000 Iraqi children by its embargo on chlorine, to drone striking wedding parties and dropping missiles on hospitals. Furthermore America created and funded ISIS and acted as its airforce in Aleppo.

I don't recall the marches and civil disruption protesting that human carnage, nor do I recall the same when Obama banned Iraqi refugees for 6months.

I don't believe for one second that it is possible to be that ignorant or hypocritical, so something else is going on. It seems that as usual, the issue is not the issue.

Furthermore America created and funded ISIS and acted as its airforce in Aleppo. — tom

With the help from the Man on the Grassy Knoll.

Maybe truth will replace post-truth after all. :)

Poll: Trump reaches majority disapproval in eight days (Jennifer Calfas; TheHill; 2017-01-29)

The Executive Order was drafted by Steve Bannon, white supremacist (and now an appointee to the National Security Council which never usually includes political operatives). America is being nazi-fied right in front of our eyes. — Wayfarer

The circus peanut-in-chief has his Goebbels at his side...the circle is nearly complete. Oh, well...America had a good 240 year run (not perfect, sure, but we generally kept democracy chugging along pretty smoothly for most of that time).

The circus peanut-in-chief has his Goebbels at his side...the circle is nearly complete. Oh, well...America had a good 240 year run (not perfect, sure, but we generally kept democracy chugging along pretty smoothly for most of that time) — Arkady

Sure, and Benghazi was about a video on youtube .

Sure, and Benghazi was about a video on youtube . — tom

Ahh, the dulcet tones of Benghazi references...how I have missed thee.

The circus peanut-in-chief has his Goebbels at his side...the circle is nearly complete. Oh, well...America had a good 240 year run (not perfect, sure, but we generally kept democracy chugging along pretty smoothly for most of that time). — Arkady

More liberal memes >:O

Why the west is blind to Russian propoganda.

The use of social media as a platform to divide democracies works, in part, because the strategy preys on a fundamental blind spot in open societies: the origin and volume of voices taking part in an online discussion.

The philosopher king has to lay the foundations for the new society. I'd say he is more of a visionary then anything else, he must see far into the future, with a plan, to direct the coming into being of the new society. Remember, the task of the philosopher king is not to rule over society, but to lead the people out of the cave, to help them to see the light. Morality for Plato is tied up with eugenics, as an attempt to direct evolution. Jesus Christ could be understood as a sort of philosopher king. Religion made him into a god. But it would be impossible to have a philosopher king without involving religion. — Metaphysician Undercover

For once, we Sir, are in agreement (Y)

You honestly think I'm a Russian propagandist? >:O You are aware that I don't even think of Trump as an ideal politician right? As I said, I don't consider Trump to be a philosopher king or anything close to it. And I've also said that spiritually Trump is a very undeveloped man (even though he is a political genius). Trump is merely molotov cocktail in the face of neo-liberalist capitalism and mass-consumption democracy for me - he's a cleansing of the scene, not a permanent solution. I just amuse myself with the desperation of the liberalists/progressives and their apocalyptic predictions >:O

For once, we Sir, are in agreement (Y) — Agustino

Enjoy the moment, it's bound to be short lived.

Enjoy the moment, it's bound to be short lived. — Metaphysician Undercover

The moment Sir, is eternal. See the irony? >:O

You really do come across as a Putin troll, you do know that, don't you?
— Wayfarer

Again, your style is more trollish than interesting. — Banno

Two votes.

Two votes. — Metaphysician Undercover

Two superficial misreadings, which I do enjoy trolling ;)

Trump is merely molotov cocktail in the face of neo-liberalist capitalism and mass-consumption democracy for me - he's a cleansing of the scene — Agustino

Isn't it fairly obvious that Trump is an (almost Machiavellian) opportunist? *shrug* ¨\_(O)_/¯
His campaign set up a magnet for dissidents and anti-establishment folks, and perhaps Pence helped rail in a good lot of Christians.

Peter's Choice (Rick Perlstein; Mother Jones; Feb 2017)

That "Peter" there, is that you @Agustino?

What So Many People Don’t Get About the U.S. Working Class (Joan C Williams; Harvard Business Review; Nov 2016)

Bill Nye compares Trump to people who believe in astrology: They’re so invested in belief they ignore facts (Tom Boggioni; Raw Story; Jan 2017)

Seems Nye suggests the present post-truth.

Isn't it fairly obvious that Trump is an (almost Machiavellian) opportunist? *shrug* ¨\_(O)_/¯ — jorndoe

No. Trump is a Machiavellian practitioner of Realpolitik, but not an opportunist; there is a difference between the two. Hillary Clinton is an opportunist - she says whatever is popular in an effort to get elected. The popular current on gay marriage changes, she changes her views, and so forth. Trump doesn't.

But notice your non sequitur from "why should I care what Agustino thinks" to "why should I care what anyone thinks". Again, your style is more trollish than interesting. — Banno

Yea...I long ago dismissed Agustino as a moral lunatic. My question to the mods some time ago as to whether certain posters can be blocked from one's view was motivated pretty much solely by a desire not to see his ridiculous posts.

No. Trump is a Machiavellian practitioner of Realpolitik, but not an opportunist; there is a difference between the two. — Agustino

The difference between realpolitik and opportunism is that realpolitik has made opportunism into an ideology and denies this fact.

The difference between realpolitik and opportunism is that realpolitik has made opportunism into an ideology and denies this fact. — Metaphysician Undercover

No that's not true at all. Being an opportunist means taking or choosing positions based on what is winning, regardless of your own views - it's equivalent to not having any views at all. Hillary Clinton - against gay marriage when gay marriage wasn't popular, for gay marriage when gay marriage became popular. Trump isn't like this. Trump has strong views - on trade, on torture, etc. - views which are largely not popular and he stands by them, and uses politics as a tool to get them implemented. He's a practitioner of Realpolitik - beating his enemies, and implementing his policies. Not being an opportunist - being an opportunist means betraying your own values if that's what it takes to win. He's not such a person.

Being an opportunist means taking or choosing positions based on what is winning, regardless of your own views - it's equivalent to not having any views at all. — Agustino

Come on Agustino, an individual must have a view of what is "winning", in order to be an opportunist. You cannot negate this to say that opportunism is equivalent to having no views at all.

Trump has strong views - on trade, on torture, etc. - views which are largely not popular and he stands by them, and uses politics as a tool to get them implemented. — Agustino

Sounds just like having views on "winning" to me. How do you distance this from opportunism?

Come on Agustino, an individual must have a view of what is "winning", in order to be an opportunist. You cannot negate this to say that opportunism is equivalent to having no views at all. — Metaphysician Undercover

Opportunism is choosing your views based on whether they're winning. Trump CLEARLY doesn't do this, by sheer virtue of the fact that his views are very unpopular.

Opportunism is choosing your views based on whether they're winning. Trump CLEARLY doesn't do this, by sheer virtue of the fact that his views are very unpopular. — Agustino

Where there are winners, there are losers. "Winning", means others are losing. Having as a goal "to win", makes you unpopular. The two things which you said Trump has strong views on, trade and torture, are both means for winning. Come on, "America First", is not a goal of winning?

Where there are winners, there are losers. "Winning", means others are losing. Having as a goal "to win", makes you unpopular. The two things which you said Trump has strong views on, trade and torture, are both means for winning. Come on, "America First", is not a goal of winning? — Metaphysician Undercover

And what does this have to do with opportunism again? :-} Opportunism is choosing to believe X because that's what it takes for you to be a winner. Trump believes X because he believes X, and seeks to make X win. That's different. Hillary Clinton believes gay marriage should be legal, not because she really believes it, but because that's what it takes to believe in order to get elected (win). There you go - one is an opportunist, the other isn't.

There are always winners and losers - a great winner is an invisible winner - like China ;)

One has to scroll so far between his posts and replies to his post. On the bright side, his rants mean that the my threads are nice and long.

↪Wayfarer ↪Moliere This thread began as an epistemological analysis of the term 'post truth'. The article I linked elsewhere about narcissistic personality disorder goes further to explain the reasons behind Trump's unusual relationship with truth. I think it provides us with more insight, predicting the purging that is likely to happen next when Trump's desires are frustrated. — Banno

The purges begin with Attorney-General Sally Yates.

But they will become interesting when his own appointees are frustrated; that's when the real character of the man will out. I had thought that would be a few months away, but it might be sooner.

Realpolitik is meaningless term.

Trump believes X because he believes X, and seeks to make X win. — Agustino

That's nonsense. I vote with Wayfarer and Banno.